Chicago Bears owner Virginia McCaskey died on Thursday, which will happen when you’re 102 years old. McCaskey had, understandably, not been in the public eye much of late, with her son George McCaskey serving as team chair, while president Kevin Warren took on most of the leadership duties, including trying to shake down various Chicago-area municipalities for stadium money.
Now, though, a report in Crain’s Chicago Business claims that Virginia McCaskey’s death could impact not just the team’s ownership — her roughly 30% of the team will pass down to her heirs, some of whom are reportedly eager to sell them for cash — but the team ownership’s stadium plans as well:
The team’s proposal unveiled in April for a new $3.2 billion stadium just south of Soldier Field calls for $2 billion of that to come from the Bears. While the team hasn’t specified the sources of that funding — large portions could come from things like personal seat license and naming rights revenue, for example — splintered ownership stakes could factor into their ability to finance the project. Nuances of ownership would matter to state lawmakers if they were to sign off on a large public subsidy to help, as taxpayers will need to know with whom they are doing business.
That’s pretty handwavy: If Bears ownership figures out how to pay for a stadium, and Illinois lawmakers are asked to contribute, they might care who owns the team. State elected officials are already on record as caring more about not contributing state money or at least not if the Bears keep sucking, but sure, who owns how many shares could matter, maybe.
Take that at put it through the bad 2025 journalism filter, and we get Sports Mockery’s headline:
We Finally Know Real Reason The Chicago Bears Stadium Has Stalled
Danny Ecker of Chicago Business finally revealed a new wrinkle that explains a lot. According to what he’s gathered, one reason the state is dragging its feet is the uncertainty surrounding Bears ownership. It stems from the McCaskeys giving so many shares to family members rather than just a concentrated group. That has led to reservations about whether they can finance the project as planned.
That’s not what Ecker’s article says at all: It doesn’t mention anything that could remotely be construed as a “reason the state is dragging its feet.” So Sports Mockery — which is actually a real news site, sort of, despite its name — has made up that headline out of whole cloth. All indications are that the reason the state is dragging its feet is that state leaders, not least Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, are not currently inclined to cut a billion-dollar-plus check to any Bears owners, fragmented or not.
Back in Crain’s, Ecker concludes his article with the unassailable conclusion that “the team’s moves in the weeks and months ahead will offer clues and signals about what will change and what won’t in a new era of ownership for the Monsters of the Midway.” Ah, the old “one thing’s for sure: no one knows” kicker. Now there’s some fine journalism tradition.
The “one things for sure: no one knows” link goes to a private video.
Thanks — replaced it with a fresh link.
I get the feeling the politicians who do not want to give stadium money to the McCaskeys will give money to a wealthy business man like Pat Ryan (founder of Aon Insurance and current owner of 10% of the Bears).
Maybe? It worked when the Tigers switched pizza magnates from Monaghan to Ilitch.
So far, the McCaskeys have said they don’t want to sell the team, but it’s always possible that making Ryan managing partner could change the politics. Though you’d think they would have done so already if that were the main roadblock.
Note: Pat Ryan will be a sprightly, youthful 88 in May (well, at least in comparison to the late Virginia). He may have to worry about his own successor with regards to his Bears ownership.
Seems like you’d need a multi-multi billionaire to afford the Bears. Forbes lists the team as worth $6.4 billion. But you’d need another 3 to 4 billion is you want a new stadium. Sounds like a job for a sovereign wealth fund.
Happily enough, there is one such fund with a, um, proud… tradition of sports franchise ownership! And they are pals with Jerry, Donnie and Dubya!
Nobody has a problem with bone saws being displayed/wielded at the ownership meetings, right?
The similarities between Newcastle and the Bears are pretty striking. Decades of incompetent management, Saudi’s willing to spend, hire the smartest football people.
Lots of Bears fans maybe be hesitant regarding Saudi money, but winning + new stadium brings them back.
With all due sympathies to the McCaskey families for their loss, it is going to be really interesting to see how this plays out.
The linked articles explain what the ownership status was in 2013. We’ve no way of knowing what, if any, changes have taken effect since then. Nor can we know whether any of the children who held 3.8% individually have sold or negotiated to sell any portion of their holdings to an existing owner (if it were to an outsider, the NFL would have had to approve the change more formally than ‘internal adjustments’). Any such sale could be completed as an option to purchase, with some or all money transferring up front and the change of ownership of the share not becoming effective until after Mrs. McCaskey’s death.
One would think that any “internal” transfer or agreement to transfer would have involved one or more family members buying up part or all of their sibling’s share.
Presumably Mrs. McCaskey’s own 19.7% share will pass to her surviving children equally. If so, it would raise each of their holdings to just shy of 6% of the whole.
What becomes of the McCaskey-Halas holding companies’ 11.3% share? It could be distributed as we expect her personal share might be. On the other hand, control of those companies might pass to specific heirs or designates (yes, him).
So the family may control about 54% directly and perhaps another 11.3% through holding companies.
Add to that the 19.7% Mr. Ryan “has a controlling interest in” and we are still just at 85%. The owner of the remaining 15% is not noted in the article that I can see.
Interesting times ahead. Mr. Ryan may end up the largest of the minority shareholders. On the other hand, it wouldn’t take much of a gain in Mike McCaskey’s personal share + the holding company shares for him to be the largest minority shareholder, presumably with the backing of at least some of his siblings.
I don’t think this is how George Halas saw things developing when he set up his will.