I'm not really trying to help or hurt Seattle's argument as much as just understand what that argument is and based on Midtowner's explanation, it's seems to be a sentimental one more than anything and I was wondering what the legal basis was for arguing that if a team provides an unusual amount of sentimental value for a community, it then becomes responsible for the tangential economic impact of it's presence in such a way that it may not only have to compensate the community for the loss of that sentiment by way of monetary damages, but may also be forced to execute specific performance to maintain that sentiment. Maybe they could argue that was the intent of the specific performance clause all along, which may be their angle altogether.

However, if it's based only on the sentiment (i.e championships, all-stars, celebrities status of players, community culture, atmosphere, etc.), as the text of the district court's opinion Midtowner provided above suggests, then, again, that can be argued for a broader range of businesses and industries. No doubt some businesses become institutions in their communities, not just for the service they provide, but for the cultural status and sense of identity and community they create.

Cities name streets after businessmen all the time. Hell, we almost named a street after a hotel chain. Some companies in smaller communities become the de facto center of the community's culture and not just in a symbolic way like sports teams do. And some serve as icons for even the biggest of markets. Are they responsible for economic impact of their cultural importance to such a degree that they are legally obligated to provide that economic benefit in monetary damages if they leave that community? I guess they are arguing that if you have a contractual agreement with the city, that you are responsible for the economic impact you provide to that city and the better you are at what you do, the more you are responsible for.

It's interesting.