The Kansas City Chiefs are moving to Kansas! The Kansas City Chiefs are … maybe moving to Kansas? The Kansas City Chiefs have said they’re moving to Kansas, somewhere, definitely, once they work out the details of how to cash an enormous check from state taxpayers.
Here’s what we know so far:
- The Kansas state legislature’s Legislative Coordinating Council met yesterday and unanimously approved using state sales and liquor taxes in and around a stadium district to pay off bonds covering 60% of the cost of a Chiefs stadium, pretty much just like they said they would a year and a half ago. (The original authorizing legislation would have covered up to 70% of the stadium cost.)
- Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly announced: “This agreement to bring the Chiefs to Kansas takes our state to the next level. With this new stadium, we’re creating thousands of jobs, bringing in tourists from around the world, attracting young people, and most importantly, we’re continuing to make Kansas the best place in America to raise a family.” The stadium, she said, “requires no new funds from the current state budget and no new taxes on Kansans.”
- Chiefs owner Clark Hunt put up a statement on the team website saying “we have entered into an agreement with the State of Kansas to host Chiefs football beginning with the 2031 NFL season” and “we look forward to designing and building a state-of-the-art domed stadium and mixed-use district in Wyandotte County,” though “we have a lot more work to do to make this vision a reality.”
What’s the more work to do? KMBC spells out that yesterday’s agreement (full text here) is a “nonbinding term sheet” — a draft proposal, basically — that would tremendously up the ante for Kansas taxpayers:
- With a Chiefs stadium now coming it at a staggering $3 billion, state taxpayers’ 60% share could be as much as $1.8 billion. (It’s unclear if there would be enough sales and liquor taxes in the stadium district to cover that much state spending, but once the bonds are sold, it would be the state’s problem to figure out how to cover the bills — if all else fails, they could just expand the stadium tax district until it stretches all the way to Topeka.) Then a second phase of development around the stadium could cost between $1 billion and $1.4 billion, with the public on the hook for as much as another $975 million — bringing the potential total taxpayer cost to $2.775 billion.
- Good news: The Chiefs would pay rent! Bad news: It would only be $7 million a year, which even if it scaled up for inflation would only come to about $200 million in value over a 30-year lease, which is a whole lot less than $2.775 billion. Worse news: Much of the rent money would be set aside to help pay for stadium maintenance and upgrades, so that wouldn’t be revenue that could be used to offset the state’s stadium costs regardless.
- The state or a quasi-governmental authority would own the stadium, so presumably the Chiefs would get out of paying property taxes.
- The Chiefs would have to repay the public’s costs if they tried to leave in the next 15 years, but after that the penalties would gradually decline until they were at zero in year 30.
- According to the draft agreement, the Chiefs would retain all naming rights revenue from the building, even though it would be owned by the state and public money would pay for 60% of the construction cost.
- The agreement is only an exclusive negotiating term that lasts until next October 31, after which Hunt can resume negotiating with Missouri if he wants. The Chiefs can also back out of the deal early if they don’t have a site acquired by next May 15.
I’m still trying to finalize the numbers for the value of that tax break [UPDATE: early estimates by Geoff Propheter are that it would be worth about $500 million in present value], but clearly we’re looking at a deal that would cost Kansas more than $3 billion, which would be the second most costly stadium project for taxpayers in history, behind only the off-the-charts insane Washington Commanders deal. And that’s without even knowing if Hunt plans on seeking any city or county money, or if the eventual lease would include a state-of-the-art clause that could allow the team owners to demand future upgrades. (One thing we do know: State lawmakers will get one luxury suite, but will have to pay for their own food.)
Even as a deal written so far in pencil, this is a ginormous win for Hunt, and for his strategy of playing off Kansas and Missouri against each other to shake loose the best deal. (That sound you just heard is of Royals owner John Sherman drooling audibly.) It’s also a bullet dodged by Missouri, whose residents will lose out on at most $29 million a year in Chiefs-related taxes (if you believe the Chiefs’ own consulting reports) while Kansas has to pay around seven times that in tax subsidies, and will only have to drive a bit farther to go to Chiefs games. In fact, Missouri officials should be issuing triumphant “better them than us” statements right about—
[Missouri State Sen. Nick] Schroer said he will be filing legislation this week “to get rid of the asinine classification of the Chiefs as Missouri’s official NFL team as it was passed just a few sessions ago. Similarly I will be getting rid of the asinine ‘handshake’ border-war resolution which says we will play nice with our neighbors next door.”
Not that the Kansas-Missouri truce on poaching each other’s businesses was ever really respected, but getting back at your neighboring state by threatening to bribe its companies to move to your state is exactly why border war compacts are needed. As State Sen. Patty Lewis remarked yesterday, “There are no winners in a border war, just losses on both sides. Companies moving back and forth across the state line to reap massive tax breaks while creating no real net job growth is bad for families, bad for the region and bad for both states.” It’s very, very good for company owners, though — $3 billion good, in this case — so expect billionaires to keep on trying to play states and cities off against each other so long as it keeps on working.
Neil, if you’re looking for fresh material for a new set of Field of Schemes refrigerator magnets, I respectfully submit the following:
“Today, Kansas won the Super Bowl,” [Kansas] Senate President Ty Masterson said. “This is a huge win for Kansas. Now, we get to watch our beloved Chiefs play right here at home, keeping jobs and tax dollars right here in Kansas. Best of all, this will not cost one more penny for Kansas taxpayers.”
He’s right, though. It won’t cost Kansas taxpayers one penny. It will cost them more than $2Bn. How much more, we don’t yet know.
“State lawmakers will get one luxury suite, but will have to pay for their own food.”
As JC Bradbury pointed out on Bluesky, taxpayers are going to be paying for that food.
Native son of KC, MO and former resident of Oakland, CA. Proud of both of my former homes for not writing giant checks to wealthy disgusting pig owners.
Kansas – Huge congrats on your huge “win”!!!
And how many exclusive negotiating agreements and nonbinding deals went on in Oakland before the final f***offs? This KC mess is sadly far from over, I just hope there’s enough of a constituency to minimize the ripoff
Native Missourian and former Oaklander as well, and completely agree with you.
I dont know the area well, but considering most of the metro area including the downtown is in Missouri, does Missouri actually ‘win’ in that Kansas bears all the cost, while Missouri reaps a good portion of the financial benefit from having a local team? Seems like its mostly an ego boost for Kansas with limited opportunity to recoup their costs, and a very expensive one at that.
While the Kansas side of the metro is traditionally wealthier, and they’ve added substantial non residential development the last few decades- they lack hotel and convention facilities. So unless that changes- people attending events at the new stadium and the larger events with ancillary activities will have a large presence in Kansas City Missouri and fill up hotel rooms there.
Here in *eastern* Missouri, sportscasters are simpering about MO no longer being an NFL state.
It’s what they do.
Missourians on social media are up in arms, blasting the governor and blah blah blah because footbawwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Hey, you have to drive farther, your team is still in your metro and your state doesn’t have to pay $2.8B.
Morons.
“Kansas’ Chiefs STAR bond district could span 293 square miles; public cost could top $6.3B”
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2025/12/23/chiefs-kansas-star-bond-district-economists.html
It’s a good deal for Missouri all the way. The only down side I see is they will need to knock down a stadium in 2032. When will Arrowhead be paid off or will it be another stadium knocked down while still being paid for?
It will be paid off by the end time of the lease and hopefully, we Jackson County taxpayers will have our sales tax reduce 3/8th of a cent…of course that depends on what the KC Royals end up doing…
Would not have predicted the Chiefs opting for Kansas before the Royals. Does that state really have another $2 billion to “lure” the Royals.
The perceived economic benefits of a baseball stadium (81 days a year) outweigh the meager returns on football (10 days including preseason). KS could wind up with that suburban shell (see Pontiac) while MO at least gets a potential return on a Royals stadium.
It’s a lose-lose a bit less situation.
I’ve always hoped we’d retain the Royals between the two teams based just on that…many more playing dates. To be fair, Arrowhead does probably do about 10-15 more events (concerts, etc). Since I work and live within 2 miles of the stadium, our restaurant gets more guests come in to eat before concerts than for Chiefs game. When the Mahomes phenomenon started, the city began basically shutting down during games so only sports bars do good business, everyone else, not so much. So the claim about generating more revenue and thus taxes is plainly a lie