VISITOR IMPACTS OF ARIZONA ATHLETICS EVENTS
FY2023
Dari Duval, Claudia Montanía, Joe Bronstein, Andrew Soderberg, George Frisvold
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension—Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics
What is the study about?
What did the study nd?
Non-local visitors to Arizona Athletics events and visiting team travel create an economic impact to Pima County and
Arizona by bringing net-new visitor spending into the county and state economies. At the county-level, non-local, out-of-
county visitor spending creates an economic impact, while at the state level, out-of-state visitors create an impact.
This study presents an analysis of the economic activity
attributable to visitors to University of Arizona Athletics
Department (Arizona Athletics) events within the regional
and state economies. Events held by Arizona Athletics
attract attendees from local (Pima County), in-state
(Arizona, outside of Pima County), and out-of-state
communities. Additionally, competing teams travel to
Southern Arizona to participate in Arizona home games and
events. These visitors spend money while attending events,
including on accommodations, restaurants, and other
travel related spending. This study estimates the
magnitude of visitor spending associated with Arizona
Athletics events and estimates the economic multiplier
eects it has on the local and state economies for Fiscal
Year 2023.
When spending by all visitors is counted, even local residents and students, this is considered an economic
contribution. While economic contributions measure some recirculation of money in the local economy that would
happen regardless of Arizona Athletics events, this type of analysis provides a snapshot of local economic activity
associated with Arizona Athletics events.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Pima County Arizona
Non-local visitor spending:
• $82 million
Total eect:
• $69 million gross regional product
• $124 million in sales
• $44 million in labor income
• 1,340 jobs
Out-of-state visitor spending:
• $50 million
Total eect:
• $52 million gross state product
• $90 million in sales
• $33 million labor income
• 840 jobs
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS
Pima County Arizona
Total visitor spending: $146 million
Total eect:
• $120 million gross regional product
• $220 million in sales
• $80 million in labor income
• 2,600 jobs
Total visitor spending: $146 million
Total eect:
• $150 million gross state product
• $266 million in sales
• $98 million in labor income
• 2,770 jobs
Domestic Visitor Origin, Arizona Athletics Events, FY2023
How was the study done?
This study analyzes spending by local and non-local visitors attending and competing in Arizona Athletics events. To
estimate the origin of attendees, ticket sales data with associated purchaser ZIP codes were used. Average visitor
spending patterns were developed based on spending patterns developed in previous studies for day and overnight
visitors. Day visitors were dened as residing in ZIP codes within a 50-mile radius of the University of Arizona campus,
while overnight visitors live beyond the 50-mile radius. Competing team spending was estimated based on reported
travel team size, expenditures, and number of home events. Multiplier eects were estimated using the IMPLAN Pro
2021 models for Arizona and Pima County.
Attendees to Arizona Athletics events come from around the world, including all U.S. states.
• Top out-of-state visitor origins include California, Florida, and Washington.
• The largest number of tickets sold to Arizona Athletics events, however, are purchased by Arizonans.
To read the full study, please visit:
economics.arizona.edu/visitor-impacts-arizona-athletics-events
Visitors
1
Visitor Impacts of Arizona Athletics Events
FY 2023
Dari Duval, Claudia Montanía, Joe Bronstein, Andrew Soderberg, George Frisvold
2
Acknowledgement
e authors would like to thank the University of Arizona Athletics Department sta for providing the data
necessary for conducting this analysis.
© 2024 e Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, e University of Arizona.
Any products, services or organizations that are mentioned, shown or indirectly implied in this publication do not imply endorsement by
e University of Arizona. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Edward Martin, Associate Vice President and Director of the Arizona Cooperative Extension System,
College of Agriculture Life Sciences, e University of Arizona. e University of Arizona is an equal opportunity, armative action
institution. e University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or
sexual orientation in its programs and activities.
3
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
What is the study about? ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Data ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Visitors & Visitor Spending .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Visitor Spending Patterns ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Visitor Spending Estimates by Segment .................................................................................................................. 13
Competing Team Travel ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Results ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Economic Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Economic Contributions ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Discussion & Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 17
References ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendices.......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix A. Visitor Origin Maps (By Zip Code of Origin) ...................................................................................... 21
Appendix B. Competing Team Local Expenditure Estimates .................................................................................... 25
Appendix C. List of Local Zip Codes Used for Analysis of Local vs. Non-Local Visitors ....................................... 27
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Visitor Origin, All Sports, FY2023 .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Graphical Representation of Economic Impact versus Economic Contribution ............................................ 9
Figure 3. Relationship Between Economic Contribution Metrics ................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. U.S. Visitor origin, Football, FY2023 ................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 5. Arizona Visitor origin, Football, FY2023 ......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 8. U.S. Visitor Origin, Women’s Basketball, FY2023 ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 9. Arizona Visitor Origin, Women’s Basketball, FY2023 .................................................................................... 22
Figure 6. U.S. Visitor Origin, Men’s Basketball, FY2023 ................................................................................................. 23
Figure 7. Arizona Visitor Origin, Men’s Basketball, FY2023 .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 10. U.S. Visitor Origin, All Other Sports*, FY2023 ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 11. Arizona Visitor Origin, All Other Sports*, FY2023 ...................................................................................... 24
4
Tables
Table 1. Estimate of Visitors by Origin ............................................................................................................................. 11
Table 2. Overnight visitor spending pattern – per person per night ............................................................................. 12
Table 3. Day visitor spending pattern – per person per day ........................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Percent of Overnight Visitors by Visitor Origin ................................................................................................ 12
Table 5.Overnight Visitor (Out-of-State) Spending Estimate ........................................................................................ 13
Table 6. Overnight Visitor (In-State, Outside Pima County) Spending Estimate ........................................................ 13
Table 7. Local Attendee (Pima County) Spending Estimate ........................................................................................... 14
Table 8. Summary of Competing Team Local Spending by Category ........................................................................... 14
Table 9. Economic Impact of Visitors & Team Travel to Pima County ......................................................................... 15
Table 10. Economic Impact of Visitors & Team Travel to Arizona ................................................................................ 15
Table 11. Economic Contribution of Visitors & Team Travel to Pima County ............................................................. 16
Table 12. Economic Contribution of Visitors & Team Travel to Arizona ..................................................................... 16
Table 14. Estimated Visiting Team Spending in Local Economy for Ticketed Events ................................................. 25
Table 15. Estimated Visiting Team Spending in Local Economy for Non-Ticketed Events ........................................ 26
5
Executive Summary
What is the study about?
is study presents an analysis of the economic activity attributable to visitors to University of Arizona Athletics
Department (Arizona Athletics, hereaer) events within the regional and state economy. Events held by Arizona
Athletics attract attendees from local (Pima County), in-state (Arizona, outside of Pima County), and out-of-state
communities. Additionally, competing teams travel to Southern Arizona to participate in Arizona home games and
events. ese visitors spend money while attending events, including on accommodations, restaurants, and other
travel related spending. is study estimates the magnitude of visitor spending associated with Arizona Athletics
events and estimates the economic multiplier eects it has on the local and state economies for Fiscal Year 2023.
What did the study nd?
• Visitors to Arizona Athletics events and visiting team travel create an economic impact to Arizona and
Pima County by bringing net-new visitor spending into the county and state economies.
o Pima County: e economic impact of non-local visitors to Arizona Athletics events and
competing team travel to Pima County, including multiplier eects, was $124 million in
economic output (sales) for the Fiscal Year 2023. at economic activity was associated with $44
million in labor income, supporting over 1,300 jobs.
o Arizona: At the state level, the economic impacts are smaller than at the county level because all
in-state residents are excluded as local visitors. Out-of-state visitors that attend Arizona Athletics
events support nearly 840 jobs, generating $33 million in labor income and $90 million in
economic output (sales) statewide.
• When attendance and spending of local and in-state residents is counted, this is considered an economic
contribution. is provides a snapshot of circulation of money in the local economy associated with
Arizona Athletics events.
o Pima County: In FY2023, the economic contribution of all visitors to Arizona Athletics events
and competing team travel to Pima County, including multipliers, supported nearly 2,600 jobs,
generating $80 million in labor income, $120 million in Gross Regional Product, and $220
million in economic output (sales).
o Arizona: At the state level, the economic contribution of Arizona Athletics is larger than at the
county level: 2,775 jobs that generate $98 million of labor income, nearly $150 million in Gross
Regional Product, and a total of $265 million in economic output (sales).
• Attendees to Arizona Athletics events come from around the world, including all U.S. states.
o Top out-of-state visitor origins include California, Florida, and Washington.
o e largest number of tickets sold to Arizona Athletics events, however, are purchased by
Arizonans (Figure 1).
6
FIGURE 1. U.S. VISITOR ORIGIN, ALL SPORTS, FY2023
How was the study done?
is study analyzes spending by local and non-local visitors attending Arizona Athletics events. To estimate the
origin of attendees, ticket sales data with associated purchaser ZIP codes were used. Average visitor spending
patterns were developed based on spending patterns developed in previous studies for day and overnight visitors.
Day visitors were dened as residing in ZIP codes within a 50-mile radius of the University of Arizona campus,
while overnight visitors live beyond the 50-mile radius. Multiplier eects were estimated using the IMPLAN Pro
2021 models for Arizona and Pima County.
Visitors
7
Introduction
e University of Arizona Athletics Department (Arizona Athletics hereaer) has a historic legacy of
championship excellence that includes 22 team national championships with the most recent coming in 2018 when
Arizona Women’s Golf claimed its third NCAA title. e athletics department has produced numerous Olympians,
professional dra picks, national players of the year, All-Americans, Academic All-Americans as, and is the
nation’s co-leader in NCAA Woman of the Year award winners. As it enters the Big 12 Conference in 2024-25,
Arizona’s ve-decade run in the Pac-12 Conference will end with over 50 Pac-12 team championships and nearly
300 individual Pac-12 titles won.
Arizona Athletics is also a national leader in attendance, enjoying a high level of community support in Southern
Arizona in a variety of programs. Arizona Men’s Basketball will lead the Pac-12 Conference in attendance in 2023-
24 for an impressive 40th consecutive season. Arizona Women’s Basketball has also grown into the Pac-12’s
women’s basketball attendance leader in recent years under head coach Adia Barnes. Arizona Football’s average
home attendance is also on the rise with an increase of 35 percent over the last two seasons. e department’s
ticketed sports, which include football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, soball, volleyball, baseball,
gymnastics, soccer, and track and eld, has Arizona on pace to be the Pac-12 Conference’s leader in total
attendance among ticketed sports for a third consecutive year in 2023-24.
e role of collegiate athletics in university communities is multi-faceted, and so are the economic relationships it
supports (Kwiatkowski, 2016; York, 2018). In economic terms, university athletics departments generate
employment, hiring specialized sta (Harrison et al., 2009; Won et al., 2013), investing in facilities (Huml et al.,
2019; Orzag & Orzag, 2006), and supporting the success of student athletes. In addition, team competition attracts
visitor spending to local communities, as do visiting teams and their support sta (Dixon et al, 2013; Popp et al,
2017). University athletics programs move millions of dollars within the economies of the communities where they
are located.
is study presents an analysis of the economic contributions and impacts of visitor spending within Southern
Arizona associated with Arizona Athletics events, and broader economic multiplier eects of that spending
generates in the local and state economies. e study examines the eects of visitors who are spectators at home
competition events, as well as competing team travel to Tucson. e report is structured as follows: we present an
overview of methods and data used in the analysis. We then present economic impact and contribution results for
the local economy and state economy. e report concludes with a discussion of ndings.
8
Methods
e regional economic eects of spectator and sporting events are oen studied to better understand their impacts
on communities and public nances. Whether it be so-called “mega events” (Olympic Games, FIFA Wor ld Cup,
NFL Super Bowl), or more local sporting events (university athletics, amateur athletic events), accurately
measuring the economic impact of events or sport programs can be crucial information for local communities
interested in developing their economy (Baade & Matheson, 2004; Scandizo & Pierleoni, 2018; Sterken, 2013).
e economic impact of university athletics departments is most commonly addressed in the grey (i.e., non-peer
reviewed) literature (e.g. Comrie 2021; Clopton 2007; Deck, 2012; Duy, 2012; Holmberg, 2016). Several academic
studies, however, have provided guidance on conducting studies. Most commonly, studies use visitor spending
surveys (e.g. Chang & Canode, 2002; Hefner, 1990) and input-output models (see for example, Bozman et al.,
2015; Lee & Lyberger, 2010; Wood & Meng, 2021). Survey data are used to estimate direct economic impacts
(Bradbury & Humphreys, 2023) while input-output techniques are used to estimate broader economic impacts to
industries in the local economy (Baade et al, 2011). A critical part of such analyses is estimating what share of
spending generated by these events remains in local economies (Jones, 2001; Kwiatkowski, 2016). To do this,
studies typically segment visitors into local versus non-local origin (Crompton, 1995: Baade et al., 2008).
is report estimates the economic contributions and impacts of visitor spending by Arizona Athletics event
attendees and competing teams on the Pima County economy (the county encompassing the Tucson metropolitan
area), and Arizona’s statewide economy. Economic impacts are a general term that applies to dierent types of
analysis, including economic impact analysis and economic contribution analysis. An economic impact analysis
measures the economic eect of an exogenous shock to a regional economy.at is, the introduction of net-new,
outside money into the regional economy and the ripple eect that outside demand has on local businesses and
households. An economic contribution analysis is similar but measures existing economic activity (versus net-new
activity alone). It measures an industry or amount of direct economic activity plus the additional economic activity
supported by the existing industry or institution through multiplier eects. is study distinguishes between
economic impact and economic contribution, highlighting the role of university athletics in attracting outside
spending into the county and state economies, while also conveying its importance internally as a driver of
economic activity in the region. e distinction between economic impacts and contributions at the state and
county level is illustrated in Figure 2.
9
FIGURE 2. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACT VERSUS ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION
Pima County
Arizona
Economic contributions and impacts are measured using a variety of metrics including output (sales), value added
(GDP), labor income (proprietors income, plus employee compensation), and jobs. ese metrics are interrelated
and cannot be combined. Figure 3 presents the relationship between output, value added, and labor income.
Output or sales is perhaps the most intuitive measure to understand because most economic transactions in our
daily lives occur as sales. Output (sales) measures the gross value of transactions taking place in a regional
economy. While output is easy to understand, it may double count the sales value of inputs that are produced
locally. For example, lettuce from a local farm would be counted as a “sale” when the farmer sells it to a restaurant.
Once a restaurant uses that lettuce for a salad purchased by a consumer, the sales value of the salad also includes
10
the value of the lettuce used to make it. erefore, the lettuce’s sales value is counted twice: once at the farm-gate
and once at the restaurant. Value added is a metric that avoids double counting by capturing only the value of a
product or service over and above the cost of inputs used to create it. At the national-level, value added is
synonymous with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is a measure of a region’s economic production. Value
added includes labor income, prots, and taxes. Labor income is a component of value added and includes wages,
salaries, and benets to employees as well as proprietor or business-owner income. Finally, the economic
contribution of an industry can be measured in terms of the number of full- and part-time jobs that it supports.
FIGURE 3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION METRICS
Economic contributions and impacts were estimated using the IMPLAN Pro 2021 models for Arizona and Pima
County (IMPLAN LLC, 2021). Visitor spending by category was estimated for each case, modeled as industry
changes, and assigned to IMPLAN industries.
11
Data
Visitor spending estimates rely on ticket sales data with associated purchaser zip codes and average visitor
spending patterns by segment developed through compilation of spending patterns used in past studies.
Visitors & Visitor Spending
Estimates of the number of individuals visiting the metro Tucson area for purposes of attending Arizona Athletics
events were developed using athletics events ticketing data. Ticketing information was obtained from the Athletics
Department including the number of tickets sold by the zip code of the purchaser for individual sports. It is
assumed that each ticket associated with a non-local or out-of-state zip code represents a non-local or out-of-state
visitor. Details of the origin of visitors by sport are presented in Appendix A.
A total of 79% of tickets purchased were local, and 88% purchased were in-state. 12% of tickets purchased were
associated with out-of-state zip codes. All ZonaZoo
1
tickets purchased were assumed to be local visitors as these
tickets are reserved for students at basketball and football games. ese ratios are applied to a total of 891,996
tickets purchased, which yields the following estimates of visitors by origin.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATE OF VISITORS BY ORIGIN
Visitor Origin
Number
Local Attendees
706,928
In-State, Non-Local Visitors
78,199
Out-of-State Visitors
106,869
Total
891,996
Visitor Spending Patterns
Visitor spending patterns were developed using an average of visitor spending patterns from previous studies of
university athletics event visitors (Duy, 2012; Castaline, et al, 2019; Econsult Solutions Inc., 2023; Maine Center for
Business & Economic Research, 2021; Djaba, et al, 2021; Econsult Solutions, Inc., 2015; Artigue et al, 2007), as well
as visitor spending patterns for visitors to Arizona cities (Combrink, et al, 2018; Cothran, et al, 2015; Littleeld, et
al, 2022). Separate average spending patterns were developed for overnight visitors (Table 2) and for day visitors
(Table 3). All spending patterns were adjusted to 2022 dollars using the CPI (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023) and
spending categories were aligned and/or combined into general categories.
1
ZonaZoo is an ocial student section of Arizona Athletics events with an associated ticketing program.
12
TABLE 2. OVERNIGHT VISITOR SPENDING PATTERN – PER PERSON PER NIGHT
Spending Category
Average Per-Person Per-Night Expenditures
Lodging/Accommodations
$75.64
Retail Shopping
$30.91
Food and Beverage
$65.10
Transportation
$24.87
Recreation/Entertainment
$17.62
Other
$15.86
TOTAL
$230.00
Source: Author calculations using Duy (2012); Econsult Solutions Inc. (2023); Littleeld, et al (2022); Combrink et al (2018); Djaba et al
(2021); Econsult Solutions Inc. (2015); Artigue et al (2007). All gures in 2022 dollars.
TABLE 3. DAY VISITOR SPENDING PATTERN – PER PERSON PER DAY
Spending Category
Average Per-Person Per-Day Expenditures
Lodging/Accommodations
$0.00
Retail Shopping
$17.22
Food and Beverage
$31.98
Transportation
$22.35
Recreation/Entertainment
$11.73
Other
$7.57
TOTAL
$90.85
Source: Author calculations using Duy (2012); Maine Center for Business and Economic Research (2021); Econsult Solutions Inc. (2023);
Littleeld, et al (2022); Combrink et al (2018); Djaba et al (2021); Econsult Solutions Inc. (2015); Artigue et al (2007). All gures in 2022
dollars.
For purposes of estimating the number of overnight versus day visitors, we used a 50-mile radius as the cuto for
which zip codes were considered day visitor origins versus overnight visitor origins. A 50-mile radius is commonly
used by the U.S. federal government as the cuto for local versus non-local travel (U.S. General Services
Administration, 2023). Applying this denition, we derive the following estimates of the percent of athletics events
attendees that were overnight visitors (Table 4).
TABLE 4. PERCENT OF OVERNIGHT VISITORS BY VISITOR ORIGIN
Visitor Origin
Number
Percent Overnight
Pima County (Local)
706,928
0.0%
In-State, Outside Pima County (In-State, Non-Local)
78,199
88.4%
Out-of-State
106,869
100.0%
TOTAL
891,996
20.0%
e analysis assumes a median overnight stay of 2 nights in the Tucson area for overnight visitors, and 22% of
overnight visitors stay with family and friends and therefore do not have lodging expenditures (Longwoods
International, 2022). e study does not account for multi-purpose visits, and therefore captures all estimated
spending by Arizona Athletics event visitors.
13
Visitor Spending Estimates by Segment
Applying estimated visitors by origin, spending patterns by visitor type, and percent overnight visitors by origin,
we derive estimates of total visitor spending by spending category for out-of-state overnight visitors (Table 5), in-
state-non-local overnight visitors (Table 6), and local day visitors (Table 7). Combined, visitors to Arizona
Athletics events spent an estimated $142 million in the local economy in the 2022-2023 season. $78 million was
spent by non-local visitors, of which $45 million was spent by out-of-state visitors.
TABLE 5.OVERNIGHT VISITOR (OUT-OF-STATE) SPENDING ESTIMATE
Spending Category
Average Per-
Person Per-Night
Expenditure
Percent with
Expenditure
Nights Visitors Total Spending
Lodging / Accommodations
$75.64
78%
2
106,869
$12,610,371
Retail Shopping
$30.91
100%
2
106,869
$6,606,642
Food and Beverage
$65.10
100%
2
106,869
$13,914,344
Transportation
$24.87
100%
2
106,869
$5,315,664
Recreation / Entertainment
$17.62
100%
2
106,869
$3,766,064
Other
$15.86
100%
2
106,869
$3,389,885
TOTAL
$230.00
$45,602,969
TABLE 6. OVERNIGHT VISITOR (IN-STATE, OUTSIDE PIMA COUNTY) SPENDING ESTIMATE
Spending Category
Average Per-
Person Per-Night
Expenditures
Percent with
Expenditure
Nights Visitors Total Spending
Lodging / Accommodations
$75.64 69% 2 78,199 $8,156,983
Retail Shopping
$30.91
100%
2
78,199
$4,834,262
Food and Beverage
$65.10
100%
2
78,199
$10,181,510
Transportation
$24.87
100%
2
78,199
$3,889,618
Recreation / Entertainment
$17.62
100%
2
78,199
$2,755,733
Other
$15.86
100%
2
78,199
$2,480,472
TOTAL
$230.00
$32,298,579
14
TABLE 7. LOCAL ATTENDEE (PIMA COUNTY) SPENDING ESTIMATE
Spending Category
Average Per-Person
Per-Day
Expenditures
Percent with
Expenditure
Nights Visitors
Total
Spending
Lodging / Accommodations
$0.00
0%
N/A
706,928
$0
Retail Shopping
$17.22
100%
N/A
706,928
$12,173,305
Food & Beverage
$31.98
100%
N/A
706,928
$22,607,566
Transportation
$22.35
100%
N/A
706,928
$15,799,847
Recreation / Entertainment
$11.73
100%
N/A
706,928
$8,292,269
Other
$7.57
100%
N/A
706,928
$5,351,447
TOTAL
$90.85
$64,224,433
Competing Team Travel
Beyond the regional economic eects of people traveling to Southern Arizona to attend Arizona Athletics events,
competing teams travel to Southern Arizona for University of Arizona home games. Oen these represent large
travel parties that require lodging, meals, and local transportation. We base our estimates of visiting team spending
on a typical traveling team party size for individual sports, including the typical number of rooms and meals
purchased, and the number of coach buses rented (Arizona Athletics, personal communication). e cost of meals
was estimated using FY2023 federal per-diem rates for Tucson, at an average of $19.67 per meal (GSA, 2023).
Accommodations rates were estimated using average hotel prices by month excluding any major holidays or
university events (homecoming, family weekend, etc.). Rentals, lower quality motels, and other resort-type
facilities were excluded. Local transportation expenses were estimated based on daily coach bus rental prices in
Tucson and surrounding areas. A total of 199 home events occurred in the 2022-2023 season. Visiting teams
required over 11,000 local room nights based upon our estimates. Appendix B provides the details of estimated
competing team local expenditures. Table 8 presents a summary of estimated local spending by competing teams
traveling to Tucson to compete in Arizona Athletics home events.
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF COMPETING TEAM LOCAL SPENDING BY CATEGORY
Category
Spending
Hotels
$2,325,472
Local Transportation
$687,440
Restaurants
$1,146,745
Total
$4,159,657
15
Results
is report measures the visitor spending generated within Pima County and Arizona by local and non-local
attendees, as well as the team travel spending impacts. We present estimated economic impacts in terms of sales
(economic output), value added (gross domestic product), labor income (wages and salaries of employees, and
business owner income), jobs (full- and part-time), and tax revenues (state and local government combined, and
federal government). Within each of these impact types, we present the direct, indirect, induced, and total impacts.
Direct impacts measure the visitor spending associated with Arizona Athletics events. Indirect impacts measure
the ripple eect of business-to-business transactions that occur when businesses serving these event attendees and
visiting teams incur expenses locally to meet the demand of visitors. Finally, induced impacts measure the
economic activity created when individuals employed in businesses serving visitors spend their income locally.
Combined, these three eects constitute the total economic impact due to Arizona Athletics.
Economic Impacts
e economic impact of non-local visitors to Arizona Athletics events and competing team travel to Southern
Arizona to Pima County is presented in Table 9. In total, over 1,300 jobs are supported in the county economy as a
result of non-local visitor spending in the area associated with Arizona Athletics events. $44 million in labor
income and roughly $69 million in Gross Regional Product (local equivalent of gross domestic product, GDP) are
supported by this activity. In total, an estimated $124 million in sales are supported in the county, including
multiplier eects.
TABLE 9. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VISITORS & TEAM TRAVEL TO PIMA COUNTY
Measure
Employment
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct
1,037
$28,865,986
$42,773,015
$74,652,970
Indirect
138
$7,339,553
$11,285,190
$23,353,527
Induced
162
$8,152,602
$14,557,948
$25,663,948
TOTAL
1,336
$44,358,141
$68,616,153
$123,670,445
At the state level, fewer visitors are considered non-local, therefore economic impacts are smaller than at the
county level. at is, less money is brought in from “outside” the region because in-state residents residing outside
of Pima County are no longer counted as non-local visitors. Table 10 presents the estimated economic impacts of
Arizona Athletics events on the state economy. is includes a total of nearly 840 jobs, $33 million in labor
income, $52 million in gross state product (GSP), and roughly $90 million in sales.
TABLE 10. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VISITORS & TEAM TRAVEL TO ARIZONA
Measure
Employment
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct
599
$18,234,981
$26,942,446
$45,484,682
Indirect
103
$6,638,190
$10,393,979
$20,215,537
Induced
138
$8,009,336
$14,224,756
$24,609,078
TOTAL
839
$32,882,506
$51,561,182
$90,309,297
16
Economic Contributions
While economic impact calculations exclude the spending of local residents on attending Arizona Athletics events,
economic contribution analyses capture all spending associated with the event regardless of visitor origin. is
type of analysis therefore captures money that is simply being recirculated within the regional economy which, if
not spent on going to a sporting event, would likely be spent locally on something else. It also captures non-local
visitor spending as well. Eectively, economic contribution analyses provide a snapshot of the economic activity
linked to a specic activity at a given time. Table 11 presents the economic contribution of visitors and team travel
to the Pima County economy. is includes roughly 2,600 jobs, $80 million in labor income, $120 million in gross
regional product, and $220 million in sales.
TABLE 11. ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF VISITORS & TEAM TRAVEL TO PIMA COUNTY
Measure
Employment
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct
2,058
$51,839,532
$73,462,249
$131,377,806
Indirect
250
$13,242,654
$20,509,920
$42,864,685
Induced
291
$14,653,105
$26,165,884
$46,127,323
TOTAL
2,600
$79,735,290
$120,138,052
$220,369,814
At the state level, the economic contribution is slightly larger due to more indirect and induced eects being
captured within the study area – larger economies typically have larger multiplier eects. Table 12 presents the
statewide economic contribution of visitors to Arizona Athletics events, including all local, in-state, and out-of-
state visitors.
TABLE 12. ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF VISITORS & TEAM TRAVEL TO ARIZONA
Measure
Employment
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct
2,058
$54,415,517
$76,236,343
$131,377,806
Indirect
306
$19,803,765
$31,276,098
$60,898,024
Induced
411
$23,894,687
$42,437,491
$73,417,585
TOTAL
2,775
$98,113,967
$149,949,932
$265,693,415
17
Discussion & Conclusions
is study presents estimates of the local community and state-level economic impacts and contributions
associated with visitors to Arizona Athletics events, including competing teams. Within Pima County, this visitor
activity contributes an estimated $69 million to the gross regional product, the local equivalent of GDP, and
supports over 1,300 jobs in the community. When also considering the spending of local residents, estimated
economic contributions are larger.
Following signicant nancial challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic aecting universities throughout the
country, eorts are underway to restructure athletics departments, including at the University of Arizona
(University of Arizona, 2024). ese eorts are important and will have broader reaching community economic
impacts. is study provides a baseline understanding of one way in which Arizona Athletics interfaces with the
regional and state economies. Such information can be of use to guide decision makers in weighing the dierent
benets and costs of policies and program changes moving forward.
18
References
Artigue, R., Eaton, J., Hill, J., Mokwa, M., & Ward, J. (2007). 2007 Fiesta Bowl Events Economic Impact Study. ASU
W.P. Carey School of Business Sports Business MBA Program and e Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Research.
Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (2004). e quest for the cup: assessing the economic impact of the world cup.
Regional studies, 38(4), 343-354.
Baade, R. A., Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2008). Assessing the economic impact of college football games
on local economies. Journal of Sports Economics, 9(6), 628-643.
Baade, Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2011). Big Men on Campus: Estimating the Economic Impact of
College Sports on Local Economies. Regional Studies, 45(3), 371–380.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903241519
.
Bozman, C. S., Friesner, D., McPherson, M. Q., & Chase, N. M. (2015). Intangible and tangible value: brand equity
benets associated with collegiate athletics. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 16(4), 22-
45.
Bradbury, J. C., Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. R. (2023). e impact of professional sports franchises and venues on
local economies: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(4), 1389-1431.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023). CPI Ination Calculator. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/data/ination_calculator.htm
Castaline, M., Fishback, J., & Volland, K. (2019). e Local Economic Impact of Florida State University Athletics.
Chang, S., & Canode, S. (2002). Economic impact of a future college football program. Journal of Sport
Management, 16(3), 239-246.
Clopton, A. W. (2007). Predicting a sense of community amongst students from the presence of intercollegiate
athletics: What roles do gender and BCS-aliation play in the relationship. e SMART Financial Journal, 4(1), 95-
110.
Combrink, T., Bradford, M., & Ruiz, R. (2018). Flagsta Visitor Study. Northern Arizona University Economic
Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://in.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/212/Flagsta-Tourism-Study-2017-
2018-Final.pdf
Comrie, A. (2021). Like Nobody’s Business: An Insider’s Guide to How US University Finances Really Work.
Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0240
Cothran, C., Combrink, T., & Bradford, M. (2015). Prescott Visitor Survey 2014-2015.
Crompton. (1995). Economic Impact Analysis of Sports Facilities and Events: Eleven Sources of Misapplication.
Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.9.1.14.
19
Deck, K. A., & Jebaraj, M. (2012). University of Arkansas Athletics economic impact. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cberpub/14/
Dixon, A., Henry, M., & Martinez, J. (2013). Assessing the Economic Impact of Sport Tourists' Expenditures
Related to a University's Baseball Season Attendance. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6: 96-113.
Djaba, T., Wrynn, R., & Durelli, J. (2021). e Economic Impact of the University of Connecticut Division of
Athletics. Retrieved from https://today.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Athletics-Impact-study-Fall-
2021.pdf
Duy, T. (2012). e Economic Impact of the University of Oregon Athletic Department: FY2011-12. Retrieved
from https://uoregon_p.sidearmsports.com/pages/athln/2012-Athletic-Economic-Impact.pdf
Econsult Solutions. (2015). Economic Impacts of Rutgers Athletics and Future Implications of the Big Ten.
Retrieved from https://econsultsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Economic-Impacts-of-Rutgers-
Athletics-Dra-5-6-15.pdf
Econsult Solutions Inc. (2023). University of North Carolina System Athletics Economic Impact Report 2023.
Retrieved from https://econsultsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/UNC-System-Athletics-Economic-
Impact-Study-2023-02-02-FINAL.pdf
GSA (2023). FY 2023 Per Diem Rates for ZIP Code 85721. Retrieved from
https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-
book/per-diem-rates
Harrison, C. K., Lapchick, R. E., & Janson, N. K. (2009). Decision making in hiring: Intercollegiate athletics
coaches and sta. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(144), 93-101.
Hefner. (1990). Using Economic Models to Measure the Impact of Sports on Local Economies. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 14(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/019372359001400101
Holmberg, J. (2016). e Economic Impact of College Athletics on Local Economies. Retrieved from
https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalles/portal/58412202/Jennifer_Holmberg.pdf
Huml, M. R., Pifer, N. D., Towle, C., & Rode, C. R. (2019). If we build it, will they come? e eect of new athletic
facilities on recruiting rankings for power ve football and men's basketball programs. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 29(1), 1-18.
IMPLAN® model (2021). Data, using inputs provided by the user and IMPLAN Group LLC, IMPLAN System
(data and soware), 16905 Northcross Dr., Suite 120, Huntersville, NC 28078 www.IMPLAN.com
Jones. (2001). Mega-events and host-region impacts: determining the true worth of the 1999 Rugby World Cup.
e International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.326
Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database (2023). Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database. Retrieved
from https://knightnewhousedata.org/s
20
Kwiatkowski, Grzegorz. (2016). Economic Impact of Event Attendees' Spending On a Host Region: A Review of
the Research. Event Management. 20. 501-5016. 10.3727/152599516X14745497664398.
Littleeld, K., Milhaven, L., Caputi, T., Durham, T., Janik, B., Whitehead, S., ompson, J., & Ortega, D. D. (2022).
Scottsdale Visitor Statistics Scottsdale City Council. www.scottsdaleaz.gov/tourism
Longwoods International (2022). Travel USA Visitor Prole, Prepared for Arizona Oce of Tourism. Retrieved
from https://tourism.az.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Arizona-Overnight-Travel-USA-2022-Report.pdf
Maine Center for Business and Economic Research. (2021). e Economic Contribution of Organized Sports
Events & Sports Tourism in Maine. Retrieved from
https://motpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/e-
Economic-Impact-of-Sports-and-Tourism.pdf
NCAA (2023a). History. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx
NCAA (2023b). Overview. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/overview.aspx
NCAA (2023c). Finances. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/nances.aspx
NCAA (2022). Finances of Intercollegiate Athletics Database. Retrieved from
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2019/11/12/nances-of-intercollegiate-athletics-database.aspx
Orszag, J. M., & Orszag, P. R. (2005, April). e physical capital stock used in collegiate athletics. Compass.
Popp, N., Jensen, J., & Jackson, R. (2017). Maximizing visitors at college football bowl games. International Journal
of Event and Festival Management, 8(3), 261-273.
Sterken, E. (2013). Growth impact of major sporting events. In e impact and evaluation of major sporting events
(pp. 63-77). Routledge.
University of Arizona (2024). Financial Action Plan Update. Executive Oce of the President. Retrieved from
https://president.arizona.edu/news/nancial-action-plan-update
U.S. General Services Administration. (2023). Local Travel Policy. Retrieved October 30, 2023 from
https://www.gsa.gov/directives-library/local-travel-policy
York, B. E. (2018). Community and College Athletics: Building Powerful Relationships. Powerful Relationships in
Leadership: A Collection of Modern Leadership Insights, 65.
Won, D., Bravo, G., & Lee, C. (2013). Careers in collegiate athletic administration: Hiring criteria and skills needed
for success. Managing Leisure, 18(1), 71-91.
Wood, J., & Meng, S. (2021). e economic impacts of the 2018 Winter Olympics. Tourism Economics, 27(7),
1303-1322.
21
Appendices
Appendix A. Visitor Origin Maps (By Zip Code of Origin)
FIGURE 4. U.S. VISITOR ORIGIN, FOOTBALL, FY2023
FIGURE 5. ARIZONA VISITOR ORIGIN, FOOTBALL, FY2023
22
FIGURE 6. U.S. VISITOR ORIGIN, WOMEN’S BASKETBALL, FY2023
FIGURE 7. ARIZONA VISITOR ORIGIN, WOMEN’S BASKETBALL, FY2023
23
FIGURE 8. U.S. VISITOR ORIGIN, MEN’S BASKETBALL, FY2023
FIGURE 9. ARIZONA VISITOR ORIGIN, MEN’S BASKETBALL, FY2023
24
FIGURE 10. U.S. VISITOR ORIGIN, ALL OTHER SPORTS*, FY2023
*Includes baseball, soball, soccer, volleyball, gymnastics, and track
F
IGURE 11. ARIZONA VISITOR ORIGIN, ALL OTHER SPORTS*, FY2023
*Includes baseball, soball, soccer, volleyball, gymnastics, and track
25
Appendix B. Competing Team Local Expenditure Estimates
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED VISITING TEAM SPENDING IN LOCAL ECONOMY FOR TICKETED EVENTS
Sport /
Event
Basketball, Men's
Basketball, Women's
Baseball
Softball
Pac-
12 Softball
Tournament
Football (standard,
conference)
Football (bowl)
Track & Field
Gymnastics
Volleyball
NCAA Tennis
Regional
Season
Nov -
Early Mar
Nov - Early
Mar
Mid Feb -
Mid May
Feb - Early
May
Mid May
Sep –
Nov
Dec Jan - May
Jan -
March
Aug -
Nov
May
Number of
Home Events
19
17
32
23
1
7
1
6
6
17
1
Travel Party
Size
25
25
38
30
36
178
178
167
39
33
20
Teams 1
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
32
Nights 3
3
3
3
5
1
4
2
1
1
2
Hotel Rooms 16
16
25
18
18
117
117
102
24
20
12
Meals 11
11
8
8
18
5
12
6
3
3
6
Rental Buses 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Avg. Room
Cost / Night
$211
$211
$221
$221
$180
$190
$144
$217
$233
$190
$180
Total Room
Costs/Trip
$10,132
$10,132
$16,577
$11,936
$145,703
$22,247
$67,618
$44,244
$5,555
$3,881
$143,58
3
Avg. Coach
Bus Cost /
Day
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
$1,322
Coach Bus
Expenditure /
Trip
$3,966
$3,966
$3,966
$3,966
$59,490
$2,644
$10,576
$5,288
$1,322
$1,322
$84,608
Average Cost
/ Meal
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
$19.67
Meal Cost /
Trip
$5,408
$5,408
$5,979
$4,720
$114,696
$17,503
$42,008
$19,732
$2,302
$1,973
$77,175
Total Room
Cost
$192,510
$172,246
$530,467
$274,517
$145,703
$155,727
$67,618
$265,463
$33,329
$65,970
$143,583
Total Coach
Bus Cost
$75,354
$67,422
$126,912
$91,218
$59,490
$18,508
$10,576
$31,728
$7,932
$22,474
$84,608
Total Meal
Cost
$102,758
$91,942
$191,317
$108,560
$114,696
$122,523
$42,008
$118,394
$13,813
$33,545
$77,175
26
TABLE 14. ESTIMATED VISITING TEAM SPENDING IN LOCAL ECONOMY FOR NON-TICKETED EVENTS
Sport/Event
Beach
Volleyball
Cross
Country
Men's Golf
Women's
Golf
Men's Swim
& Dive
Women's
Swim & Dive
Men's
Tennis
Women's
Tennis
Season
Feb - Apr
Sep - Nov
Sep - Apr
Sep - Apr
Oct - Feb
Oct - Feb
Sep - May
Sep - Apr
Number of Home
Events
14 1 4 0 8 7 17 18
Travel Party Size
32 37 17 N/A 65 65 20 19
Teams
Nights
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Hotel Rooms
19 23 10 N/A 40 40 12 11
Meals
3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3
Rental Buses
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Avg. Room Cost / Night
$235 $190 $202 N/A $199 $199 $200 $202
Total Room Costs/Trip
$4,525 $4,312 $2,065 $0 $7,916 $7,916 $2,493 $2,295
Avg. Coach Bus Cost /
Day
$1,322 $1,322 $1,322 N/A $1,322 $1,322 $1,322 $1,322
Coach Bus
Expenditure/Trip
$1,322 $1,322 $1,322 $0 $1,322 $1,322 $1,322 $1,322
Average Cost / Meal
$19.67 $19.67 $19.67 N/A $19.67 $19.67 $19.67 $19.67
Meal Cost / Trip
$1,864 $2,192 $987 $0 $3,837 $3,837 $1,206 $1,096
TOTAL ROOM COST
$63,346 $4,312 $8,260 $0 $63,329 $55,413 $42,378 $41,302
TOTAL COACH BUS
COST
$18,508 $1,322 $5,288 $0 $10,576 $9,254 $22,474 $23,796
TOTAL MEAL COST
$26,091 $2,192 $3,946 $0 $30,695 $26,858 $20,500 $19,732
27
Appendix C. List of Local Zip Codes Used for Analysis of Local vs. Non-Local Visitors
Local ZIP codes within a 50-miles radius of the University of Arizona campus include:
ZIP Code
PO Name
County
ZIP Code
PO Name
County
85602
Benson
Cochise
85711
Tucs on
Pima
85627
Pomerene
Cochise
85714
Tucs on
Pima
85643
Willcox
Cochise
85715
Tucs on
Pima
85614
Green Valley
Pima
85716
Tucs on
Pima
85622
Green Valley
Pima
85723
Tucs on
Pima
85619
Mount Lemmon
Pima
85724
Tucs on
Pima
85654
Rillito
Pima
85726
Tucs on
Pima
85629
Sahuarita
Pima
85743
Tucs on
Pima
85634
Sells
Pima
85730
Tucs on
Pima
85736
Tucs on
Pima
85735
Tucs on
Pima
85713
Tucs on
Pima
85734
Tucs on
Pima
85706
Tucs on
Pima
85721
Tucs on
Pima
85719
Tucs on
Pima
85709
Tucs on
Pima
85747
Tucs on
Pima
85641
Vail
Pima
85741
Tucs on
Pima
85131
Eloy
Pinal
85739
Tucs on
Pima
85132
Florence
Pinal
85704
Tucs on
Pima
85618
Mammoth
Pinal
85710
Tucs on
Pima
85658
Marana
Pinal
85737
Tucs on
Pima
85653
Marana
Pinal
85742
Tucs on
Pima
85623
Oracle
Pinal
85745
Tucs on
Pima
85141
Picacho
Pinal
85749
Tucs on
Pima
85145
Red Rock
Pinal
85750
Tucs on
Pima
85631
San Manuel
Pinal
85746
Tucs on
Pima
85192
Winkelman
Pinal
85705
Tucs on
Pima
85645
Amado
Santa Cruz
85748
Tucs on
Pima
85611
Elgin
Santa Cruz
85755
Tucs on
Pima
85624
Patagonia
Santa Cruz
85756
Tucs on
Pima
85648
Rio Rico
Santa Cruz
85757
Tucs on
Pima
85637
Sonoita
Santa Cruz
85701
Tucs on
Pima
85646
Tubac
Santa Cruz
85707
Tucs on
Pima
85708
Tucs on
Pima
85712
Tucs on
Pima
85718
Tucs on
Pima
28