d enough people. Owners argue their arenas and stadiums are "obsolete" and that they need new ones, but later confess that they worked fine, only that they are not economically right. By this they mean "we can make more money with a new facility." Owners merely build new stadiums because they can. An absurd example of this is the San Antonio Spurs and their stadiums. In 1993 the Spurs were granted the right to build the Alamodome, which would be their new facility. It cost $258 million and was solely paid for by taxpayers' money. The team was not impressed or even happy with the new stadium and complained. On the 1999 voting ballot the Spurs succeeded in getting a completely brand new stadium. Measly 6 years after their stadium was built they asked for a new one. In 2002 the "new" stadium was finished. New stadiums keep on coming for owners that want them and threaten to move. Cities cave in and abide by the business of "their" team.
             These teams with their new stadiums impact the city and even state economically. There are many elements to what they do financially. First, it is a no-brainer that the owners profit tremendously from the building of a new stadium, especially when paid majorly by the public. The idea of a new stadium attracts more fans in the first few years. The stadiums are usually bigger, better and overall offer a better experience for the customer (fan). Along with the new stadium comes the ability to raise ticket prices. In "The Business of Sports" authors Scott Rosner and Kenneth Shropshire write: "Baseball teams moving into new parks raised tic
             ...