This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

According to Forbes Magazine in 2015, the value of the Utah Jazz franchise is $850 million dollars. The value of all major league sports teams has skyrocketed as advertisers increasingly covet the few events watched by large TV audiences in real time (thus not skipping through the commercials). That enables ESPN, Fox, et al., to pay gazillions to the pro sports leagues.

Yet the Jazz still felt compelled to seek a $22.7 million tax abatement/subsidy from Salt Lake City to partially finance a $125 million renovation to the Vivint Arena.

In the years ahead, Salt Lake City and perhaps other local governments will forego $22.7 million in what otherwise would be tax receipts. Foregoing that money will diminish the services offered by the city. Local government services typically benefit nearly all citizens, including those who are desperately poor. So by being denied benefits that would otherwise go to the desperately poor, the desperately poor are providing support to the near-billionaire Miller family.

By any measure, the Utah Jazz is a highly successful, and extremely wealthy business. Why does it merit any tax reduction of any kind?

There is simply an avalanche of research in the public domain that provides compelling reasoning that pro sports franchises and/or sports facilities add little or no net economic value to a local economy. This research includes publications by Stanford economist Roger Noll as well as Dennis Coates of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. How can a big business like the Utah Jazz and/or the Vivint Arena have little or no economic impact? One of the key factors causing this not-so-intuitive result is that much of the money spent on the Jazz is discretionary money a family or individual has earmarked to use for fun, recreation and entertainment. If the Jazz were not around, that money would be spent on movies, skiing, theater, restaurant meals, etc., here in Salt Lake City.

Even if, for argument's sake, the Jazz do provide some economic impact, why should the Jazz get this benefit and not everyone else that does something, too? For instance, if I finished out my basement, I could host guests using Airbnb, and thereby increase the capacity of the Salt Lake Valley to host tourists. Plus, I'd put carpenters and plumbers to work. If I spent $10,000 to finish my basement, shouldn't I get a $2,000 tax abatement pro rata to the benefit just awarded to the Jazz? Instead, my taxes would likely go up.

What if Salt Lake City had shown some backbone and simply told the Jazz "no"? Would the Jazz have moved to Seattle? I think not. Would the arena have become unfit for use? Definitely not. The Jazz would never let that happen. Building codes are merely one of several reasons that the arena would remain in excellent condition. So what, exactly, was the downside to saying "no"?

There was an outcry by many that the notice period for the tax abatement sought by the Jazz was entirely inadequate. Even some members of the Redevelopment Agency have acknowledged that the notice period was probably not ideal. This kind of multimillion dollar tax reduction with inadequate notice simply reinforces the perception by many that special treatment and privileges are available only to the rich and powerful.

Our elected leaders in Utah decry the government "picking winners" when it comes to subsidizing clean energy companies. Our leaders claim to be outspoken opponents of crony capitalism. How is this subsidy anything but the government putting its hand on the scale in the favor of the Jazz via a multimillion dollar tax reduction? How is this not crony capitalism? Why are the Jazz deserving of this tax benefit? I call on the Jazz to relinquish and forgo this unwise benefit.

Eric Rumple lives in Sandy. He has an MBA from the University of Chicago and is the author of the novel "Forgive Our Debts."