Final answer:
Siegfried and Zimbalist's argument suggests that spending on professional sports comes at the expense of other local entertainment, potentially shrinking the local economy if the economic multiplier for sports is lower. Their findings are consistent with others who question the viability of sports as an economic development strategy, indicating the need for a more nuanced understanding of the economic impact of sports.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument presented by Siegfried and Zimbalist revolves around the concept of fixed household budgets for entertainment. They propose that when individuals spend money on attending professional sports events, this expenditure is at the cost of other entertainment activities. Therefore, despite the popular belief that sports stimulate economic growth, the pair suggests that if the economic multiplier for sports is lower than for other local entertainment, the infusion of a professional sports team into a city could lead instead to a diversion of spending, potentially causing the local economy to contract.
Furthermore, the findings of Siegfried and Zimbalist align with reports by Joyner and various news outlets, questioning the effectiveness of sports as an economic development strategy. In essence, the financial impact of sports on a city's economy is more complex than it may seem, and the anticipated economic benefits might not always materialize.