One of the strongest consensuses in economics (specially urban and sports economics) is that governments funding and investing in sports stadiums is a bad idea. Economists (and i'm assuming most non economists) rang the alarm bell way early on:

> “There’s a great deal of consensus among sports economists of all political stripes that this is not a good thing for local governments to be doing"

> “Your community could think of all other ways to spend the money with better economic return than a minor league baseball team,” said Baade, from Lake Forest College in Illinois. “We’re talking, after all, about a minor league club … If the local economy is going to be given a boost by this project, it would somehow have to stimulate additional spending in the local economy.”

> Economists generally feel sports, especially in the minor leagues, do not spur additional spending.“Overwhelmingly, the fannies in the stands are local,” said Allen Sanderson, an economist at the University of Chicago. “They’re choosing to spend a day or an evening at the ballpark instead of at the ball or other entertainment options.”

> Matheson said he was surprised that Worcester officials committed to so much money for the stadium with what he said is so little in return. The city, which would own the ballpark, would allow the team to keep advertising and concession revenue at the stadium and revenue from a planned naming rights deal with Polar Beverages. “They seemed to be smarter than that,” Matheson said of city officials. “I’m extremely surprised that (the city’s cost) is as large as it is.”