The Fremont Raiders? The Santa Clara 49ers? Sports Teams on the Move
Nov. 14, 2006 — -- Sports fans may soon have to get used to new names for some of their favorite teams.
How does the Oklahoma Sonics sound? Would the San Antonio Marlins have that fish-out-of-water ring to it?
Will opposing teams be less threatened by the "Fremont Raiders" than the fearsome "Oakland Raiders?" What's wrong with the "Santa Clara 49ers?"
Teams are on the move again, trying to find better and more profitable homes. Some cities are saying goodbye and others hello, adding to a decent list of befuddling sports team names.
The Utah Jazz is a carryover from their namesake home, New Orleans.
There are few lakes in Los Angeles. The Lakers name came from the Land of Lakes, Minnesota.
Seattle named its team the "Sonics" as a ploy to draw attention to Boeing's bid to win a government contract for a supersonic plane -- the plane was never built. Now the team will likely move to the Midwest and take the Sonic name with them.
There are more stadiums and arenas than professional sports teams, but new ones are being built every day.
Most will be subsidized with public funds. Seattle has coughed up nearly $800 million for stadiums and will lose the Sonics. Pennsylvania taxpayers will pay a billion to host the Phillies, Eagles and Pirates. It's a continuing trend.
New, modern stadiums generate more money. Their designs include more concessions, luxury boxes, advertising space, and room for in-seat delivery of not only beer and peanuts but sushi, clam chowder and lattes.
"NBA arenas can be obsolete in 10 years," said Brad Humphries, an economist at the University of Illinois. "It's all about revenue."
Every year, a few teams threaten to leave town unless they get updated or new homes. The latest trend in sports-facility financing is the ballot box.
Last week, voters in Seattle and Sacramento, Calif., said no to new stadiums. Minnesota's Twins haven't had much luck in the voting booth, but Houston; Green Bay, Wis.; and Kansas City have done better.
