Who would pay for Blue Jackets’ billionaire owner’s $250m arena subsidy: a FAQ

Not sure if this is a sign of how few readers here care about the Columbus Blue Jackets, but when I wrote on Friday that the team owners are “receiving $200 million in state money plus $25 million each from the city and county,” nobody pointed out that this is still just proposed by the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority, not yet approved by city, county, and state legislators. Apologies for the misconstrual, but now that we’re here, let’s take a closer look at what exactly Ohio taxpayers are being asked to spend on the Blue Jackets. Want to do it in FAQ format? Sure, that could be fun:

What are the Columbus Blue Jackets?

Wow, really starting with the basics, huh? Okay: The Columbus Blue Jackets are an NHL team that plays in an arena in Columbus, Ohio. It was built with private money in 2000 — not team money directly, mind you, but money from Nationwide Insurance and the Columbus Dispatch, repaid by the team in rent — and widely seen as a successful example of a sports venue that didn’t require public funding. Until, that is, the team owners negotiated a bailout in 2011 where public money was used to exempt the team from the whole “having to pay rent” thing, so now it’s just another publicly owned facility where the team owners keep all the revenues.

Who is the team owner?

John P. McConnell, a billionaire who worked his way up from a laborer at a steel plant to chairman of the company, with nothing to help him except his dad owning the place.

Why are they asking for arena money now?

Nationwide Arena is 25 years old, and its locker rooms aren’t glamorous enough anymore. Also team execs want to create “new spaces for fans to gather and enjoy their company” and “wide-ranging improvements that ultimately focus on improving the experience” and “improving and securing the future of the building.” In other words, wine bars, probably.

How much tax money are we talking about, and where would it come from?

“Where would it come from?” is always a dangerous question with tax money, because ultimately it always comes from taxpayers: Even if it’s only a tax on fellows behind the tree, that’s still money that could have been used for services to benefit everyone, or even just to cut other taxes on other residents. But here’s what we know so far:

  • $100 million from that state slush fund of money from unclaimed funds like uncashed checks and inactive bank accounts that the state was just sitting on for private individuals, and decided to dedicate to local sports team owners instead. Yes, there is a lawsuit pending against this, but that isn’t stopping the state from handing out the money anyway; if the lawsuit is successful, presumably the state will have to find another source for this spending, but why worry about things that may never happen, right?
  • $100 million in “public bonds” issued by the stadium authority and paid off by increasing the amount of city and county casino tax revenue siphoned off to the authority, from 32% to 50%, as well as increasing the arena admission tax from 5% to 7%. A spokesperson for the Columbus Department of Development called this “dedicated revenue streams that have long supported the arena and do not impact the city’s General Fund,” which is funny way of describing casino taxes that are currently going to the city and county general funds.
  • $25 million each from the city of Columbus and Franklin County, which would raise the funds by, uh, hmm. Any decision about the city’s direct funding, Bankston said, won’t be determined until 2026. Columbus councilmember Nick Bankston said he thinks the city can pay its share through an existing tax increment financing district for the arena, but he also called redirecting casino taxes “user-based fees” because they’re paid by casino patrons, so maybe we shouldn’t be taking his word for anything involving how money works.

Who has to approve this $250 million subsidy?

Everybody! The Columbus city council will discuss the proposed casino tax diversion and admissions tax increase at its next meeting today, though it may run out of time for a vote before it adjourns for the holidays next Monday. The county is expected to first take up the casino tax at its January 13 meeting. The state legislature hasn’t put its $100 million on the agenda yet, and may not have to, since it already allocated $1 billion to its sports stadium slush fund and has only used $600 million of it on the Cleveland Browns so far.

So this is going to take much of 2026 to decide?

Yeah, probably. Early reports don’t show a ton of opposition, with elected officials largely arguing that the public money isn’t really public money, though Franklin County Administrator Kenneth Wilson did hedge a bit by saying that “there are many large funding requests on the table” and the county has to consider them all. Wilson also touted all the economic benefits that come from the arena, however, benefits that if the Blue Jackets played in an arena with more glamorous locker rooms would increase by, uh, hmm. There are maybe still some questions to be answered about this proposal, maybe it’ll be good if lawmakers take much of 2026 to answer them.

Share this post:

9 comments on “Who would pay for Blue Jackets’ billionaire owner’s $250m arena subsidy: a FAQ

  1. General rule of thumb for stadium subsidies: if the team seeking said subsidies is the only “major league” franchise in town, then it will get that public money one way or another. Even if that franchise is arguably the most anonymous and nondescript out of all four major North American sports leagues — which, just to be clear, is not at all the city’s or the fanbase’s fault.

    (Yes, I know Columbus also has a “major league” soccer team in town, don’t @ me)

    1. LOL.

      I’ve often thought of the “M” in MLS a bit like James Shields’ self/agent given nickname… If you have to give yourself the moniker “big game”, maybe you should think about how accurate it is…

      MLS has improved both as a business and in level of play. But is it really a big time world recognized sport?

      Three world class players who are now in their late 30s just helped Miami win the championship. MLS marketing may love it, but it is NOT a positive for the league as a whole.

      1. And Miami’s opponents on that day were more or less carried by another formerly world-class player who is now well into his 30’s, as well.

        Maybe not the perfect 1:1 comparison, but MLS is more akin to Euroleague basketball. The level of competition is high enough, and there’s a small but dedicated group of supporters who root for individual teams in it, but there are very clear examples of leagues that are far better in terms of business and quality of play/players.

      2. Obviously the level of play isn’t close to EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga of course but 19 MLS teams are in the top 50 of club valuation.

        https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/sportico-mls-home-to-19-of-top-50-most-valuable-soccer-clubs-in-world#:~:text=League%20&%20Club%20News-,Sportico:%20MLS%20home%20to%2019%20of%20top%2050%20most%20valuable,See%20the%20full%20list%20here.

        1. MLS is succeeding in its main mission. Staying in business. Will be interesting to see if it can sustain itself when they run out of cities to sell expansion teams to. They’re good at getting people to attend games, but not at getting people to watch them on TV. As someone old enough to remember NASL, MISL, NPSL, MISL again, NASL again. and more, I hope they can carry on.

          1. The last time I was attending MLS games regularly, it was because I was getting $3 tickets through my son’s youth soccer league. Not that that’s a bad strategy for building a fan base, but I’m not sure we can say for sure whether “getting people to attend games” and “getting people to buy tickets” are the same thing, at least when Messi’s not involved.

  2. Ohio should also expect the Bengals to demand a dome soon. If Cleveland gets a dome Cincinnati will want one too. Oh the hassle of having more than one large city in your state.

  3. Aren’t the Jackets now getting paid to play in the arena that they were originally supposed to pay rent on but then didn’t/couldn’t and got rent exemptions as part of a past deal?

    I seem to recall a “post rent abatement” agreement in which the city pulled a Glendale and started paying them to play in the arena that the team didn’t pay for and then reneged on paying rent to play in.

    It wasn’t a lot of money (substantially less than the $15m annually Glendale once paid the team to play in an arena they built for them that the team didn’t pay rent or most of their parking obligations on either), but …

    Or maybe I’m just thinking ahead a couple of years here…

    1. The Blue Jackets owners are getting naming rights money as part of the bailout, even though they didn’t build the arena and don’t own it. That’s not precisely the same as Glendale, but same general vibe.

      https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2011/09/15/3156/columbus-panel-proposes-public-private-bailout-of-blue-jackets/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed and will be removed.