Over the past twenty years there has been a ninety percent replacement rate of stadiums, more than a hundred new sports facilities, and nearly all of them have received public funding . The most common attraction for such a large public investment lies in the hope of creating jobs and growing local economies. In addition to direct employment (stadium and franchise staff), indirect employment serving nearby shops, restaurants, hotels and public transport systems is often positively affected. Additionally, when new stadiums are built, there is often a spike in spin-off development which ultimately has a positive effect on city revitalization. Additional potential benefits include increased tourism revenue and increased tax revenue (University of Michigan). But are the benefits of stadiums ultimately just a pipe dream sold to fools? In 1997, Andrew Zimbalist co-authored a book with Roger G. Noll in which he suggested that “A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment” and further concluded that “No recent installations appear to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent instrument has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimis” (Noll & Zimbalist, 1997). For all the talk about the economic benefits of job creation, it is important to delve deeper into the reality of this suggestion. Most middle class citizens are given an entertainment budget. Following the relocation of a sports team to their community or the renovation of an existing stadium, community members do not increase their individual entertainment budgets. A simple move of an existing one