This is a bogus study, from a group that quite likely is PAID to provide bogus studies. If I get the time, I’ll later run through some of the fatuous assumptions they used to reach their fatuous conclusions.
This preordained result “consulting” is standard practice in politics. We’ve seen this with compromised actuaries providing skewed data to help approve foolish pension plans, or consultants justifying tax increases. Every stadium subsidy ever passed (or put before the voters) includes one of these bogus studies as proof of the viability of the project.
In the private sector, companies hire research consultants to give their best, honest analysis of past performance and future probabilities. Businesses do not profit from bad advice.
In the PUBLIC sector, such consultants are hired to provide the answers desired — the patina of respectability needed to go forward with unwise financial decisions.
The consultants hired by government understand this. These are hired guns. If they come out with findings that are at variance with the desired results, they likely will never receive another government “consulting” contract.
It would be interesting for this consulting firm to make public their studies that concluded that pro sports subsidies are a bad idea. Likely as not, no such studies exist from this consultant.