The Providence-Warwick MSA is nearly double the population (1.68M) of the Worcester MSA (978k). GDP / Capita is lower in Worcester too, albeit marginally.
There's not an economic case that the team is better off in Worcester. And you can't even justify it based on the team owning the stadium and getting some tax breaks or something, because
they don't, it's city-owned. Instead, Worcester floated $146M in bonds to fund the construction and
stands to lose, rather than gain, $40-60M for its trouble. That's nearly a
full Schilling! Apparently the ballpark is profitable on an operations basis, but not by nearly enough to fund the debt service (even if you make favorable assumptions about nearby commercial development), hence the loss. It's a vanity project, for both city and owner. They didn't even design it to hold concerts at the stadium, because they "wanted it to be just like Fenway", so that prospective money, also down the toilet.
"future Worcester's problem"? Hardly. It's already today's problem. What else could that money have funded locally? Are the schools particularly great? Any potholes in the roads? Maybe their airport could be more than a curiosity if you could get there by any means other than driving through 2 or 3 residential neighborhoods? A ballpark was not near the top of anyone's list of priorities, except a couple of city officials that Larry wined and dined.
And yeah, it's a
35-year lease agreement. They're not going back to Rhode Island, not within the lifetimes of a decent fraction of SoSHers.