Facts are, that isn't true. Never has been, unless Auckland is unique in the professional sporting and ratepayer-supporting world.
Last month Regional Facilities Auckland issued a discussion paper on what the Herald called "a proposed reorganisation of the city's under-used and financially shaky stadiums", after ratepayers underwrote the final $40m of Eden Park's $256m upgrade for the Rugby World Cup. They are still owed $6.5m from a loan for building the North Stand. North Harbour Stadium depends on ratepayer money to stay afloat.
Herald writers Bernard Orsman and Steve Deane pointed out: "Cash-strapped Eden Park, weighed down by a debt of $55 million, could become the financial responsibility of Auckland Council just as many ratepayers face big rates increases ... "Leading Auckland business figures and Eden Park guardians have a history of making big promises about the ground's financial viability. During the waterfront stadium debate in 2006, lawyer Rob Fisher said a $320m park upgrade would not need any ongoing support from public coffers. In 2010, trust board chairman John Waller forecast comfortable profits after the Rugby World Cup."
In May ATEED claimed RWC2011 resulted in an estimated $512m net additional expenditure for Auckland between 2006-12. With "flow-on expenditure" added, Auckland's economy grew by $728m over that time. It said the Cup generated the equivalent of almost 14,000 year-long jobs in Auckland. Property and business services, building and manufacturing were big winners.
The total "budget envelope" across the council group was $89.69m over three years from 2009-11. Actual expenditure for the same period was $88.49m. You do the math.
The biggest winners were not in town. The International Rugby Board banked more than $175m profit.
A myriad of studies produce one result: councils or governments that pay to lure professional sports teams or events, or build stadiums for them, are playing with their community's money. And they lose. Every time.
Dr Jeffrey Owen, an Indiana State University economist, wrote in Estimating The Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games that, to justify spending taxpayer dollars, economic impact studies are commissioned, invariably projecting billions of dollars that guarantee a longterm positive effect on the economy through job creation and visitor spending. His conclusion: "To date, there has not been a single study of an Olympics or other large-scale sporting event that has found empirical evidence of significant economic impacts."
There are several doctorates' worth of research into why the argument is inherently flawed: Google Dr Robert A. Baade, he's been proving it for 30 years (eg here).
The Warriors, the V8s, the Breakers are professional organisations and good luck to them. Hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders enjoy going to their events, wearing their merchandise. As such, they should pay their own way, take a business risk, just as the Football Kingz did or Coldplay do.
And council business arms are quite right to take advantage of opportunities - putting on extra trains to the V8s or convincing promoters to bring Jersey Boys here, then tempting out-of-towners to come and see the show. But don't try to sell Aucklanders, facing double-digit rate increases, the idea that a handout to the V8s' Aussie owners is a benefit to them.
And if ATEED wants to underwrite events, how about restoring the grant for summer evenings' Movies in Parks?
Ewan McDonald is founding editor of The Aucklander.
* Councillors voted on Thursday July 5, 9-5 in favour of ATEED's funds being used at Pukekohe.
What do you think? Comment below or head to our Facebook page.
Read more recent Ewan McDonald opinion.
June 28: Lester Levy
June 25 Wiser councils
June 14 Howick: Fear and loathing
June 8 Playing Fields of Mt Roskill