Denver council puts off soccer stadium vote till next Monday amid public funding questions

The Denver city council met last night to cast a vote on moving forward with what could be $175 million in cash and tax breaks for a stadium for the Denver Summit NWSL team … and instead punted:

The council delayed voting on rezoning the Santa Fe Yards property near Interstate 25 and Broadway, but still held a public hearing. Council is now scheduled to vote next Monday on both the rezoning and whether to allocate $50 million in city funds set aside to purchase land for the project.

Councilmembers had previously said they wouldn’t move forward without a community benefits agreement with the local neighborhood, but that was resolved yesterday when the team owners agreed to chip in $300,000 a year toward things like scholarships and equipment donations. Rather, the vote was delayed “at the request of the city’s ‘executive branch’ to allow for the vote on the soccer stadium rezoning to coincide with the remaining pieces of legislation covering public funding and other steps necessary to keep the stadium in Denver,” reports the Denver Gazette — which suggests that the mayor’s office may be trying to get all its ducks in a row before holding a vote of a council that has raised questions about what exactly the city would be spending money on and why.

Stadiums built specifically for women’s pro teams are still rare, which has given rise to proponents saying that using public money on an NWSL stadium would only be fair. Team president Jen Millet insisted: “When you’re a tenant in a stadium, it’s not your true hub. Women deserve that. Just like men.” Meanwhile, the alt-weekly Denver Westword even ran an op-ed last week by a local middle schooler (with “more than ten years” of soccer experience? she must’ve started young) saying, “By debating whether or not to invest city funding to support building infrastructure around the new stadium – a discussion that rarely (if ever) happens with stadiums for men’s sports [ed. note: Ahem] – Denver City Council is sending a message to girls that we don’t matter as much as the boys.”

Public comment at last night’s council hearing was split, as it always is. This is presumably going to come down to haggling with individual councilmembers, which could go any direction — we’ll all regroup next Monday to see how things went, and whether the team owners can rely on appeals to gender equity, or if they’ll need to again threaten to move to the suburbs or somewhere, just see if they won’t.

Share this post:

Vancouver gives preliminary okay to build Whitecaps stadium on public land amid move threats

One week after MLS commissioner Don Garber said the Vancouver Whitecaps needed a “better lease” or else it’d be a shame about those paratroopers, the Vancouver city council and team owners have signed a memorandum of understanding to “explore” a new stadium and an entertainment district around it at a recently closed city-owned racetrack. And while there are still a lot of details to resolve — the MOU only establishes an exclusive negotiating period until the end of 2026 — the basic principles seem to have been worked out: The Whitecaps owners will build the stadium and arrange for the surrounding development in exchange for getting discounted access to public land.

Under the terms of the MOU, the Whitecaps would be financially responsible for building the stadium, while receiving the land at a below-market rate on a long-term lease.

However, the real change to the face of Vancouver wouldn’t come from the stadium — but a new “entertainment district” that the Whitecaps would receive continual profits from.

“If you have to build a stadium in Vancouver and it’s only the stadium, then the cost … will not put you in a financially better situation than we are now,” said [Whitecaps CEO Axel] Schuster, who has said a better long-term business model for the Whitecaps outside of B.C. Place was necessary to attract new investors.

“If we want to build a successful future for this club here, we have to get to a better and financial sustainable situation as a club … so we have to develop a whole plan around this.”

The MOU actually says that the project will pay “fair market value rents,” but also that such rents (and any property taxes and/or payments in lieu of them) will be “determined by the Parties as part of the negotiations,” so these are numbers that are going to be haggled over, not calculated by an independent assessor. Which, if the goal is to put the Whitecaps in a “better and financial sustainable situation” (sic), makes sense: You don’t make windfall profits by leasing city land at market rates, you do it by getting a sweetheart deal on the property and then keeping all the revenues for yourself.

The Whitecaps are indeed one of the less profitable teams in MLS, though calculating profit in that league has always been dodgy thanks to its single entity structure and reliance on inflated sale prices relative to actual income. Why the profits of the owners — Greg Kerfoot, Steve Luczo, Jeff Mallett, and (yes that) Steve Nash — should be the city’s problem is another story, and is probably why the owners have leaned heavily on threats that if they don’t get their way on a stadium, they could sell the team to out-of-towners:

“There are interested parties that would like to buy the Whitecaps,” said [Vancouver mayor Ken] Sim. “There are interested parties who want to take the Whitecaps out of the city of Vancouver if we do not create an environment, or if there’s no opportunity to have your own stadium or you have your concessions in the economics around it. There is no viable option for anyone who wants to keep the Whitecaps in the city of Vancouver.

“Let’s just call it what it is, there’s probably absolutely no path for the Vancouver Whitecaps to remain in Vancouver without this MOU.”

What makes all this especially interesting is that soccer is the only North American sport right now that isn’t a monopoly: The USL is moving ahead with forming a top division by 2027 that would compete with MLS as a tier-one league, even adopting promotion and relegation like European leagues use (and U.S. soccer fans are bitterly divided over). This means that even if the Whitecaps were to move, Vancouver could always apply for a USL team — or even a new MLS team, knowing that MLS would have to worry about their rival league staking a claim to Vancouver if MLS abandoned it. (Given the new promotion/relegation structure of the USL, it wouldn’t even have to be a top-tier team, but could be a lower-level team at first that could work its way up to the top by winning its league on the backs of relatively large-market revenues.) This changes the dynamic in a small but significant way, and arguably makes it even more unseemly for Vancouver’s mayor to be levying move threats on the team owners’ behalf rather than trying to cut a hard bargain with them.

In any case, whether this ends up a bad deal for Vancouver taxpayers will depend on the details of what gets hashed out: There’s a big difference between getting a slight discount on city land and getting it virtually for free, and we (and possibly even the city negotiators) don’t know which it will be yet. Vancouver residents, the next year will be important for keeping your elected officials’ feet to the fire, at least in terms of being transparent about what’s being agreed to before it happens — don’t be like your neighbors to the south on this one.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: What if schools got all the money they needed and sports teams had to hold bake sales to build stadiums?

Yes, that story about nobody knowing how much the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics cost because the Olympic committee literally set fire to its financial records is incredible, and yes, I really need to make a fridge magnet about it. This is more a note to myself than to you all, feel free to skip ahead to this week’s speed-round bullet points:

  • Cleveland mayor’s office chief of staff Bradford Davy said of the Guardians and Cavaliers owners’ insistence on more public money for venue upkeep and upgrades that “we are going to have to make sure that those relationships are strong and thoughtful,” but also that “the general revenue fund cannot be held accountable” and the city needs to look for other revenue sources that wouldn’t take away from spending on basic city services. I see where this is inevitably going, just be sure to say no to soufflés.
  • Also in Cleveland news, a federal judge has declined to issue an injunction against the state of Ohio’s use of unclaimed private funds to pay $600 million toward a Browns stadium plus more for other private sports projects, but is letting a lawsuit against the spending to move forward. It’s unclear what will happen if the Browns get their state check and the state then either loses its case or has its unclaimed private fund pool drained by state residents applying to get their money back — look for other revenue sources, I guess, it’s all the rage!
  • A consultant hired by the Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District has issued a report concluding that the Milwaukee Brewers stadium parking lots could hold $700-800 million worth of development, which if fully built out and taxed would supply $18.8 million a year in property taxes. True, the land is owned by the state stadium authority and so is tax-exempt, but maybe the district could cut a deal for payments in lieu of property taxes with some as-yet-unidentified developer, despite “environmental issues” like the parking lots being partly in a flood zone? Anyway, the Brewers’ president of business operations called it a “good first step,” that’s enough to build an entire headline around, print it!
  • Ottawa Senators owner Michael Andlauer has hired a team of lobbyists to push for public money from the federal and provincial governments for the new arena that the team has been fighting for since before their old owner died. It’s not clear exactly how much the lobbyists are asking for beyond money for “infrastructure financing and other government programs,” but the Ontario government does have an $8 billion infrastructure fund sitting right there, which you know must get Andlauer salivating. The local media is also reporting that Andlauer wants a similar deal to the one the Calgary Flames owners got in which about $300 million is coming from the province of Alberta and $537 million from the city of Calgary, but also that the Sens owner “has publicly stated that the organization will not be asking the City of Ottawa for taxpayers’ money.” Say no to soufflés, Michael!
  • Springfield is still looking at building a pro soccer stadium. Which Springfield? All of them, probably?
  • Rhode Island officials have refinanced their Pawtucket soccer stadium bonds with the terrible interest rate and somehow managed to be both paying even more this time and also having the state treasury for the first time be the backstop for bond payments. GoLocalProv reports that “the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation and the Pawtucket Redevelopment Agency have refused to comment on the new financing scheme,” and can you really blame them?
  • If you’ve been craving a supercut of the Buffalo Bills-themed Hallmark movie (horrifyingly not the first NFL-team-themed Hallmark movie) only containing the parts where the male romantic lead talks about how great the new Bills stadium is, Defector has got you covered.
Share this post:

FIFA’s bait-and-switch on sponsorships could cost US cities $250m during 2026 World Cup

I was on a stadium panel at Baruch College yesterday — video evidence to be available shortly, I hope — and one of the points I tried to make was that both elected officials and voters need to closely examine stadium deals, because the total costs almost always involve something hidden in the fine print, often around who gets what revenues and who pays for what operating expenses.

And while the latest news about the 2026 Men’s World Cup isn’t a stadium story per se, it does reveal the importance for cities to pay attention to the details when signing major sports deals:

The new “Host City Supporter” programme … involved the host cities – Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, to go with two in Canada and three in Mexico – signing up to contracts where they bore most of the costs, with limited access to tournament revenue, but on the understanding this could be made up by the new programme.

The aim was that every city would make around $25-30m from this, through a total of 10 Host City deals per city, but most cities are currently nowhere close to either target due to how restrictive Fifa’s own sponsorships are….

As one example, Philadelphia explored a $5m deal with local convenience store chain, Wawa, but the company’s sale of food was considered a breach of Fifa’s exclusivity agreement with McDonald’s.

Yep, FIFA, in the most FIFA-y way possible, told North American host cities that bearing all the World Cup costs while getting no direct World Cup revenue (not even sales taxes!) would be fine, because they could sell their own sponsorships — but then made it nearly impossible to find sponsors because FIFA’s own sponsors had locked up almost all of the market categories. The Independent reports that some cities have resorted to approaching “local dry cleaners and mechanics,” which is not likely to get them up to $25-30 million apiece in sponsorship revenue.

How much of a hole will this leave host cities in? The Independent says that the 11 U.S. host cities are facing “a collective shortfall of at least $250m.” However, the paper also claims that a requested $625 million in federal funding — FIFA Peace Prize winner Donald Trump hasn’t committed to it yet — would provide “an average of $56.8m [which] won’t come close to meeting costs,” implying that either it’s a $250 million loss per city or that whoever was editing this part of the Independent story didn’t read the “collective shortfall” piece. Earlier reports had the per-city costs as in the $100-200 million range, so the truth is likely lost in the fog of FIFA war.

This is par for the course for sports mega-events: Nobody knows how much exactly the Olympics cost, either, even in years when the host city doesn’t literally set fire to its ledgers. But whether it’s city taxpayers or federal taxpayers who end up footing the bill, it’s sure not going to be FIFA, which should help make up some of the organization’s shortfall now that it’s promised to stop taking bribes, maybe.

Share this post:

Building Royals stadium in Kansas could cost state 3,500 T-Mobile workers

T-Mobile announced yesterday that it will move its 3,500 workers from its Aspiria Campus office in Overland Park if the Kansas City Royals are allowed to build a stadium next door, saying the site “cannot accommodate both our workforce and a stadium.”

While the phone company said it hopes to stay “preferably within the city and state,” this does throw a new wrench into the idea that luring the Royals across the border to Kansas would represent an economic boon for the state. There were already plenty of good questions about whether that would be true, but this adds new ones, especially if T-Mobile seeks some kind of taxpayer incentives to stay in Kansas at a new site.

All this is happening against the backdrop of Kansas officials having set a December 31 deadline for Royals owner John Sherman to negotiate, or at least propose, a new stadium in their state if he wants to cash in on several hundred million dollars in state tax money that was approved a year and a half ago. (The money is technically on the table until next June, but Kansas legislators have warned they won’t consider any stadium deals after the end of 2025.) There’s been talk for a few weeks now that Sherman was about to announce a stadium proposal for the Aspiria site, which may still happen, but the T-Mobile announcement isn’t going to help — especially not on top of Johnson County residents already organizing to stop any stadium construction based on traffic concerns.

No Kansas officials have responded publicly yet to the T-Mobile announcement, and Royals execs continue to stress that they’re looking at all options, in both Kansas and Missouri. At this point, any particular stadium site has to be viewed as part leverage play — not just how much Sherman would get from it, but how much he could get from other local governments by waving it in their faces as a threat. That’s not likely to be resolved by the end of the money, making the December 31 date pretty much moot; it’ll still be interesting to see what Kansas legislators do once their self-imposed deadline arrives and all they get are some renderings of fireworks.

Share this post:

Stop the presses: Rays stadium site search continues to search for stadium site

Baseball’s winter meetings are on this week in Orlando, which means lots of opportunities for reporters to hobnob with team execs and fill column inches with whatever comes out of their mouths. So you probably could have predicted that Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, who has made an art form of this or at least a job description, would be on hand, in this case giving Rays co-owner Ken Babby 13 full paragraphs to explain that the ownership group’s plans for a new stadium by 2029 are making progress, even if not in any particularly definable way:

“We are exploring sites. We are meeting with architects. We are meeting with public officials,” Babby told the Tampa Bay Times at Major League Baseball’s winter meetings. “We are conducting a lot of analysis on how you go about building a development in a ballpark that meet the criteria that we talked about (including a plot of at least 100 acres). We’re visiting a lot of other parks, a lot of other stadiums, understanding what’s possible with different structures.”…

“We discussed what we thought a construct of a public-private partnership could look like. And have really enjoyed our conversations with folks both in the city and the county, both sides of the bay. We’ve been really focused on building those relationships.”…

“We believe that to build a state-of-the-art development, it’s going to require at least that kind of acreage [that the Atlanta Braves got for their Battery project] and it’s also going to require a great public-private partnership. We’re going to do our part. We’re not out there looking for anything that’s unfair or unjust. We want to build something that is truly a win for the community. And that’s building a district, building a community, driving jobs, creating billions of dollars of economic impact.”

That’s a lot of positivity — building relationships! a win for the community! — but no details at all, beyond that the Rays owners are considering sites throughout the Tampa Bay area (which we knew) and are “fully focused on opening a new ballpark in April of 2029” but know that’s “an ambitious timeline.” Even the requirement that any stadium site come with enough space for a Battery-style development came with a hedge: “While it’s not the only site and dynamic that we love, it’s certainly been a wonderful blueprint.”

All of which is fine and to be expected: When a friendly reporter sticks a microphone in front of you and presses record, it’s a team owner’s job to natter on about how much momentum their proposed stadium project has, even if it doesn’t have a site or any money identified to pay for it. It’s a bigger question whether Topkin is doing his job by letting Babby say all this stuff unchallenged — the only other quotes in the story are from MLB commissioner Rob Manfred — but now that the Times is letting other reporters actually report the news, it’s a bit less egregious.

The bigger problem here is letting team owners set the news agenda in the first place. Yes, the Rays’ lease at Tropicana Field runs out after the 2028 season (originally 2027, but it got automatically extended after a hurricane blew the roof off and sent the Rays to a minor-league stadium in Tampa for a year), but as we’ve seen before, leases can be extended — and in fact, St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch has already expressed an interest in doing so for the Rays, saying “the bones of the Trop are super strong, so once we get the electronics and the roof done, the Rays could be there for a decade.” So there’s no real urgency here, especially when it’s not at all clear that a new stadium itself would do much for the Rays’ finances — a new stadium with a pile of public subsidies might, but then the problem you’re solving isn’t so much “Where can the Rays play?” as “How can the Rays owners increase their profits via taxpayer money?” For that, you might want to talk to some taxpayers, or at least some of their elected representatives, but none of those seemed to be hanging around the baseball Winter Meetings, so you’ll just have to guess what they think of all this, sorry!

Share this post:

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:

Friday roundup: Everybody needs a soccer stadium for a pillow

Soccer! All the kids today are digging it! It’s the future! And also the past! Your city is nothing without a genuine, bona-fide, electrified, 10,000-seat soccer stadium, which is why Mesa is creating a “theme park district” to kick tax money back to a soccer stadium district that nobody wanted to give to the Arizona Coyotes but this is soccer, and Oklahoma City is spending $121 million on one so that Oklahomans can raise their fists to support of not nearly enough players spread out over way too much of the pitch, and MLS commissioner Don Garber says Vancouver had better give the Whitecaps a “better lease” or it’ll be “untenable” if you know what he means, and the co-chair of the Congressional Soccer Caucus — of course there’s a Congressional Soccer Caucus, get with the times, bruh — wants to allocate $50 million in federal tax money for cities to use for transit programs during big events like the (soccer) World Cup and the Olympics (one event: soccer)! Soccer!

There are only a limited number of soccer teams, though (a number that is thought to exceed the number of Planck volumes in the observable universe), so some cities still must, sadly, spend public money on pro teams in other sports instead. Not that elected officials are sad, they seem downright psyched:

  • The Columbus Blue Jackets have gone from thinking about maybe asking for public arena renovation money from the state now that the Browns and Bengals are getting it to receiving $200 million in state money plus $25 million each from the city and county, all in the course of less than five months. “I think this is an incredibly important community asset, and we have an opportunity to advance this …. and ensure the future of the facility for the next 30 years,” arena authority director Ken Paul said; if you think the Blue Jackets owners are going to wait 30 years for their next grab at the brass subsidy ring, you can place your prop bet at the arena’s gambling kiosks.
  • Cleveland Browns fans are not psyched about having to pay personal seat license fees for tickets at the new Browns stadium. Many say they’ll give up their season tickets before paying for PSLs, and yeah, that’s what Bills fans said too, and now the Bills PSLs have almost sold out, though to be fair things may be different once Browns fans realize that buying Browns tickets obligates them to actually watch Browns games.
  • YouTube channel entrepreneur (?) Ashkan Karbasfrooshan says he has a plan for bringing the Expos back to Montreal, and “money is not the constraint.” Rather, doing so “requires capital, political alignment, real estate vision, a winning outlook, patience, and a lot of humility.” Note to Karbasfrooshan: “Capital” is another word for “money.” (You can look up “humility” while you have your dictionary open.) Rob Manfred did say recently that he might like a second Canadian team, but reportedly he meant Vancouver and not Montreal, if baseball is even going to expand at all, maybe Karbasfrooshan meant that money is not the only constraint, that tracks.
  • The Philadelphia 76ers and Flyers owners are still planning on building a new arena … maybe? They’re not saying anything publicly about any moves to get legislative approval, what on earth could they be waiting fo — “[Governor’s office spokesperson Kayla Anderson] didn’t address questions regarding the state’s role in the project and whether incentives or tax breaks will be involved,” oh I see, never mind then.
  • The Tampa Bay Rays‘ Tropicana Field is starting to look more like itself again, which is, to be clear, to be taken as a good thing. The brown and white alternating roof panels are expected to be all bleached white by the sun by opening day, at least, so it will still look like the dome that Rays fans have come to know and, I’m going to go with “love.”
  • No disrespect to sports barons, but they still can’t hold a candle to Amazon when it comes to wielding monopoly power to get rich at someone else’s expense. This week: Forcing school systems to use dynamic pricing solely so Amazon can charge the public more for supplies, presumably only because the infinity gauntlet is no longer available.
  • The Athletics of Nowhere In Particular have opened a new Las Vegas “interactive space” (read: room) where fans can view a scale model of their planned stadium, plus also enter an “Immersive Cube” (read: room with lots of video screens on the walls) where they can view what it will look like from the inside, if it’s ever finished, and it will be, team execs swear. Early reviews on social media from fans who probably didn’t get personally immersed are that the design is “garbage” and an “abomination” and “the f*** is this ugly thing?” Me, I’m wondering how the A’s architects managed such a distant upper deck at a stadium with only 33,000 seats, plus whether at the real stadium everyone who enters will have to remove their shoes like in the simulation.
  • Sad, soft caves for indoor sportsmen, check.
  • Ex-AEG/Oak View Group stadium developer Tim Leiweke won’t be going to jail for bid rigging after all — no, not because he’s necessarily not guilty, the other reason this happens these days.
  • New York Mets owner Steve Cohen is getting his stadium-side casino, saw that coming.
  • The 2026 Winter Olympics hockey arena in Milan is running behind schedule and has the wrong rink dimensions for international standards. Defector doesn’t report whether this will lead to it going over budget, but c’mon, you know how this movie ends.
Share this post:

Has luxury seating ruined watching sports? The New Yorker investimagates

This week’s New Yorker has an article by John Seabrook on the question of whether modern stadium design is ruining the sports-watching experience by catering to rich folks, which because this is the New Yorker is so long that it took me two days to get around to finishing reading it. Also because it’s the New Yorker it’s filled with prose right on the knife’s edge between beautifully crafted and ponderously overwritten (“The suite levels are layered throughout the lower bowl like the buttercream filling in a Dobos torte, forming an inverted cone of the strata of American affluence”) and features a mid-article flashback to the origin of stadiums during Roman times, which helps with hitting that incredibly long word count.

But what does it actually have to teach us about whether luxury boxes have made the sports viewing experience suck? Let’s check in on the highlights and see:

The Houston Astrodome was “the first stadium to have luxury ‘skyboxes,’” which turned “the least desirable seats into the most expensive and coveted spots in the house,” and which New Yorker writer Roger Angell at the time called “immensely glum—sad, soft caves for indoor sportsmen.”

True! It was a long road from the nosebleed-seat skyboxes of the Astrodome to the premium-placed luxury suites of today, but that’s indeed the origin story.

Club seats, which offer cushier amenities but are out in the regular seating bowl, are more expensive than regular seats, and seats in luxury boxes are more expensive than either.

Again, checks out. And this is all part of the plan to capture the most possible revenue under each slice of the demand curve: Lance Evans, the lead architect for the Los Angeles Rams‘ new SoFi Stadium (the building with the Dobos torte of layered experiences), remarks to Seabrook that “every step along an individual’s journey through life they have an opportunity to create an experience that aligns with their place in the world. As they get their first promotion, there’s a spot in the stadium for them to celebrate. When they become a partner in a law firm, there’s a place for them, and as they become C.E.O.s there’s a place, too.” (Architecture schools should probably offer more required courses in irony.)

At SoFi, a club seat can cost as much as two thousand dollars a game, and a suite can go as high as fifty thousand dollars a game.

Does this make the regular seats more expensive and/or worse, though? The obvious answer is hell yeah, since the more grandstand space is dedicated to luxury options, the less room there is for regular seating; and, as this site has been harping on since the very beginning, the more space-gobbling suites you wedge in below the upper deck, the more the cheap seats have to be relocated farther from the field both vertically and horizontally. The reason the front row of the upper deck at the Chicago White Sox‘ current stadium is farther from the field from the back row of old Comiskey Park isn’t because the architects were idiots; it’s because they had to make space for a whole bunch of glassed-in living rooms between you and the field.

“N.F.L. owners don’t have to share certain types of premium revenue if they use the money to pay down any debt incurred in financing the stadium. Income from naming rights can also be used to pay off construction costs.” Since other revenue has to be shared with players, “Essentially, players are helping to cover the costs of building these mega-stadiums.”

Yes, ever since the NFL instituted its G-3 program (since replaced by G-4 and G-5) that lets team owners pay off some stadium construction costs with money that would otherwise have to be shared with the rest of the league, and the players. Seabrook doesn’t get into it, but G-3 was first put in place back in 1999 when the NFL was alarmed that teams like the New England Patriots were threatening to move to smaller cities like Hartford to get better stadium deals, and the league didn’t want to risk losing TV money as a result. The NFL owners appointed a committee to come up with a solution, and the head of the committee was Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and you can probably guess how things went from there.

“Suites are for corporate schmoozing and sips and bites, not bonkers fandom. Money prefers quiet; it’s more civilized.”

Sure, but again, how does that impact the folks in the non-suite seats? Seabrook, at SoFi to take in a Beyoncé concert from a suite as research (journalism does have its perks), notes that he “looked enviously at the concertgoers above me in the cheaper seats leaping up and down and dancing.” You could have been one of those concertgoers in the cheaper seats, John, if you’d been willing to pay for tickets yourself and put up with a more distant view and having to rub elbows with strangers instead of sitting on a sofa — but that’s the same reason anyone sits in luxury suites. The main advantage of “corporate schmoozing” is that somebody else is paying for it — the changing tax deductibility of sports tickets has also affected stadium design, another digression that might have been instructive here.

“Stadiums are secular megachurches, where believers gather to share communion, to exalt and mourn, and to don the vestments of faith.”

Live by New Yorkerese, die by New Yorkerese. Skipping ahead:

“In baseball stadiums, some tickets remained affordable, partly because the sport has so many games. At Yankee Stadium, for example, it’s still possible to snag a bleacher seat at a midweek game for less than thirty dollars. In most football stadiums, which in a given year host ten home games at best, twenty in SoFi’s case, limited demand has pushed prices up.”

Right — and this would be the case with or without luxury seating. Baseball’s 162-game schedule has, however, inspired lots of MLB owners to reduce capacity in new stadiums in order to create artificial ticket scarcity, allowing them to charge higher prices for fewer seats. (Luxury seating has an impact here as well: The ideal stadium, from an owner’s perspective, would probably be one incredibly luxurious seat that you could then sell to Martin Shkreli; barring that, dynamic pricing has been the next-best solution to separating the most people from the most money.)

“These days, there are nearly twenty-four million millionaires in the U.S. Roughly equivalent to the population of Florida, they constitute their own mass market. There are nine hundred and two billionaires—a number that has doubled in the past twelve years.”

And this, really, is the crux of the matter. Luxury suites and club seats aren’t an invention that stadium architects only just came up with over the last few decades; they’re a response to a change in the sports market, that change being that there are a hell of a lot more Americans for whom ticket prices are no object, thanks to Ronald Reagan, mostly. For NFL teams, who only have 500,000 tickets or so to sell per year, this has allowed owners to price all tickets at what only the filthy rich can afford (though some of the less rich end up finding ways), and even add personal seat license fees as well; for MLB, ticket inflation has been slightly slower, but team owners are still more concerned about marketing to those 24 million millionaires than to the other 300 million Americans.

Income inequality, new stadium design, and government tax policy are all working hand in hand to change sports into a more premium experience, which is maybe great if you can afford it — at least if you don’t feel constrained by all the corporate blandness like party poopers like Angell and Seabrook. But even if you do, there’s probably a spot somewhere in the layered torte for you, so long as you don’t mind feeling like a lowly person celebrating their first promotion. There’s probably a lesson here about the American dream as a whole, but even a New Yorker article is too short to contain it.

Share this post:

Cleveland city council approves deal to get at least something for dropping lawsuits over Browns move, still isn’t happy about it

The Cleveland city council yesterday approved Mayor Justin Bibb’s deal to get Browns owner Jimmy Haslam to pay $100 million (sort of — more on that in a minute) to extricate himself from lawsuits and move to a new stadium in suburban Brook Park. After much grumbling by councilmembers, they voted 13-2 to approve Bibb’s agreement with a couple of changes:

  • The city will dedicate an extra $5 million of Haslam’s payments to neighborhood spending, bringing that total to $25 million over ten years.
  • Haslam will have to pay an extra $1 million if the Browns stay in their current stadium in 2030, and an additional $2 million on top of that if they are still there in 2031.

Adding in $30 million from Haslam for demolishing the old stadium, $20 million in payments to help redevelop the lakefront once the stadium is gone, and $25 million in cash for whatever the city wants to do with it, that gets the full deal to $100 million — though since a bunch of the payments will be over time, it’s only worth about $80 million in present value. Plus there’s the whole matter of the city agreeing to “support infrastructure plans related to road and air travel with respect to both the Brook Park stadium mixed-use project,” which Bibb’s office says doesn’t mean paying for the stadium, but which could mean bumping stadium road work projects to the head of the line. So we don’t know really what the city is getting in exchange for dropping its legal objections to the Browns moving, just that they’re getting something.

Bibb’s argument has been that something is better than nothing, and there was a strong chance the city would end up with nothing (other than a bunch of legal bills) if it hadn’t settled. That seems to have been the position taken by the councilmembers who voted to approve the deal — “This is not a vote that I am making with a smile on my face,” said councilman Charles Slife — while Mike Polonsek, one of the two no votes, declared, “My gut tells me this is not a good deal for the city of Cleveland.” In fact, everybody thinks it’s not a good deal for the city of Cleveland! It’s more a matter of whether this is the least bad deal Cleveland could get, which is unknowable without a time machine that would let us see how the lawsuits would have turned out. Either way it’s definitely not a great deal, and certainly not as good a deal as if the state hadn’t stacked the deck by offering Haslam $600 million to move from one part of the state to another, but this is the world that we live in.

Share this post: