On top of everything else this week, the Tampa Bay Rays management dropped their draft memorandum of understanding for a Tampa stadium deal, which sheds a little more light on what precisely they’re asking for in terms of public money. I’ve only had a chance to give it a quick read, but so has Noah Pransky of Shadow of the Stadium, so maybe combined we can hit the biggest takeaways:
- This is just the Rays’ proposed MOU; county officials haven’t reviewed it yet.
- Rays owner Patrick Zalupski wants it finalized by June 1, so that a stadium can be open by 2029 — probably an impossible timetable, but if it works to create a two-minute warning, sure, why not?
- The land under the stadium itself, currently owned by the state, will be shifted to the county’s possession — so all of that previously reported between $1.1 billion and $2.5 billion in free land and property tax breaks is still in play.
- The Rays will lease (or maybe “license”) the stadium for 35 years, for a rent of $10 a year. (No, that’s not a typo: not $10 million, $10.)
- The stadium itself will cost at least $2.3 billion, with $251 million coming from the city of Tampa (source TBD unless I missed it) and $750 million from Hillsborough County, which will include hotel tax (TDT) money, sales tax surcharge (CIT) money, revenue from an already existing TIF district (Drew Park) around the site, and possibly federal disaster recovery block grant funds. that, notes Pransky, are “generally earmarked to rebuild housing & infrastructure that support low-to-moderate income populations.”
- Any excess public revenue from all those tax streams will go into a future maintenance fund, so the actual amount of county funding could be much higher, a la the Atlanta Falcons‘ infamous “waterfall fund.”
- “The Rays Stadium Entity intends to seek additional Public Funding from other available public funding sources,” so the total public subsidy could be even more much higher.
- The Rays will impose a ticket surcharge, but that money will pay off the team’s portion of costs, not the public’s, so no help there.
- Likewise, the “Rays Stadium Entity will retain all revenue generated pursuant to the Lease, including but not limited to revenue associated with tickets, parking, suites, signage, advertising, promotional inventory, sponsorships, concessions, merchandise, broadcasting rights, royalties, licensing fees, concession fees and other sources described in the Lease.” So the city and county will get bupkis in stadium revenues to help pay off their share, not even naming rights on a county-owned building.
- This is all just an MOU for the stadium itself; the surrounding development appears to be waiting for a later date, so no more details on when that would be built, how much it would cost, how much in property tax breaks it would be receiving, or how on earth it could be “100 percent privately financed” but with “tax dollars from the district used to eventually pay off the tab.“
So we’re at a minimum of $2.1 billion in public costs for the entire project, and a maximum of who the hell knows, but numbers like $4 billion or even higher are certainly not out of the realm of possibility. There are certain to be lots of questions from Hillsborough County Commissioners, especially on that CIT sales tax surcharge that voters were promised wouldn’t be used for stadiums (and which residents currently oppose using for a Rays stadium) — in the MOU it’s earmarked for “on-site horizontal infrastructure,” which could mean things like roads and sewers but also building foundations. In fact, County Commissioner Joshua Wostal, who is emerging as one of the louder critics of the deal, has already called attention to a clause saying if the city and county can’t come up with the funds in the MOU, they’ll need to “use best efforts to endeavor to secure alternative financing,” something Wostal said seems to be a “poison pill” intended to “force the commissioners to vote no in what seems to be an intentional killing of the deal.” Or maybe they just hope commissioners will agree to anything, it’s happened before!
More on all that next week, surely. In the meantime, here’s the rest of this week’s news:
- Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas’s Royals stadium ordinance is now released as well, and there’s a lot less there than it sounded like yesterday: Yes, it promises $600 million in city money, but just as part of a future term sheet to be negotiated by the city manager, so at least the city wouldn’t be committing money now for a pig in a poke. Lucas announced that he would also ask the state to fund up to 50% of stadium costs from the $1.5 billion earmarked for stadiums by the state legislature last summer; half of that was set to go to the Chiefs, so it’s as yet unclear whether Royals owner John Sherman could tap more than $750 million of it. In any case, Lucas’s bill is more a framework of a wish list than an actual stadium agreement, so rest assured that there’s still time for city officials to negotiate all the important details before rushing it to a vote without enough public oversight.
- Las Vegas Mayor Shelley Berkley is offering two city-controlled sites as potential locations for a new arena for a possible NBA expansion franchise, because surely Las Vegas doesn’t have enough NBA-ready arenas already.
- The Houston Rockets arena is getting a $180 million upgrade with $95 million of that coming from the state, but Mayor John Whitmire says this is “at no cost to Houston taxpayers” because the money was going to be spent anyway so the arena can host the 2028 Republican Convention — which is not what “no cost” means at all, unless maybe Whitmore is proposing that Houston residents start refusing to pay state taxes, which is always an option.
- Oklahoma City is getting a new UFL football team for its new soccer stadium, will it pay any rent to help defray the city’s $121 million in stadium costs? Anyone? Never mind, probably not important.
- Men’s World Cup games in New Jersey this summer will force NJ Transit train service to be suspended for four hours before matches so that trains can all be used to get fans to the games, but don’t worry, “only one game will impact afternoon rush-hour commuters,” so it probably won’t be too bad a trainpocalypse.
- What about data center subsidies, you’re asking, do they suck as much for the public as sports subsidies? Yes, indeed they do. At least you don’t have to buy tickets to use them, though, just surrender the world’s oceans.
Re: UFL in OkC
I’m relatively sure Battlehawks pay rent for Dome and Dome keeps concessions revenue. I suspect UFL isn’t big enough to bully people around.
This is kinda old, but:
The XFL (which operates the Battlehawks) pays an $800,000 seasonal rent – a $300,000 flat fee plus $100,000 for each home game – while retaining all ticket‑sale revenue; the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission collects all concession and parking proceeds.
A three‑year lease was signed for the team’s return in 2023, mirroring the terms of the 2020 agreement, including a per‑ticket rebate that activates when a game meets a set attendance threshold.
The lease’s rebate and revenue‑sharing model covered the bulk of the XFL’s costs to rent the facility, allowing the league to offset expenses through strong ticket sales.
Probably the only UFL team that can make enough money to pay the rent.
Maybe that’s the real reason the league’s new owner wants them to move to Energizer Park. https://www.stlpr.org/sports/2026-02-23/new-ufl-owner-battlehawks-ditching-dome-energizer-park
So funny that for years, MLS teams had to share football stadiums that were too big and now spring pro football teams have to bunk with MLS and USL teams because those football stadiums are far too big for the UFL.
Yeah, it annoys me because after football games, soccer fields look like crap. So what was the point of building a “soccer specific stadium?”
Exactly, mb.
The former Home Depot Center in Carson has sported yardlines at various times of the year more or less since it was built. There are, of course, many others nowadays.
In some cases the notion of having local football games scheduled in these venues was included in the funding models – so that was built in.
I can certainly understand it making more sense to have local/city HS football championship games and the like in a 20,000 seat venue rather than a 60k or 70k venue, but as you say… wasn’t the reason we “needed” to fund these facilities that Soccer Specific Stadia were a must?? and that we “couldn’t” use existing facilities for MLS?
And now, what, exactly?
It seems to me it doesn’t cost “nothing” to redo a soccer pitch for 4 down football. In what way is it ‘better’ or more financially viable to configure a grass field for football than it is to, for example, only sell tickets to the lower bowl in a purpose built NFL stadium?
Two other items I saw recently…
“Miami Dolphins owner reveals the surprising annual event that earns him more money than ALL NFL games combined” nice to know that he makes all that money and gets nice tax breaks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nfl/article-15662085/miami-dolphins-stephen-ross-f1-revenue.html
And…in a shock to no one
“ Why city officials are warning that the Olympics could bankrupt Los Angeles”
https://laist.com/news/politics/why-city-officials-are-warning-that-the-olympics-could-bankrupt-los-angeles
“Sells more tickets” != “earns him more money.” Nice to see the Daily Mail’s journalistic standards are unchanged.
Hahaha. Yes!
On the Olympics thing, I’m going to write more about this next week, but it looks like several local officials have noticed that there’s nothing in LA’s agreement to stop LA28 from pocketing tons of money and saying to the city, “You said you’d cover any shortfall, here are all the bills, have fun.” Maybe somebody should have thought about this when rushing the deal through in two weeks in 2017!
Nah. It’s way more fun to just revel in the moment! Just sign on the dotted line. Have fun. And let the next elected officials worry about the (rather severe) consequences. Eyes roll.
I look forward to reading more!
As always, great work Neil.
Thank you. It helps to have so much sadly excellent material to work with.
Place your bets now on Polymarket, for the 2036 LA Riots!
At least the people building the OKC dual/triple purpose stadium have worked in translucent buildings as part of the development. Ok, some of them appear to be built in the same physical (yet translucent) space as portions of the stadium itself, but hey… you gotta be cutting edge.
Still no holographic displays? WTF Populous….
Because I couldn’t reply to mb:
So what was the point of building a “soccer specific stadium?”
Revenue capture.
A right-sized stadium that is team-controlled in which the game can be presented in an optimal atmosphere and which all ancillary revenues are kept by the team. (That includes renting it out, just as the Yankees did to Negro League teams, etc.)
No one ever said “soccer-only stadium.” Like any other venue, it isn’t viable at 17 MLS games per year.
Aesthetically, yes, it’s not great. But money is money, and for most of its existence, MLS didn’t capture enough of it. It may still not.
I don’t disagree with your points KT.
However, I still don’t see how it is better for the local/HS football team renting (and converting, where necessary) the stadium for 4 down football than to just use the existing NFL or college stadium and only selling tickets to the lower bowl.
There is a cost to staging a game no matter where you play it. But if you don’t have to redo the field (even just markings) and/or configure seating areas etc it should be significantly cheaper. If the renter is not paying these costs, then who is?
MLS may not have said “soccer only” stadia, but there is no arguing that the primary basis for the so called “need” for the facility was the claim that MLS clubs could not survive (much less thrive) in NFL/NCAA 4 down football facilities. If, as with some of the MLS facilities, the yardage lines/hashmarks etc are only installed for one or two games a year it’s not a significant impediment. At some point, however, the league will be undermining it’s own product in order to rent the field to someone else.
At least until MLS owners start ‘requiring’ the public to pay for roll out fields so that they can rent their publicly funded soccer facilities (that were necessary as soccer ‘can’t’ be played anywhere else) out for non soccer events without incurring too much cost of conversion.
I think the point is that MLS wants “soccer-specific” stadia (i.e., around 20-30k seats, field size right for soccer), and if they want to play other sports there too, whatever.
I’ve been to soccer at all kinds of stadiums, and agree that it’s nicest in a stadium built for soccer. Why that should be cities’ problem to solve, though, and not the soccer leagues’, is another story.