Will the Kansas City Chiefs move to Greensboro? An investimagation

One of the main themes of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals‘ now-failed stadium sales-tax subsidy campaign was that if it didn’t pass, the teams would have to “consider our options,” as Chiefs owner Clark Hunt put it. So naturally, the media has been all abuzz the last two days with articles wondering if the teams will move — or at least whether the Chiefs will move, presumably since nobody gets that excited about the Royals, who have gotten off to a head start on an eighth straight losing season. And the media being the media, some of the headlines haven’t skimped on the alarmism:

• “Chiefs, Royals face uncertain future in Kansas City after stadium tax defeat” — Washington Post
• “Vultures already circling the Kansas City Chiefs after failed Jackson County stadium tax vote” — A to Z Sports
• “Will Chiefs move to Kansas? Effort to lure team underway after failed Jackson County vote” — Kansas City Star

The actual news here, though, is awfully thin. Yes, the Chiefs’ lease expires in 2031, after which the team could theoretically move if Hunt can find a more lucrative place to move to. Yes, Ron Ryckman Jr., whose Twitter handle is still “Speaker Ryckman” even though he retired as Kansas House speaker last fall, texted the Kansas City Star that “Jackson County fumbled. Now there will be a mad scramble for the ball and we’re in the best position for a scoop and score,” pointing to a state fund from sports betting proceeds that currently has $4.1 million in it as evidence that “Kansas taxpayers will see minimal costs” from any new Chiefs stadium. And yes, the mayor of Dallas posted a somewhat tongue-in-cheek “Welcome home, Dallas Texans!” tweet following the vote, saying, “our market is big enough, growing enough, and loves football more than enough to support a second NFL team.” (Greensboro officials have so far remained coyly silent.)

So, politicians gonna grandstand, sure. But are the Chiefs really likely to go anywhere? To his credit, the Associated Press’s David Lieb looked at how this has historically worked out after team owners lose tax subsidy votes, and found typically they just stick around and try to shake down local elected officials some other way:

“Usually, team owners just find a new way to get money, and they’ll go the legislative route,” said Geoffrey Propheter, an associate public finance professor at the University of Colorado Denver. “Rarely do team owners just straight up leave.” …

After losing elections, some teams subsequently sidestep voters to get new stadiums.

In 1997, voters in 11 southwestern Pennsylvania counties rejected a proposed half-cent sales tax to replace a stadium shared by the MLB’s Pirates and NFL’s Steelers with two separate facilities and to fund a convention center expansion. But the next year, a regional development district approved public financing for the new facilities without going back to voters.

Similar scenarios played out elsewhere in the mid-1990s. When voters in King County, Washington, rejected a tax plan for a Seattle Mariners ballpark, owners threatened to put the team up for sale. Within a month, state lawmakers authorized a new financing plan for a new baseball stadium.

After Wisconsin voters rejected a sports lottery for a new Milwaukee Brewers ballpark, the state legislature authorized a regional sales tax to help pay for it.

And so on. Sure, there are counterexamples — Lieb mentions the San Diego Chargers moving to Los Angeles after a stadium funding referendum there went down to defeat. And it’s always worth noting that relocations are somewhat easier in the NFL, since it’s less of a challenge to find cities where you can sell out just eight home games a year, plus so much of teams’ revenue comes from national TV money that flows in regardless of where you play. But history shows that when team owners are denied subsidies at the ballot box, they try, try again — sometimes, as in the case of the San Francisco Giants, eventually deciding to build a stadium without a ton of public funds.

So far, officials in Jackson County seem amenable to negotiating a deal with the Chiefs and Royals owners that doesn’t suck quite so hard for the public, though it’s open to interpretation whether that means one that costs less public money or just one where the team owners are clear up front about exactly how much they’re asking for. But turning one mayor and one ex-legislator’s statements that, sure, they would love to host the Chiefs into an “uncertain future” is bad journalism — unless you see journalism’s job as being part of a “growth coalition” to get whatever local business leaders want done, in which case, fine job, Washington Post.