PIE IN THE SKY(BOX) L.A. SURVIVES WITHOUT RAIDERS, RAMS OR NFL BILLIONAIRES ON THE DOLE.

Byline: Raymond J. Keating

THE National Football League wants Los Angeles, but Los Angeles doesn't need the NFL.

This important fact must be kept in mind over the coming months as ideas, once again, are kicked around to bring an NFL team back to the L.A. area. Otherwise, it will be all too easy for politicians to get caught up in irrational sports exuberance while throwing away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

When it comes time to negotiate a stadium plan - whether it's refurbishing the Coliseum downtown or the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, or even building a new stadium in Carson - the region's taxpayers, politicians and various local governments will all need to hold firm.

If you believe the spin from team owners, league officials and many politicians across the nation, then 1994 should have been the death of Los Angeles. Not one but two teams fled the market. The Raiders returned to Oakland, and the Rams found a new home in St. Louis. Los Angeles was left without a pro football team, which, according to the conventional wisdom, should have dealt heavy blows to the local economy, the collective psyche and the region's sense of community.

Yet somehow, L.A. survived.

The region's economy did not fall apart, and the populace failed to slip into some kind of mass depression due to football deprivation. In fact, various polls have indicated that people don't really care if the NFL returns or not. Not even football fans care.

After all, there's always television. Unlike baseball or hockey, football is actually more enjoyable on the tube - with multiple camera angles, replays and the ability to highlight key aspects of the action - than watching from the stands. And with so many Angelenos originally hailing from someplace else, many are happy to get the NFL's best games on TV each week rather than be stuck watching the local team, for better or for worse.

It's not fans who are agitating to bring back the NFL; it's the NFL itself.

After all, L.A. is the second-largest market in the nation. The lack of a team in the region means that television and merchandise revenues are lower than they could be. As far as the NFL is concerned, L.A. is an unmilked cash cow.

But just because the NFL wants to come to the area doesn't mean taxpayers should pick up part of the tab. There is, for the time being anyway, little talk about using tax dollars to refurbish the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl. But given the history of such measures - and the fact that both facilities are government-owned - taxpayers had best stay on guard.

Meanwhile, Carson's city manager, Jerry Groomes, has noted that his city would not shy away from invoking eminent domain to grab 157 acres, then cough up some big-time subsidies to erect a new stadium on the site. All other things being equal, give Carson the edge among subsidy-happy NFL owners.

Whatever happens, all of this L.A. talk benefits the NFL merely by placing added pressure on government officials in places like Minnesota, Indianapolis and San Diego to fork over taxpayer funding for new stadiums. If not, the Vikings, Colts or Chargers might move to L.A. - not that residents of those cities should much care one way or the other.

Contrary to the ginned-up reports produced to justify taxpayer subsidies for new sports stadiums, economic reality is starkly different. Legitimate, independent economic analysis moves beyond mere speculation to look at what actually has occurred in local economies when taxpayers have subsidized professional sports. These studies show that sports teams and stadiums either make no real difference in a region's economy or actually can be a net negative.

Consider the econometric work performed by Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys, professors at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Examining the relationship between pro sports teams, venues and real per-capita income, they found in 1999 that sports franchises have no impact on income growth, and they actually negatively impact the level of income. In a 2000 analysis of earnings and employment, the two economists jointly concluded: ``We find that professional sports has a small positive effect on earnings per employee in the amusements and recreation sector and an offsetting decrease in both earnings and employment in other sectors. This direct spending on professional sports has a positive effect on a small sector of cities' economies, but the overall impact is negative.''

That isn't all that surprising.

Individuals and families only have so much money to spend for recreational purposes. A football team in a new or refurbished stadium, for example, only shifts those spending patterns around.

Also, when government subsidies come into play, that not only means higher taxes, but also means that economic decision-making is being moved from consumers, businesses and investors in the private sector to politicians and government bureaucrats. While the private sector allocates resources according to price and profit signals in the marketplace, incentives in government point to more patronage, bigger budgets, expanded power and responding to special interests.

That translates into wasted resources. That's a negative for the economy.

In the end, if an NFL team wants to come to Los Angeles, that's fine. But government officials should not treat a football team differently than they would treat any other business. Let owners and/or other private interests buy the land, build their own stadium and pay taxes. If the demand for a team is as great as the NFL claims, the team will have no trouble turning a profit without the benefit of corporate welfare.

Sports teams aren't special. They do not deserve or need subsidies from government. Taxpayers should not be forced to boost revenues for billionaire owners or for salaries of millionaire athletes. Let an NFL football team compete for consumer dollars, like any other business, and make stadium investment decisions without government handouts.

In securing a new NFL team, the L.A. market could have an opportunity to change the stadium business. It has already shown that a community does not need a football team to thrive. It can now set a precedent for the rest of the nation by showing that the NFL doesn't need to be on the dole.

That not only would save money for taxpayers in Greater Los Angeles, but potentially across the nation as well.

CAPTION(S):

3 photos

Photo: (1 -- color) About 157 acres in Carson could be up for grabs as a site for a new NFL stadium. John Lazar/Staff Photographer (2 -- color) ANOTHER OPTION: The Rosebowl (3 -- color) OR: The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum