Milwaukee Brewers Case Study Some years ago, the Milwaukee Brewers’ then-president Bud Selig made the decision that, in order to keep the Brew

 CASE STUDY: MILWAUKEE BREWERS ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

OVERVIEW
Each Case Study assignment is designed to help the student make application of course content
to a real world situation. Read the assigned case study and connect the key issues in the case to
assigned readings and presentations. Respond to the questions with direct, thorough responses.
Each case study assignment should include the following:
• Title Page in APA format
• Introduction to the case summarizing the situation
• Questions converted to sub-headings – responses to each question
• Strong conclusion that summarizes the ideas
• APA Style Reference page (as needed)

INSTRUCTIONS
Milwaukee Brewers Case Study

Some years ago, the Milwaukee Brewers’ then-president Bud Selig made the decision that, in
order to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee, the organization needed to construct a new stadium.
Under the supervision of the new president, Wendy Selig-Prieb (Selig’s daughter), ground was
broken for MillerPark on November 9, 1996. In 2000, President Selig-Prieb stated, “The Miller
Park era is beginning soon, and with it a renewed vitality for major league baseball in Wisconsin.
Accordingly, we are committed to bringing a championship to Wisconsin. Our fans will enjoy a
world class ballpark, and also deserve a rewarding game experience.” Selig-Prieb believed that
Miller Park would bring fortune to Milwaukee, the surrounding area, and the Brewers; the same
is true for any organization that thinks it is necessary to build a multimillion dollar facility.
Countless Major league baseball teams all over the nation have considered, are considering, or
are in the process of building new stadiums in order to keep players, the community, fans, and
team executives happy. Most cities and teams turn to the idea of the new facility when they are
facing a buyout, relocation considerations, player and fan dissatisfaction, and so on. Baseball
club officials understand that the decision to construct a new facility can often reverse these
negatives.
County Stadium, the former home of the Milwaukee Brewers, opened on April 6, 1953, and
increased its seating capacity over the years to hold 53,192 fans. Miller Park, on the other hand,
holds only 43,000 spectators but features a convertible, fan-shaped roof. Miller Park is a more
elaborate establishment than the old County Stadium; it is the extra details found in new
stadiums that executives of major league teams believe will help keep their organizations
competitive from all angles.

Identify and explain the potential problems and opportunities that both the team and the
city might have faced that could have led to the decision to construct a new facility.
1. Use the steps provided in Exhibit 6.1 to decide whether you would have tried to build a
new stadium if you were in Selig-Prieb’s shoes.
2. Do you believe that facility construction is a rational decision for (1) team executives,
(2) city officials, and (3) local citizens? Explain.
3. Should team executives, city officials, and local citizens all be able to participate in the
decision-making process of building a new stadium? Explain the advantages and
disadvantages of including all of these individuals.
4. When making decisions about building a new facility, what type of decision style(s) and
problem attributes are most relevant and important? Explain.
5. Identify how Miller Park has helped or hindered the Brewers organization by finding
statistics from attendance records at County Stadium in 1999 and comparing them to
current records at Miller Park. With what you have learned, and with any additional
information you have found, justify whether or not the decision to build the stadium was
a positive move for the team.
6. Go online to locate another organization that has recently built or is currently
considering building a new facility. Use that organization’s website to try to identify
what led to that decision. Include any information regarding the funding options
associated with facility construction. Suggest some possible alternatives to facility
construction, if appropriate.