Minnesota pro sports venues want money. Here’s how much. (And should taxpayers pay?)

Tens of millions of dollars in public funding for Minnesota pro sports facilities will need the legislative equivalent of a Hail Mary touchdown pass to win approval this session as lawmakers grapple with the state’s fiscal challenges.

Lawmakers are likely to punt the requests to 2026 and instead study the teams’ various proposals. However, anything can happen at the Capitol in the session’s final deal-making days.

Studies are typically a sort of legislative purgatory, but they will give Minnesota’s sports teams and their civic backers the chance to answer a key question:

Why should taxpayers pay for the upkeep of facilities that they already helped to build, and where pro sports teams worth billions play?

Team representatives emphasize the economic impact of their facilities and the events held there. They claim economic-impact studies show hundreds of millions in new spending because of venues U.S. Bank Stadium, Xcel Energy Center and Target Field, and the big-ticket events they host.

B Kyle, CEO of the St. Paul Area Chamber, which is backing a $488 million overhaul of the Xcel Center, says the facility is clearly the economic engine of downtown. To see it firsthand, “take a walk downtown on an evening when there is an event,” she said.

But economists and other critics say those studies often overestimate the true financial impact and can include money that would likely already be spent in the community, rather than focusing on new dollars.

“Nobody takes these things seriously,” said J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University, who studies the local impact of sports facilities. Bradbury says consultants find ways to paint a rosy picture of the benefits.

Lawmakers who back public subsidies for sports facilities note that the public owns them and that it’s in taxpayers’ best interest to keep them top notch. In the case of U.S. Bank Stadium, the state’s deal with the Vikings requires it to keep it in line with other top-tier NFL stadiums.

Then there’s the civic and emotional connection. Team backers argue sports franchises inspire a deeper sense of community, and young athletes aspire to one day play in facilities where they watch their heroes compete.

Proposals from the Vikings, Twins and Wild have gotten bipartisan support at the Capitol. But they’ve also faced criticism from Republicans and Democrats who question whether professional sports teams with wealthy owners need taxpayer help.

Local leaders and business groups have lots of big numbers to rationalize putting taxpayer money toward sports facilities.

For instance, Super Bowl LII generated $370 million in additional local spending and the Xcel Energy Center brings 2.1 million visitors and $383 million in annual spending, advocates say.

They argue that, without these venues, the Twin Cities would not be able to draw big conventions, major concert tours or national sports tournaments.

“It really improves the vitality of downtown and makes us a more marketable destination,” said Melvin Tennant, CEO of Meet Minneapolis, which is supporting the Vikings’ request for ongoing tax revenue.

Yet, economists who study sports facilities question how these numbers are calculated and believe the impact on the local economy is often overstated.

Hospitality businesses and workers may see a jump in foot traffic and a spike in spending, but much of the money from premium tickets and expensive hotel rooms goes to businesses with out-of-town owners, like hotel chains or national promoters.

“Money walks in the front door and a lot of it goes right out the back,” said Frank Stephenson, an economics professor at Berry College, who has focused on how big events like the Super Bowl affect local cities economically.

Advocates acknowledge there are caveats to gauging the true benefit of sports facilities. But they maintain there is a net benefit for local businesses and workers.

“I know it is easy to get distracted by a shiny structure or corporate entity that seems to be benefiting,” Tennant said. “But a lot of people make their living in travel, tourism and entertainment. It is a very important part of our economy.”

Bradbury says if sports venues are so beneficial to the community, then local voters should get a say in whether they want to pay for them. Voters in some states haven’t been shy about saying no.

“I think it should be a general practice that all stadium subsidies are voted on by the public,” Bradbury said.

Team and facility officials emphasize how the competitive world of professional sports and entertainment drives the need for the latest technology to keep performers happy and fans coming back.

They note teams typically cover all their game-day expenses, pay millions in annual rent and put millions more into capital accounts used for maintenance.

But that’s not enough to cover ongoing costs and future renovations. The Vikings and the Twins say they need ongoing tax revenue to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars for a facility overhaul a decade from now.

That’s the position the Wild and St. Paul leaders find themselves in — even after the arena has gotten some updates over the years — and they got a cool reception at the Legislature. They recently scaled back their state funding request from $395 million to just $50 million.

Kyle said narrowing the focus to just the Xcel Center was being “respectful of a very challenging year at the Legislature,” but the need to update RiverCentre and Roy Wilkins Auditorium remains.

The Legislature has to wrap up its regular session by midnight Monday and only announced the broad strokes of a budget deal Thursday morning. That means an overtime session might be needed to wrap things up at the Capitol.

If sports facilities’ funding requests are not approved this year, they are all but certain to be back again in some form in 2026.