The famous line from the 1989 film Field of Dreams: “If you build it, they will come”, might work beautifully as a movie idea; it’s definitely not a stadium strategy.
In the real world, people do not go to a stadium just because the stadium exists. They go because there is a reason to be there – a sports game, a concert, a cultural event, a convention or a community experience. Similarly, events are not held at a stadium because the venue is shiny and new. They’re there because the commercial case works.
Crowds follow content, and content follows economics. This is the part of the stadium debate that is often forgotten.
Understandably, most people get excited about something new and shiny, and there is no argument that great stadiums that can host major sporting moments, global artists, cultural events and experiences which bring people together at scale help create unforgettable moments for cities and communities.
But new does not automatically mean great, and this is why the conversation about stadiums needs to become more realistic.
A stadium does not become successful because it is new, covered or architecturally impressive. It’s successful because it has the right content, the right operating model, the right commercial structure, the right maintenance plan and the right event calendar for the market it serves.
Without the right market strategy, a stadium can quickly become a very expensive piece of underutilised infrastructure.
New Zealand is a country of just over 5 million people. Auckland is a city of around 1.8 million. When Eden Park sells out for an All Blacks match, close to 1% of New Zealand’s population is inside one stadium on one night.
That is extraordinary, and there are very few stadium markets in the world where a single event represents that scale of national attendance. While it is definitely something we should value, it also tells us something important about the size and scale of the market we operate in.
We are not Melbourne, Sydney, London or Los Angeles. We do not have unlimited major sporting games, we do not sit naturally on every global touring route, and we do not have multiple millions of people within easy reach of the venue every week.
A new stadium does not change that. Auckland will not suddenly host six All Blacks games a year because a stadium is new. The Blues will not suddenly play every single game in front of 50,000 people. International football is growing, which is exciting, but it still has to be built event by event, audience by audience and commercial case by commercial case.
Concerts are the same. International touring decisions are not made on the venue alone. Promoters and artists consider freight, routing, production costs, market size, exchange rates, available dates, local funding, ticket pricing, risk and whether New Zealand fits into a wider global tour.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. Like it or not, New Zealand is a long way from the rest of the world. Moving people, stages, screens, lighting, sound, equipment and production teams here is expensive. In an increasingly competitive global events market, we are not just competing with Australia. We are competing with Asia, North America, Europe and the Middle East.
A new stadium may improve some aspects of the fan experience, but it does not change the size of the population, the number of premium sporting fixtures available, the economics of global touring, or the fact that every major event has to stack up commercially.
That is why utilisation is so important, and why it is so often misunderstood.
A successful events calendar in New Zealand is not built on hosting 365 major events every year. It is built on a carefully planned mix of major sport, concerts, cultural events, community activity, commercial uses and smaller experiences that keep the venue active, relevant and financially sustainable.
Full-stadium events are limited in any market, and especially in a country of our size. A venue may be active across the year, but only a portion of that activity will involve tens of thousands of people filling the stands.
Of course, stadiums will always showcase crowds in photos and videos. They should. Those images capture the energy, atmosphere, connection and emotion that make live events so special. But those images do not show the full economic reality of operating a major venue across 12 months of the year. The real test is not whether a stadium can look spectacular on its biggest nights, it is whether it can remain active, relevant and financially sustainable on all the other days as well.
That is not a lack of ambition. It is market reality.
It is also why the idea that a new stadium will revitalise a city needs to be treated carefully.
Stadiums can absolutely contribute to city vibrancy. They can drive foot traffic, support bars and restaurants, create destination value and help shape how people experience a place.
But they are not a silver bullet. A stadium cannot carry a city centre or visitor economy by itself. It needs to be part of a much broader ecosystem that includes transport, hotels, hospitality, public spaces, safety, programming, residential density, commercial activity and a year-round reason for people to be there.
While the event creates the economic surge, the city has to create the conditions for that surge to become lasting value.
On event day, a major stadium can feel like the centre of the city, and it is something we love enabling. The streets are busy, bars and restaurants are full, trains and buses are active, hotels benefit. People gather, spend, celebrate and remember why live events matter.
But what happens the next day, and the day after that?
If a precinct depends entirely on stadium event days, then the economics are fragile. Cafes, bars and retailers do not survive on major event days alone. They need daily activity, weekday trade, residents, workers, students, visitors, tourists and a broader urban environment that supports them.
So while the stadium is one piece of the puzzle, it will never be the whole picture.
I appreciate the public debate that assumes new infrastructure is automatically more ambitious than improving and fully utilising what we already have, but existing infrastructure should not be dismissed simply because it already exists. Responsible infrastructure planning is not about choosing what looks most exciting; it is about understanding value, cost, utilisation, risk and long-term return.
That does not mean cities should not be ambitious. They absolutely should be. But ambition has to be matched by commercial discipline, and for stadiums, that means asking hard questions.
- What content will the venue actually secure?
- How many major events are realistic in this market?
- Who carries the financial risk?
- How is the venue maintained over the next 30, 40 or 50 years?
- What happens during non-event days and long periods without an event?
- How does the stadium generate revenue beyond ticketed events?
- How does it support the wider city without becoming a burden on ratepayers or taxpayers?
Those questions are not as exciting as architectural renders, but they are the questions that determine whether a stadium succeeds.
The truth is simple. A stadium does not become world-class because it is new. It becomes world-class because it is used well, managed well, maintained well and integrated well into the city around it.
The real work is in securing content, building partnerships, investing in the fan experience, improving transport connections, supporting promoters, growing new event categories, managing costs, maintaining the asset, working with Council and government, understanding the market, and making sure the venue delivers value not just on event day, but across the year.
So while some people are still debating where a stadium should be located, the more productive conversation for Auckland and New Zealand is about what it actually takes to keep attracting major events.
Build it, and they will come is not a stadium strategy. Crowds follow content, content follows economics, and events don’t arrive on a silver platter. They come because a city, a venue and a market strategy have created the conditions that make them possible.
