NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — As Metro Council prepares to take a vote on the term sheet of a potential new home for the Titans, one economist is saying a new stadium may not trigger an economic boom for Nashville.

Governor Bill Lee, R-Tennessee, helped push through legislation that allows for $500 million in state money to go to a new, domed stadium in Nashville and told reporters last week it’s a “wise” investment for the future of the state.

“Jobs are created and lives are changed when tourists come here, and tourists come to a city that has a significant venue like a covered domed stadium,” he said.

However, Kennesaw State University sports economist J.C. Bradbury disagrees with the idea that a domed stadium means economic development for the surrounding region.

“Every single stadium that has ever been built has had this exact same promise of, ‘you are going to have huge economic growth, the stadium is going to pay for itself on Day 1,'” Professor Bradbury said. “Then, give to 10 years later, numerous media stories about how the stadium isn’t covering its obligations, and everyone is shocked it didn’t come true.”

Bradbury referenced the new stadium for the Atlanta Braves and Buffalo Bills, but it’s a topic economists have been studying for years.

In their article titled, “Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost?” two economists say the promises of an economic boom and more jobs from a new stadium “contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums…building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.”

Other economists have also disputed the idea that being a host city for the Super Bowl will help a city’s economy.

In their paper, “Super Bowl or Super (Hyper)Bole?” economists warn that, “Cities would be wise to view with caution Super Bowl economic impact estimates provided by the NFL. It would appear that padding is an essential element of the game both on and off the field.”

Bradbury explains that while people will spend a lot in a stadium, that isn’t always a lot of new money being put into the economy.

“People don’t spend their money on other restaurants or other leisure activities in the area, and so it’s not really generating a lot of new revenue for the area,” he said.

However, one of Mayor Cooper’s team’s arguments for why the Titans need a new statement has nothing to do with future economic gains and instead focuses on getting rid of past financial obligations.

Cooper has repeatedly claimed that this deal is the best option for getting out of the current lease for Nissan Stadium, which requires the city to renovate the stadium, while also protecting taxpayers.

“By ripping up the old lease and working with our state partners, we are focusing your tax dollars on what really matters – serving your neighborhood,” Cooper said in a video about the deal posted to his social media pages.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Mayor Cooper added that this deal comes with other benefits for the people of Nashville.

“Metro Finance has determined the revenue sources available under the current stadium deal cannot support a renovation, leaving Nashville taxpayers legally on the hook for hundreds of millions for stadium improvements and no practical way to pay for it  Alternatively, the proposed agreement for a new stadium is paid for by the Titans, the state and users of the stadium campus; requires zero dollars from the general fund, and returns 66 acres of land back to Metro control. It doesn’t take an out-of-state college professor to figure out which is the better deal for taxpayers,” the spokesperson said.