Back in May, the Denver city council voted 11-1 to approve spending $70 million for land and infrastructure for a new stadium for a new NWSL team — at the time unnamed, since dubbed the Denver Summit — with one catch: The council would need to re-vote on it in the fall. “It’s a dicey time,” said councilmember Paul Kashmann. “We may find things ease up over the next six months, or it may be doom and gloom — and we will have to make some very dire decisions.”
Six months later, Denver’s budget is fairly doomy and gloomy, and that was enough to cause the council last week to put off votes on four of the five stadium measures it’s considering. Council president Amanda Sandoval specifically pointed to such items as a possible pedestrian bridge to the stadium — sports team owners sure do love asking for pedestrian bridges — that currently has no set price tag, and is to be paid for by maybe asking the state for money or using local property tax funds or something, we’ll get back to you on that:
“How does that work if we don’t have the funding right now? Like, when does that come into play?” Council president [Amanda] Sandoval asked regarding the potential pedestrian bridge. “I’m just concerned that, like, we’re taking the cart before the horse.”
There was also this exchange between Sandoval and the team’s lawyer:
“The core agreement was in all of the documents that were sent to all council members last week,” said Andrea Austin of Greenberg Traurig, outside counsel for the group working on the development of the Summit’s stadium.
“Yeah, and parts of them are blank,” said Sandoval.
“Parts of the exhibit. The agreement itself is not blank,” Austin said.
“No, I want to see the funding, like the money is not here,” Sandoval said.
“The money is all in the funding agreement. What is not there are the specific allocations of how that is spent,” Austin said.
In fact, the proposed stadium project could be significantly worse for Denver than $70 million plus ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ for a pedestrian bridge. As covered here back in May, the council is also considering exempting the stadium land from property taxes, plus kicking back property taxes on the stadium itself and other nearby development — a subsidy that University of Colorado Denver sports economist Geoffrey Propheter at the time estimated would cost the public “definitely less than $300 million but definitely more than $175 million.” The Denver Urban Renewal Authority has since projected the TIF cost as $158 million through 2042, which would be more like $100 million in present value — even if that lower estimate is correct, city cash and tax breaks would end up covering the bulk of the team owners’ proposed $200 million stadium cost.
The team’s owners, who include Mellody Hobson, wife of billionaire filmmaker George Lucas, have naturally enough responded that if they have to go through a whole legislative process before cashing $170 million or more in taxpayer checks, maybe they’ll just take their soccer balls and go, you know, somewhere:
“Denver Summit FC ownership is committed to fulfilling our obligations to the league, our fans, our athletes and the community. That means we need to deliver a purpose-built stadium for women’s professional soccer – on time, ready for play in March of 2028. We have been planning for a permanent stadium at Santa Fe Yards in Denver’s urban core. Given the challenges we have faced in the Denver City Council process, we are currently pursuing a parallel path regarding the stadium site and engaging with other jurisdictions outside Denver. We will continue to engage in an open and honest dialogue with the Mayor, City Council and Community in Denver.”
The Summit are currently scheduled to start play in 2026 at the Broncos‘ stadium, so “need to deliver a purpose-built stadium” refers only to the team owners’ promise to the league that they’d get their own 14,500-seat stadium eventually. This seems like it shouldn’t really be Denver’s problem — “We should not be rushing a spending decision of this level because of agreements between private parties,” remarked councilmember Sarah Parady — but arbitrary deadlines and unspecified move threats are part of the standard stadium playbook, you just have to expect them and move on. The council has meetings all this week; it’ll be interesting to see if and how Sandoval and other members respond.
This is one I don’t understand the rationale. I don’t get why the women’s soccer teams need their own stadium when you already have an MLS stadium in the same market. Also, why would you put up that much money for a fringe league? Like we saw, Newark had to tear down the stadium they built for the Newark Bears after that team went out of business. What are they going to do with a soccer stadium if the team doesn’t last?
To be fair, the NWSL has made great strides in recent years, and their franchise values have gone up quite a bit.
You’d think using the stadium in Commerce City would be a natural, but the history of soccer in this country is one of non-cooperation between people you’d think would cooperate.
Also, Stan Kroenke.
The Kroenke point is a good one. Also the stadium is out in Commerce city, quite some way from the downtown (ish) ones like Mile High and Coors.
But why would this extraordinarily well funded ownership group spend their own money on stadium rent when they know they can bully local politicians into paying them almost anything to “not lose” this presently non-existent franchise?
They know the city will give someone a crap load of money and it would be unthinkable for them not to be first in line for corporate welfare.
Pay someone else to create a new team (or even league!) to replace it?
This is the land of opportunity, isn’t it?
I agree there’s no need to build SSS for a new team in a smallish league. It needs to prove itself first. The same point could have been made (and was) for most MLS expansion teams in markets that had no real history of professional soccer prior to the issuance of an MLS team.
If you don’t have a suitable stadium and cannot find or modify one economically, it should never be the public’s responsibility to do it for you.
Unfortunately, when the people involved include Walmart execs and George Lucas’ wife (who was successful in business in her own right), it is always the public’s responsibility to pay. How dare anyone even suggest they should spend some of their own (billions, and the ownership group here has many, many billions at their disposal) money?
Is this really any different than the way the public pays (in food stamps) because Wal Mart doesn’t pay most of it’s employees enough to afford food?
When you consider how much the taxpayers pay in food stamps to Walmart employees (because they can’t afford food on their meagre wages, thanks to nothing other than Walmart executives decisions), it’s possible that this company is the largest single recipient of Welfare in the USA.
Full marks to council members Sandoval and Parady for asking the right questions.
Will it help? Probably not. The Walton – Lucas ownership group will simply spend money on lobbying until enough council members are worried about re election to approve their ridiculous ask.
There was a time the ultra rich would have been ashamed to ask for the tax dollars of their employees. That time ended many years ago.
I remember reading during the NBA Finals about a company that years ago picked Indianapolis over OKC for a facility because at the time, OKC didn’t have pro-sports and Indy had 2 teams, which in their mind made it a more desirable place to live. So I get cities throwing money to get on the map.
However, I don’t get how far Arizona was going for the Coyotes since they didn’t have a following. I can even understand Hartford paying for a minor league baseball stadium since they don’t have a whole lot going on. But when you’re Denver and you have NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, and MLS. Not to mention the University of Colorado 35 minutes away, why would you throw anything for NWSL?
Studies of how companies make relocation decisions show that the presence of pro sports is almost never a factor. The top two considerations, as I recall, are good roads (both so workers can get to the their jobs, and so that execs don’t get stuck in traffic) and good schools (both so you have an educated workforce and so that execs have somewhere to send their kids). Pro sports is somewhere around 20th on the list.
Sports Business Journal did a story in June that United Airlines had picked Indianapolis over OKC. I think this is the article, but I am out of free articles: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/06/13/from-nooch-to-the-finals-inside-oklahoma-citys-surreal-journey-to-the-nba/
The presence of big-league sports adds to the quality of life, and quality of life is a big factor in location decisions. Look at Nashville; without sports, it would basically be Louisville. Now, it has Amazon and Oracle expanding there. Tennessee ranks 31st in education. Here is an article from when Bud Adams died: https://www.espn.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/54847/adams-helped-nashville-become-an-it-city
“Oklahoma City Mayor Ronald J. Norick was informed by United that Indianapolis was everything it wasn’t — a city with an NBA and NFL team and more than just one downtown hotel (all OKC had was a Sheraton).”
https://archive.ph/IYpAX
So we’re going solely on the word of the guy who was behind the tax measure that got Oklahoma City’s arena built, who might have reason to claim that not having a team was costing the city business. And even he said it wasn’t just about the city’s lack of sports teams.
Do you have a better source? This was back in 1991 so there isn’t a lot of great information from back then, but here is some more recent commentary that refers to that very deal: https://fox59.com/news/oklahoma-city-mayor-credits-indy-for-downtown-turnaround/
Granted it would be off-brand for you to admit there is some benefit to having major league sports vs not having them.
If employers really valued the school systems as much as you say, then you wouldn’t have companies based in the south. According to this study, Texas is 40th, Florida is 41st, and Tennessee is 30th. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state UPS literally moved its headquarters from Greenwich, CT (which has one of the best public schools in the country to Atlanta.
I’m just telling you what I’ve seen in relocation studies. This was a while ago, but I’ll see if I can track down the one I’m thinking of.
In the meantime, if you want to approach this from a different direction: If the presence of sports teams drew companies to relocate to a city, you would expect to see more growth in cities that gained teams than in cities that lost them. That’s been studied and found not to be the case — if anything, cities without teams do slightly better.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00597.x
“Look at Nashville; without sports, it would basically be Louisville.”
Spectacularly incorrect — even without pro sports, the city and its surrounding regions would have continued to bloom into a major population center and an emerging corporate hub.
Also, there’s a pretty significant counterpoint in the heart of Texas to the idea that pro sports is what puts a major city “on the map.”
If you’re referring to Austin, it’s an hour from San Antonio. They already have an MLS team, and it’s only a matter of time before they make a play for a major league team. People used to say the same thing about Vegas, and now they have 2 teams with a 3rd on the way.
Agreed that the Louisville analogy is WAY off. Sports is such a small draw of why anyone would visit or move to Nashville.
You don’t see Louisville teeming with bachelorette parties every weekend? The sheer quantity of live music venues and fine dining? High quality hotel rooms? It’s Vegas without the gambling.
Louisville? Try again slugger.
Part of what is happening here relates to other mayor-city council clashes that are coming to a head. Mayor Johnston has a real “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude and has repeatedly big-timed city council after somewhat rare unanimous votes by council. For one, the mayor organized a land swap with a commercial developer, where the developer would give up land in the city to become a city park, and the developer would get city-owned land near the airport. This deal was approved by council, but later on, the mayor tacked on 20 acres to the airport land without going back to council. That pissed a lot of councilors off. Another issue was with Flock surveillance cameras – something going on nationally – where council voted to turn down a proposed contract extension from the mayor to pay Flock. The mayor then negotiated a no-cost contract extension with Flock to circumvent another council vote.
So when the Denver Summit funding came to council again, they were pissed. I think it would have faced some headwinds anyway, especially from Parady, but now Council is also trying to flex their muscles especially when it comes to budgeting. If this had come back to council in August, it probably would have moved forward with little issue.