Search Results for: Falcons stadium dream now has $300m public pricetag, sliding roof

Spurs owner wins vote to unlock $889m in arena subsidies after outspending opposition 32-to-1

access_time personNeil deMause

Voters in Bexar County, Texas approved two measures yesterday to raise hotel and car rental taxes and use the proceeds to help build a new San Antonio Spurs arena and renovate their old one to be a year-round stock show and rodeo venue. Though early polling last month had showed Proposition B trailing 46-40%, the arena measure squeaked through by a 53-47% margin after the pro-arena campaign pumped at least $7 million, almost all of it from Spurs owner Peter Holt, into campaign ads urging voters to “keep the Spurs in San Antonio, baby,” while the opposition campaign had spent only $219,000 at last count.

Of the proceeds from the new tax hike, $311 million will go to the Spurs for their new arena, and $192 million to redo the old one for the rodeo. In both cases, though, that’s money paid out over the next 30 years — meaning the $311 million will only be enough to pay off about $150 million of Holt’s arena expenses in the present day. The passage of the ballot measure, though, also unlocks a pile of other public funding: In August the San Antonio city council approved spending $489 million in sales and property tax proceeds toward the arena, contingent on yesterday’s county vote, bringing Holt’s total thus far to $639 million; there’s also a proposal for the city to spend $225-250 million on traffic upgrades around the new arena site, which if approved next spring will raise the overall public subsidy to as much as $889 million.

That is starting to get to where, as they say, you’re talking about real money — especially for building an arena to replace one that is only 23 years old and was just renovated 10 years ago. But by threatening that the team would leave (for somewhere unspecified) if public funds weren’t approved, as well as hammering on the idea that taxes on hotels and car rentals and the arena itself aren’t really tax money because reasons, Holt successfully convinced a slim majority of county residents that this arena will bring the promised redevelopment riches that the last one promised and failed to. As a prize, he will now get a $1.3 billion arena by putting down only about $500 million of his own money, and he can presumably expect to recoup some of that through things like the sale of naming rights and jacking up ticket prices, while the city and state will have to cover their share without any cut of arena revenues.

This is pretty much how democracy works in America right now: The public gets to vote on things, occasionally, but other times their elected representatives vote without consulting them, and in either case rich dudes who want tax subsidies get to spend millions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign ads in order to win hundreds of millions in return. I’ve been saying for 27 years now that Field of Schemes is actually a book about the need for campaign finance reform, and it just becomes more true with each passing year. Though at least the Spurs’ terrifying mascot is happy now — our system of governance works fine for those who own it.

Share this post:

Cleveland mayor wants new taxes to fund Cavs, Guardians upgrades to avoid using old taxes to do so

access_time personNeil deMause

This week’s candidate for weirdest headline, from yesterday at Cleveland.com:

Bibb to Cavs and Guardians: No more bailouts until there’s a new game plan to fund stadium repairs

So once the Cavaliers and Guardians owners agree to a new way to fund stadium repairs, then Mayor Justin Bibb will agree to bailouts? Wha? Let’s read further:

Bibb told reporters at a recent news conference that he wants to create a special financing district that could collect small fees on parking, dining and entertainment in the Gateway District. The mayor said it’s a “practical, pragmatic” way to generate revenue to help maintain Progressive Field and Rocket Arena.

“Fees” on parking, dining, and entertainment are more commonly known as “sales tax surcharges,” and applying these to the entirety of the Gateway District — which includes not just the Cavs arena and Guardians stadium, but a bunch of malls and restaurants and other attractions — would represent additional tax money that locals and tourists alike would have to pay toward maintaining and upgrading the teams’ venues. That’s in one way better than the city having to scrounge around every couple of years for more cash to spend on upkeep, but in another way worse in that the city would be implementing a new tax to funnel upgrade money to the team owners ad infinitum, presumably even after the expiration of the current leases (2034 for the Cavs, 2036 for the Guardians) during which the city took over major capital repairs for the teams in exchange for them agreeing to stay put a few more years.

If the Cavs and Guardians aren’t ready to pursue new revenue streams, Bibb said City Hall won’t approve another bailout.

“I made it clear to the teams,” Bibb said. “I’m not tapping the general revenue fund until we look at these other concepts.”

“Take my tax money or I won’t give you any more tax money” is a novel approach, I’ll grant you that. Bibb says using surcharges in a New Community Authority, or NCA, would “shift the cost of stadium repairs away from residents and toward visitors who attend games and dine nearby,” but 1) residents go to see Cavs and Guardians games, that’s exactly who Cavs and Guardians fans are, and 2) even if this were all tourist money, it’s still tax money that the city could choose to collect and keep, but would instead be turning over to the team owners. (Cleveland currently has a similar taxing district on the lakefront, but that’s designated for building public spaces, at least, not for upgrades to privately controlled sports venues.)

One weird twist about Ohio NCAs is that property owners have to opt in to them, so it’s entirely possible all the landholders whose restaurants and malls would get newly tax-surcharged could tell the city to pound sand and there would be no new revenue at all. (The stadium and arena are co-owned by the city and the county; it’s an interesting question if the Cavs and Guardians, as tenants, could opt out of being taxed to fund their own upgrades.) Cleveland.com theorizes that “business owners would support it because the Cavs and Guardians drive foot traffic that keeps the Gateway District lively,” but that presupposes that 1) business owners will assume the Cavs and Guardians will leave without new taxes, despite those leases being in place for another decade and 2) they think game-day foot traffic is valuable enough to be worth getting saddled with as much as a 5% tax hike.

All this is coming to a head because the cigarette and alcohol taxes that were originally used to pay for the Gateway venues and later extended to pay for upgrades are coming up short of what the teams want, and local voters are currently so steamed by the Browns moving to suburban Brook Park that they may not approve a renewal of those taxes anyway. Mayor Bibb is also famously steamed about the Browns moving, or at least was until Browns owner Jimmy Haslam agreed to make $80 million worth of payments to his city, but he’s stuck with those leases for the near future, and would rather raise taxes just in the sports district than on all of Cleveland.

Even if it’s public money either way, you can kind of see where Bibb is coming from. Or you could point out that the whole Gateway complex was pitched as economic development that would pay for itself but instead is requiring ever-higher levels of public subsidies, and there’s a time to stop throwing good money after bad. At this point it would probably require breaching the teams’ leases and letting them walk if they want, but since neither has any great immediate options for relocation (Brook Park isn’t going to build two stadiums) and they can walk in another 9-to-11 years anyway, there’s an argument to be made for calling their bluff now and seeing what their owners do once the subsidy faucet is shut off.

Share this post:

Sportswriters alarmed as Bears again do not get $1B in tax money toward new stadium

access_time personNeil deMause

The Illinois legislature adjourned Friday without approving any Chicago Bears stadium bills, and people be reacting:

  • Phil Rogers, writing as a Forbes “contributor,” reports that “the wait goes on as the team tries to find the necessary funding for needed infrastructure upgrades and assurances on property taxes.” Inserting both “necessary” and “needed” is piling on the sports owner perspective a little thick, but probably on brand for a guy who once co-wrote a book with Bud Selig.
  • Gene Chamberlain, the Bears correspondent at Rogers’ old workplace, Sports Illustrated, complains that the the McCaskey family is only “looking for a frozen tax rate which has already been negotiated with surrounding taxing bodies, and about $855 million for infrastructure,” but Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker “falsely depicted the Bears as attempting to get the stadium built by public funds,” because infrastructure isn’t a stadium and tax breaks on a stadium aren’t … wait, let me start over.
  • Bloomberg News calls it a Bears “fumble,” because you know how non-sports news outlets especially always love the sports puns. Bloomberg also describes the Bears as “stuck with an outdated stadium and fans longing for a new football coliseum,” which 1) Soldier Field may be unloved, but it was just completely rebuilt in 2002 which isn’t all that long ago and 2) fans don’t especially seem to be longing for what the Bears owners want to build.
  • The Chicago Sun-Times reports that “Bears sources” say the team could start looking at stadium sites outside Cook County, writing that “numerous suburbs have courted the team,” though notably not by offering any of the money that the McCaskeys want. Also said Chicago suburbs are all in Illinois, which is the state whose legislature just declined to approve that billion dollars or so in tax money, so this may not be as promising an option as you think, Sun-Times.

So anyhoo, the McCaskeys did not succeed in getting around a billion dollars from the state of Illinois, will continue to seek ways to get around a billion dollars from the state of Illinois, stop the presses. This is pretty much the exact same set of stories that ran back in June when the state legislature adjourned then without giving the Bears owners a wad of cash. At least this time around the Sun-Times didn’t describe the session as expiring “without the Chicago Bears breaking the line of scrimmage in Springfield” after the failure of legislation that “could’ve thrown the team a block in their rush to the former Arlington International Racecourse” and Bears lobbyists being “left on the Capitol sideline” — though the paper’s headline did say that the owners’ last-minute offer of $25 million “doesn’t move ball forward in Springfield for new stadium,” it’s a sickness, I tell you.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bears offer Illinois dimes on the dollar toward stadium, Browns considering $150k-a-seat PSLs

access_time personNeil deMause

Apologies for this week’s late roundup — I had to retrieve my now-repaired laptop from the shop and get settled back in before writing this. On the bright side (for you, the information-craving consumer of sports subsidy news, surely not for me, the lowly scribe of such reports), even more stuff happened while I was at the store, so you get to enjoy bonus material as a result!

  • The Chicago Bears owners responded to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s demand that before getting any state help with a new stadium, the team must pay off the state’s $350-500 million in remaining debt on Soldier Field: How about $25 million instead? The response from legislators has been mostly LOLBears: State Rep. Kam Buckner called the offer “inadequate” and “disrespectful,” while Pritzker deadpanned, “I’m not sure what it’s tied to, what they’re asking for in return for it. I think if they’re donating $25 million to support the people of Chicago or the people of Illinois, that’s always a good thing.”
  • Did the Cleveland Browns owners forget to mention that as part of their new stadium in Brook Park, they’re considering charging personal seat license fees of as much as $149,300? Must have slipped their mind, along with how much of those fees would apply to the Haslams’ share of stadium costs and how much to the public’s $600 million and up cost. (Pretty sure the answers are “all” and “none,” respectively, since that’s how it always works.)
  • Also on the Browns front, the Crain’s Cleveland Business editorial board writes that Mayor Justin Bibb’s proposed deal to get $80 million worth of payments in exchange for letting the team move to Brook Park “leaves a bit of a bitter taste” but may be the best Cleveland can get given that “team owners hold the leverage in an environment where cities are desperate to retain their teams.” Or, at least, they do when the state legislature hands out $600 million to the team to help it move from one part of the state to another. Fixed that for you!
  • The Seattle Sounders owners are seeking outside investors to buy a minority share of the team, with the proceeds possibly being used toward building a new soccer-only stadium, possibly at its Longacres training site in nearby Renton. That’s a lot of possiblys, for sure, but Sportico values the Sounders at $825 million and soccer-specific stadiums generally go for less than half that, so … possibly.
  • CT United F.C. will begin play in MLS NEXT Pro next year playing home games at venues scattered across Connecticut, while it waits for a new stadium to be built in Bridgeport — which is to say, while it waits for the state to decide to give it $127 million to build one. “On the merits of the actual math, the jobs, the housing, the economic impact and aligning with what the priorities have been stated for this administration, it aligns perfectly,” said CT United owner Andre Swanston, take his word for it, he’s just a disinterested hundred-millionaire.
  • “Will the College Football Playoff title game bring economic boost to the Tampa Bay area?” WTSP-TV actually looked at the results the last time it hosted the CFP championship in 2017, and nope: A promised $250-350 million economic impact turned out to be just $720,000 in added sales tax receipts, while hotel tax receipts actually went down. “If that were the case, why is every major city and community bidding on these major events?” asked Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan. Because you’re all idiots?
  • No, the “sky stadium” Saudi Arabia plans to build for the 2034 World Cup doesn’t look like this, it looks like this. The former is AI generated, the latter, honestly, is probably AI generated at well, but maybe AI generated on purpose by the people who actually plan to build it? With more than half of the internet now AI slop, it’s arguably bigger news when something isn’t a fake, no?
  • And finally, if you’ve worn out the entertainment value of the yule log, we now have the Athletics Las Vegas stadium construction camera. You’re welcome.
Share this post:

Spurs owner pours $6.5m into campaign to win Tuesday’s arena subsidy vote

access_time personNeil deMause

Early voting is underway for San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt’s ballot measure to get $311 million in Bexar County tax money over 30 years (about $150 million in present value) as part of a $750 million public funding deal, and here’s what’s happening:

Guessing at what will happen when the polls close is always fun, and with surveys showing county voters slightly opposed to the arena funding measures, and being outspent by only a 32:1 ratio often being enough to defeat a sports subsidy measure, it’s fair to say that Holt is going to need all of that $6.5 million to spend on last-minute campaign ads. Not that a defeat on Tuesday would be final: As Wolff observed, there’s nothing stopping Holt from coming back with a slightly different plan — he could even do so the very next year, lots of other team owners have! His arena is just 23 years old and was just renovated 10 years ago, you’d think he’d be in no rush, but billionaires gonna billionaire, it’s how they got to be billionaires in the first place.

Share this post:

Chiefs owner to decide soon how much to demand for what kind of stadium and where, maybe

access_time personNeil deMause

One of the prerogatives of being a sports team owner is you get to have your every utterance turned into a full-length news article, and Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt took advantage of this on Monday, revealing that he’s definitely going to demand a new something somewhere:

“I wouldn’t say we’re in limbo. Stadium projects move at their own pace,” Hunt said. “We’ve learned over the years that you can’t really force them to go faster, even if you want them to. And so it’s just important for us to keep working on both options.”

“Both options” here means either renovating the Chiefs’ current stadium or building a new one “somewhere in the metropolitan area” either in Missouri or Kansas, which is technically more than two options, but whatever. If Hunt chooses renovation, he said, “there’s a chance that we would be on a ballot next year,” which presumably would mean another vote for Jackson County along the lines of the one that residents decisively rejected in April 2024, to provide county money on top of the $750 million in state money Missouri already has promised.

It’s unlikely that Hunt is still really thinking about what he wants here, given that the Chiefs stadium shakedown saga has been ongoing for more than three years. He almost certainly is, however, still weighing how to best use his leverage to extract the maximum in taxpayer money — for example, if he puts a county funding measure on the ballot next year, how can he still threaten to move to Kansas if it fails, given that Kansas wants an answer by the end of this December? It’s a lot of work being a billionaire and demanding more billions, you wouldn’t want to be in Hunt’s diamond-encrusted shoes, let me tell you.

Share this post:

How much is Cleveland’s mayor giving up in exchange for $80m Browns payout?

access_time personNeil deMause

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and the Cleveland city council are fighting over whether the council will get to rework Bibb’s settlement of the Browns stadium standoff, and I almost wrote about it yesterday but didn’t because 1) I slept late, 2) my regular computer is in the shop and it takes me forever to type anything on the old one, and 3) it didn’t seem like that big a deal, Bibb’s proposed payoff (described as $100 million but really more like $80 million in present value) may not be amazing but it’s whatever. Until this:

How did the entire Plain Dealer editorial board miss that the "$100 million deal" with the Browns obligates Cleveland to commit to funding an unspecified amount on infrastructure improvements to support the Brook Park stadium?

— J.C. Bradbury (@jcbradbury.com) 2025-10-27T11:45:14.479Z

Hmm? Jimmy Haslam has asked for $70 million in state money for road improvements for the Brook Park stadium site — this on top of $600 million in state money for the stadium itself, and despite saying openly that he’ll keep the team in the state even if he doesn’t get it — but is he asking for city money too? I asked Bradbury, and he pointed me to this in the Browns’ press release about the Bibb agreement:

Parties to mutually support infrastructure plans related to road and air travel with respect to both the Brook Park stadium mixed-use project, the modernization of Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport, the development of the Cleveland lakefront, including the redevelopment of the Burke Lakefront Airport property.

I think that means that Haslam and Bibb will both “support” the infrastructure plans as in work together to get them approved by the state, not support them with actual cash. (While I could certainly see Haslam wanting city cash toward road improvements, it’s hard to see him offering to put his own money in.) So this probably isn’t a commitment of more city money. Though Bradbury certainly has a point that somebody in the media should ask Bibb to clarify this, something that reporters interviewing Bibb and other reporters doing the same and those writing explainers seem not to have done.

And either way, Bibb agreeing to team up with Haslam to lean on the state (and the council) to okay the Brook Park deal isn’t great. The council has say over city spending, so Haslam getting to give the city a payoff and then demanding how it be used (to rehab the waterfront where their current stadium stands) is a sucky precedent. As is the notion that an $80 million payoff can not only buy the city’s silence, it can buy its support of state highway spending when Clevelanders pay Ohio taxes, too.

The bigger problem here, though, is how this entire deal is being negotiated: The Haslams get to lock in each level of subsidy, then go for more, whereas the public is at best fighting to hold the line. Even if Cleveland getting $80 million in exchange for dropping its legal challenges turns out to be maybe an okay tradeoff, the Browns owners get to keep haggling for more subsidies as long as they want — Bibb revealed last week that team negotiators wanted any settlement contingent on getting Cuyahoga County to put money into the Brook Park stadium, and while the mayor successfully resisted that being a condition, the Haslams still plan on pushing for county money on top of state cash anyway.

The city council, at least, seems intent on closely examining Bibb’s proposed agreement, saying Monday night that it will subject the legislation to four separate committee votes. Here’s hoping that at least one of those committees will use its time to investigate the fine print.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Pritzker endorses “infrastructure” spending for Bears, Royals could soon propose Kansas vaporstadium

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s Friday, which means I had to take valuable time away from reading about the Mafia luring rich people into playing in rigged poker games in order to hang out with NBA players who scored 6.6 points a game so that I could instead sum up the rest of this week’s stadium and arena news, for you, because I care.

Share this post:

Worcester stadium red ink shows dangers of hoping to cover taxpayer costs with housing magic beans

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s now been more than seven years since the Pawtucket Red Sox owners cut a deal to get $105 million in public cash to move to a new stadium in Worcester, sparking a throwdown between economists Andrew Zimbalist (a paid team consultant), who said it w0uld all work out great, and Victor Matheson and a whole bunch of others (not collecting any consulting checks), who warned that building a stadium in order to spark economic gains from new housing next door was a bad gamble. As of last year, city tax revenues were falling short because the promised new development was lagging — so how are things going now?

A report from the city auditor to the City Council states that the Polar Park Ballpark District Improvement Financing fund has an anticipated deficit of $390,000 for the current fiscal year, and that by the end of the year will owe the city’s general fund over $2 million.

Not great, especially after the Worcester city auditor promised specifically that this would never happen! Also not great: Though Worcester Chief Financial Officer Timothy J. McGourthy said he expected the tax fund would eventually have enough revenue to cover the city’s stadium costs (including $40 million in overruns), that’s just regular taxes that any development would pay — meaning if the ballpark-adjacent housing ends up cannibalizing construction that would have taken place anyway, it’s not really a net gain. That’s something that Matheson, who teaches at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, warned about seven years ago, along with the fact that planning on a housing windfall didn’t take into account the added city costs of supporting new residents: The price tag for providing schools for even a few dozen new kids would quickly eat up any new tax revenues. In that case, even if the ballpark district fund eventually shows a profit — CFO McGourthy swears it will, someday — it will be canceled out by new losses in the city schools budget.

The Worcester city council was all set to discuss the WooSox ballpark situation at its Tuesday meeting this week, but scrapped the agenda item at the last second. Residents still turned out to testify on the subject, though, including Nicole Apostola, who had previously petitioned the council to at the very least provide more transparency about what Worcester taxpayers would be on the hook for. Apostola made clear that she would still like some questions answered, namely:

“One, why has no one been held responsible for the horrible contracts this city has been saddled with? Two, why has there never been a reckoning for the misconstruction of the doors at the park that prevent certain events from being held there? Three, why has the city not been able to take advantage of any of the revenue-generating days we were supposed to have? And most importantly, number four, exactly which services are being cut so we can subsidize multimillionaires?”

Oh, yes, the doors, we should probably talk about the doors. Three years ago, after Worcester’s new stadium had been open for two years, people started noticing that the promised flood of concerts had turned out to be, actually zero concerts. It turned out that the reason was Worcester had copied Fenway Park’s feature where the only direct access to the field is a large roll-up door in center field — and that door was built 12 feet high, whereas concert production trucks are 13 feet high. If only there could have been some way of knowing!

So LOLWorcester, sure. But this also should serve as a warning to other cities where sports projects are promising to pay back their costs with tax revenue from new surrounding development (cough San Antonio cough) that, first, there’s no guarantee the new housing will get built on time, and second, taxes on new development aren’t a free windfall, they’re needed to pay off the new costs that come with new development. After all the cautionary tales so far (cough Brooklyn Nets cough), you’d think people would have caught on by now, but yeah, nope, editorial boards are still writing how special sports district taxing zones would “shield residents from bearing the cost of development.” Shout louder, not-on-team-payroll economists, it’s hard for newsmakers to hear you with their fingers wedged so deeply in their ears.

Share this post:

How to threaten to leave town without threatening to leave town: San Antonio Spurs edition

access_time personNeil deMause

Early voting has started in the San Antonio Spurs arena public funding ballot measure, and the local news media is on the job warning that the team could move so that its owners don’t have to. Today’s report from KSAT-TV report asks the question up front — “If the team doesn’t get the downtown arena it wants, could it leave San Antonio entirely?” — and then proceeds to answer it via an odd sequence of interview subjects:

  • A guy on his way to vote, who said he would “probably” vote for the Spurs funding, because “if they lose the Spurs, they’re going to lose a lot.”
  • The owner of a construction firm, interviewed at the Spurs’ practice facility, who said, “Say my valuation of my business is $1 billion, and I can move and double that valuation in a day … Be careful what you wish for, San Antonio.”
  • Spurs lawyer Bobby Perez, who refused to answer questions about whether the team would try to move if the ballot measures were rejected.
  • Finally, sports economist Geoffrey Propheter, who noted that “There has been no threat, direct or indirect, from the Holts, at least publicly, that says they are going to move,” and that lots of other teams, such as the San Francisco Giants, have had referendums shot down, multiple times even, and not moved.

It’s all factual enough reporting, and certainly readers are going to want to know if a move could be in the offing if voters turn down the $311 million over 30 years (about $150 million in present value) that Spurs owner Peter Holt is asking for. But it’s hard to miss that the framing ends up supporting owner Peter Holt’s attempts to make this into a vote on whether to keep the Spurs — notably reaching out to Austin’s mayor in recent weeks — while downplaying the public cost (which would likely total $750 million or more) or the fact that San Antonio just built the Spurs a new arena 23 years ago amid promises by Holt’s dad of neighborhood redevelopment that never came.

All this is very much part of what we dubbed the “non-threat threat,” where a team owner denies intending to move a team, but hints that you don’t want to push him and find out, and then leaves it to elected officials and the media to sound the alarm. (It is related to, though not exactly the same as, Jerry Reinsdorf’s edict that “a savvy negotiator creates leverage,” even if it’s leverage you have no intention of using.) If the KSAT story is any indication, Holt Jr.’s attempts at framing the story this way are having an impact; though if this set of person-on-the-street interviews is representative, most people are still weighing whether the promise of exciting new stuff is enough to outweigh giving money to “megamillionaires” instead of fixing “all of the stuff that needs to be fixed, that’s not fixed,” with no one mentioning the threat of losing the team at all.

The vote is likely going to be close, and as Propheter points out, almost exactly equal numbers of these referendums succeed or fail. The more interesting part may end up being what Holt’s Plan B is if he loses: As we’ve seen both in the early days of the public stadium boom and again more recently, megamillionaires tend not to take direct democracy lying down when there’s a group of legislators they can go to for a second opinion.

Share this post: