Cleveland still has no money for Cavs, Guardians upgrades, is resorting to stalling

The controversy continues over the city of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County having to cover more than $400 million in upcoming repair costs for the Guardians stadium and Cavaliers arena despite having no money to do it with. And according to Cleveland.com, there’s nothing the local governments can do about it:

Under its lease agreements with the Cleveland Cavaliers and Cleveland Guardians, Gateway Economic Development Corporation of Greater Cleveland is responsible for paying for capital repairs over $500,000 at Rocket Arena and all repairs — big or small — at Progressive Field.

Worse yet, it’s not just genuine repairs that taxpayers are on the hook for; the Guardians leases also contains one of those dreaded state-of-the-art clauses that requires publicly funded upgrades if the Cleveland stadium has fallen behind three-quarters of other MLB ballparks, “as well as any changes required by television networks, the league, insurers or government regulations.” Most recently, this required the city and county to spend $1.3 million to install padded seats behind home place in 2023, on the grounds that all the other kids had them.

Gateway officials have responded by trying to stall on approving the payments, with one board member telling a Guardians official, “We are required to fund it. We are not required to fund it on the schedule that you’re asking.” But ultimately, according to the lease extensions approved by lawmakers in 2004 and extended in 2021, the leases require the city and county to cover these costs in exchange for the Cavs and Guardians staying put through 2034 and 2036, respectively.

The city and county do have a doomsday option, though. As I wrote last December:

The leases say the teams can sue Gateway for damages if they don’t get their repair money on time. However, if Gateway runs out of money — which it would if the city and county stopped giving it more cash — it doesn’t appear that the Guardians and Cavs owners can sue the city and county, so it’s within the governments’ power to shut off the money spigot and dare the teams to break their leases and try to find better ones elsewhere, if they wanted.

That doesn’t seem to be the plan so far: Gateway officials are griping to the city and county that they need a bailout — another bailout, following one for $20 million last year that raided funds for a minority business program and other projects — and Mayor Justin Bibb is muttering about creating tax surcharges in the stadium district to help cover costs. This all seems destined to end with the team owners negotiating another round of lease extensions in exchange for a lot more public cash, like how it’s been done one state to the west; you’d like to think that Ohio legislators could be better negotiators than Indiana ones, but if city and county officials had shown any ability before this to write leases that would protect taxpayers, they wouldn’t need the talcum powder.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Chiefs to ramp up Kansas saber-rattling, Bears’ Indiana move threat gets cool reception in Illinois

Are people still flipping out about Chicago Bears management acknowledging that Indiana is next door to Illinois and they could try to build a stadium there if they wanted? Yep. Does that mostly come down to “fans in Indiana would be happy with a shorter drive and those in Chicago would be unhappy with a longer one”? Yep.

We’ll get back to the Bears in a sec, but first the latest in a more advanced cross-state NFL team location battle:

  • A Kansas legislator says the state’s Legislative Coordinating Council, a joint committee of leaders of the state house and senate, is set to meet on Monday to discuss a proposed agreement between the state and the Chiefs on a new stadium, though the state commerce department cautions that “no final agreement has been reached.” The Missouri Independent says the committee could start the process of approving state-backed STAR bonds at its Monday meeting, though the state already approved those in concept last year, and it doesn’t seem possible to actually sell specific bonds without a specific agreement in place, so not clear on what could actually get decided on Monday. Mostly, this seems to be a way for the legislature to declare that Chiefs owner Clark Hunt has met the required end-of-2025 deadline to be eligible for the bonds — as has Royals owner John Sherman, apparently, despite no concrete stadium plans at all, given that committee chair Ty Masterson’s office said he believes the Royals have met the deadline by being “fully committed” to Kansas. Some sort of announcement of a Chiefs deal on Monday seems likely, but it’s also likely that a lot of details will still need to be worked out, so let’s hold off on the “Chiefs are moving to Kansas” headlines for the — never mind, too late.
  • Back in Illinois, state officials are taking talk of a Bears stadium in Indiana in stride, with State Rep. Kam Buckner (district includes Soldier Field, is opposed to stadium subsidies) calling the team’s move threat “very predictable” and saying “in negotiations, what you do is you create leverage by saying you have more options,” while State Rep. Mary Beth Canty (has sponsored a bill to allow for stadium subsidies in Arlington Heights) asked that the Bears “engage with the General Assembly in good faith, without threats.” State Sen. Bill Cunningham, meanwhile, called giving the Bears a property tax break (but not necessarily all the infrastructure money team execs are asking for) “a good starting point” because it would only be local, not state, tax money, but said “we have more important things to tackle first.” It certainly sounds like the Bears owners can get something out of Illinois, even it not everything they’re demanding; dropping an Indiana move threat may help them get on the legislative agenda, which may be all they want, but there’s still a whole lot of haggling to go.
  • Cleveland’s Gateway sports authority is facing an estimated $150 million in imminent repair costs for the Guardians stadium and Cavaliers arena, plus another $261 million over the next decade, and has no money on hand to pay for these costs and no plans for how to raise it. Not great! The city and county cover capital repairs while the teams cover maintenance, so there’s still the possibility of haggling over which is which. The government taking on all capital repairs during the teams’ 2004 lease renegotiations still seems like a terrible idea, and Gateway just defaulting on this and daring the teams to break their leases (which expire in 2034 and 2036 anyway) early seems like a reasonable consideration compared to throwing $400 million in good money after bad, but nobody’s talking about that just yet.
  • The Dodger Stadium gondola project refuses to die, year after year after year. “NBC Los Angeles reports that during the meeting, project supporters waved signs reading ‘Build the gondola’ while opponents held signs saying ‘Stop the gondola’,” can’t we come to some sort of compromise?
  • Inter Miami‘s new stadium is finally set to open next spring, but the promised accompanying public park space won’t be ready yet, seen that one before.
  • And then there’s Germany, where when a pro women’s soccer team needs a bigger stadium, the team owners buy the one that a recently relegated men’s team is no longer using plays in. It was built way back in 1992, can you imagine how outdated the Getränkehalters must be?
Share this post:

Bears exec finally threatens to move team to Indiana in fight for $1B in Illinois public money

Chicago Bears execs have been asking Illinois for a pile of dough for a new stadium for years now, and have been consistently told by state leaders to go pound sand. And as a famous Chicagoan once almost said, “When the going gets tough, the tough seek leverage.” So it came to pass yesterday that Bears CEO Kevin Warren yesterday delivered what was clearly intended as a shot across Illinois’s bow, saying that he was now ready to consider moving across state lines:

We have been told directly by State leadership, our project will not be a priority in 2026, despite the benefits it will bring to Illinois.

Consequently, in addition to Arlington Park, we need to expand our search and critically evaluate opportunities throughout the wider Chicagoland region, including Northwest Indiana.

“This is not about leverage,” added Warren, but when you issue a public letter announcing that the only reason you’re considering leaving your state is because the state won’t lavish spending and tax breaks on you — sorry, provide “a commitment to essential local infrastructure” and “reasonable property tax certainty” that it only so happens would cost taxpayers more than $1 billion — it’s hard to read it any other way. (Warren also called Soldier Field “the oldest and smallest stadium in the NFL,” the first part of which is only true if you consider this to be the same stadium as this.)

Gov. JB Pritzker’s office certainly took it as saber-rattling, calling the statement “a startling slap in the face to all the beloved and loyal fans who have been rallying around the team during this strong season.” Indiana officials, meanwhile, appeared happy to play along with whatever Warren has in mind, with Gov. Mike Braun saying, “This move would deliver a major economic boost, create jobs, and bring another premier NFL franchise to the Hoosier State. Let’s get it done.”

Braun did not say whether he was ready to offer a billion dollars to get it done; Indiana’s legislature voted to create a sports development commission in April, but, notably, didn’t give it any actual money. Regardless, the magic of leverage — sorry, of “critically evaluating opportunities” — is that it’s not about how much anyone is offering, it’s about the mere prospect of a bidding war shaking loose public purse strings.

To some degree, the surprise is that Warren waited this long to drop the I-word: Indiana, after all, has a long history of shoveling good stadium money after bad, and the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals have already shown what you can get by threatening to hop across state lines. Though the Royals’ game of footsie with Kansas also shows the downside of actually going ahead and making threats concrete: The list of entities opposing a baseball stadium in Overland Park now includes the local telecom company, the national Jewish Community Center Association, the mayor of the city next door, and a “neighbor, friend, mother, community volunteer and former PTO president” who questions whether it would put at risk “safety for our Jewish neighbors.” If Indiana proves to be greater fools, this could work out well for the Bears owners, whether they land a stadium across state lines or use the possibility of one to pressure their home state into coughing up stadium money; if not, they could yet end up heading back home with their tails between their legs.

 

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:

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:

Do the Yankees get $38m or $84m or what every year in tax breaks, and why is Hal Steinbrenner complaining about this?

New York Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner was on a call with reporters on Monday when he started talking about how his team didn’t win a championship again last year despite the majors’ 4th-highest payroll, and how he’d prefer to have not won the championship with a lower payroll, but “we want to field a team we know could win a championship — or we believe could win a championship.”

(This is going to be a long post and involve way too much math, so let’s just stop here for a moment to appreciate that quote. It’s like if you distilled all of the impulses of every sports team owner to both demand a championship and demand not having to take responsibility for not winning a championship and demand not to have to pay for players good enough to win a championship, and then filtered it through, well, Hal Steinbrenner. 10 out of 10, no notes.)

One sportswriter then asked Steinbrenner why he was even talking about cutting payroll when the Yankees brought in $700 million in revenue last year — including $339.5 million in ticket and suite sales, enough to cover their entire payroll even without using the other $360 million in TV and concessions and sponsorship money — and Steinbrenner replied thusly:

“Everybody wants to talk about revenues. They need to talk about our expenses, including the $100 million expense to the City of New York that we have to pay every February 1, including the COVID year. … It all starts to add up in a hurry.”

That “$100 million expense to the City of New York” line caught the eye of Hell Gate’s Max Rivlin-Nadler, who recognized it as referring to the “payments in lieu of taxes” that Steinbrenner’s dad arranged to use to pay off his share of the new Yankee Stadium’s $2.3 billion construction cost back in 2009. And these aren’t really tax payments or in lieu of them: The Yankees owners just launder their stadium payments through the city in order to be able to use tax-exempt bonds, which saves them a couple hundred million bucks in interest payments. As Rivlin-Nadler wrote:

That “$100 million” actually refers to the around $84 million the Yankees are paying annually instead of taxes as part of their 2006 agreement with the City that eventually saw taxpayers shell out $1.186 billion in cash and tax breaks just to build the new Yankee Stadium, part of a stadium-freebie bonanza hammered out by the Bloomberg administration that at the time was derided as “financial incompetence,” due to ballooning costs and bailouts by the City during the construction.

Rivlin-Nadler, who I used to work with at the Village Voice, and I then kibitzed over email a bit about his initial assessment of how much in tax breaks Steinbrenner is pocketing, with me pointing out that the city Independent Budget Office had estimated the total future value of that tax break as $416.6 million, in 2009 dollars. After some recalculations, he went with Sports Business Journal’s conclusion that the Yankees got tax breaks of $122 million in 2024, and paid $84 million in PILOTs, amounting to a net tax benefit of $38 million a year.

See the problem yet? Those PILOTs don’t go to the city general fund like normal property taxes do — the city Industrial Development Agency just uses them to pay off the bonds for the stadium. So either the full $122 million a year needs to be counted as a tax break, or $38 million is a tax subsidy and the rest is a subsidy by the city in paying off the stadium debt. But either way it amounts to the same thing: $122 million a year in subsidies by virtue of the stadium not paying property taxes.

Except there’s an additional problem on top of this: How did the IDA calculate how much the Steinbrenners would have been paying property taxes if they paid them? The agency could use the property’s official assessment, sure — but it turns out that’s a fiction too, as the city jacked up the stadium’s tax assessment so that the Steinbrenners could shell out $84 million a year and still claim that these were equivalent to “generally applicable tax” payments. (Only generally applicable taxes can be used for tax-exempt bonds, for reasons that have to do with the 1986 Tax Reform Act and we really don’t have to go into now, but there’s an explanation here if you’re curious.)

So the “$100 million expense to the city” that Hal Steinbrenner is whingeing about is actually $84 million that he’s spending on his own stadium costs, plus $38 million in additional “tax breaks” that are only tax breaks because he needed to pretend he’s getting that much in tax breaks in order to pretend that he’s paying taxes. It couldn’t be clearer!

To try to get to the bottom of all this, I contacted Geoffrey Propheter, the University of Colorado Denver economist who wrote the book on property taxes and stadiums, and who before that worked at the Independent Budget Office that had previously come up with those initial tax break projections. Propheter replied that the last time he calculated the value of the Yankees’ tax break — using the value of other comparable properties, thus ducking any issues with those dodgy official assessments — was for his book in 2019, when he figured the Yankees’ total tax break as amounting to $730 million in 2020 dollars over 40 years. That would be $597 million in 2009 dollars, so only a slight increase from the IBO’s initial projection of $416.6 million, thanks to the stadium being worth more than anticipated. Though Propheter also cautions that values of newer sports venues opened since 2019 could make the tax breaks worth even more.

If you’re like me, you’ve long since given up hoping for an exact tax break figure and are just begging for all the numbers to stop. The overall takeaways, at least, are clear: 1) The Steinbrenners are saving more than $700 million by not having to pay property taxes on their stadium; 2) Hal griping about having to still spend $84 million a year on the construction costs of his family’s own stadium that they insisted they needed so they could have “a five-star hotel with a ballfield in the middle” is close to the definition of chutzpah. Which means Rivlin-Nadler’s concluding question remains right on: “Is now really the precise moment that Hal Steinbrenner, who mostly spends his time in Florida, wants to complain about the deal that has helped his team become worth $8.2 billion, at last count?” You already know the answer to that: Sports owners gonna sports owner.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Denver mayor says he’ll fight to the death to give George Lucas’s wife $170m for a soccer stadium

I had a birthday this week, and nothing says “Yes, you’ve been writing this blog since you were 32 years old and you’re apparently going to have to keep at it well into old age, you got a problem with that?” than becoming a Field of Schemes supporter! There are both one-time and recurring payment options, many of which give you the chance to get one of just ten remaining copies of this Vaportecture art print before they’re gone forever, so act now!

Or just keep on reading and commenting, honestly, that at least makes me feel like this entire project has been worth something, even if the central problem it has detailed shows no sign of slowing down. I remain inspired by the Straight Dope‘s tagline “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought),” though the fact that the Straight Dope stopped publishing in 2018 without declaring victory over ignorance is sobering, admittedly.

Anyway, onward!

  • Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has heard the NWSL expansion Denver Summit owners’ threat to pursue a “parallel path” in unspecified neighboring cities at the same time as trying to win over a city council not crazy about handing them maybe $170 million in cash and tax breaks, and he knows just how to respond: by offering to do whatever it takes to get Summit co-owner (and Broncos co-owner, and wife of billionaire George Lucas) Mellody Hobson to build in his city. “Over my dead body will I let the Broncos stadium leave Denver,” said Johnston on Wednesday. “Over my dead body am I going to let the Summit stadium leave Denver. We want that site to be here.” Noooooo, that’s not at all how you haggle, you’re doing it all wrong! It remains to be seen whether the Denver city council will take up Johnston on his “dead body” offer.
  • Residents of Kansas’s Johnson County are “seething” over the possibility of the Kansas City Royals building a stadium there, according to the Kansas City Star, though the Star also reports that a poll found 53% of residents support the idea and 40% oppose it. But also 40% of respondents said the Royals should stay put at Kauffman Stadium vs. 26% who wanted them to move to Kansas, a good seethe is so hard to find these days.
  • How did New York Mets owner Steve Cohen take his plans to build a casino next to his stadium from distant longshot to likely winner? One part, two local anti-casino activists write in the New York Daily News, involved hiring two community board members (one now the councilmember-elect for the district) as consultants, while also holding fundraisers for the local state assemblymember. The main reason for Cohen’s success may still be that the state senator who was his main opponent also turned out to be the most disliked person in Albany, but throwing money around to local officials couldn’t have hurt, either.
  • Buffalo Bills fans appear to have given up and bought the hated personal seat licenses required to get tickets at the new publicly funded stadium scheduled to open next year, with nearly 90% of the PSLs reportedly having sold. All of the $250 million in proceeds so far will go toward paying Bills owner and superyacht captain Terry Pegula’s $1 billion in stadium expenses, none of it toward paying New York state and Erie County taxpayers’ $1 billion in stadium expenses, because standard business practice something something.
  • It’s still not clear where Athletics owner John Fisher will find the $1.4 billion he needs to build an entire ballpark in Las Vegas, but he’s certainly building something: Construction crews started pouring concrete for the lower deck this week. There’s been no word when he’ll hit the $100 million spending mark that will allow him to access $380 million in public money, let alone what he’ll do once that money runs out as well, but if nothing else Fisher is committing to the bit.
  • The owners of Sacramento Republic F.C. have only just started building their new soccer stadium, and they’re already seeking permission to expand it from 12,000 to 20,000 seats, just in case they ever want to.
  • Asked how new Tampa Bay Rays owner Patrick Zalupski is doing at coming up with plans for a new stadium, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred somehow managed to say, “With respect to the go-forward issue, Patrick and his group are hard at work getting the lay of the land in the Tampa Bay region to find out what their options are.” Language is always evolving, and Manfred is truly an inspiration in breaking new ground about where it will go in the future, or as he would say, the go-forward time.
Share this post:

Why “the worst seat is closer to the field” is not necessarily a sign of a more intimate stadium

Northwestern University is building a new $850 million football stadium, which is a crazy amount for a college football stadium, but it’s being mostly paid for by the local billionaire who wants his alma mater to have a new stadium, so at least there’s that. The billionaire’s son, however, is touting the upcoming stadium opening by saying that in reducing the seating capacity from 47,000 to 35,000, he’s helping fans by eliminating bad seats:

“The death of the nosebleeds, “the most expensive seat to build, the hardest seat to sell and has the lowest satisfaction,” [Pat] Ryan [Jr.] told USA TODAY Sports….

“We didn’t just reduce the number of seats. We actually reduced the numbers,” Ryan said. “We did that so that we could put every seat on top of the action by not having to put another 20,000 seats behind. It meant that you don’t have to worry about blocking those other seats. So you can put everybody in.”

Not sure where that first quote starts and begins, might want to check into that, USA TODAY copy editors. But in any case, Ryan’s point is clear: By getting rid of the lousy seats — which cost just as much to build as good ones, but you can’t charge as much for them — Northwestern is doing fans a favor, because the worst seat in the house is now better!

Except that doesn’t really help actual fans any, at all. The 35,000th ticket buyer to a Northwestern game will still be sitting in the same place; they just won’t have any more rows of seats behind them. The 47,000th ticket buyer will indeed be spared their crappy view — because they’ll be at home watching on TV, since the 47,000th seat will no longer exist.

We’ve been over this before, every time a stadium is described as “intimate” because of its low seating capacityJust because a sports venue has fewer seats doesn’t mean those seats are closer to the field. In fact, most modern stadiums have more levels of luxury seating wedged in, making the worst seats worse than they would be otherwise — check out what adding two new layers of suites is set to do to the upper deck at Barcelona’s Camp Nou, which before its reconstruction offered decent nosebleed tickets despite its massive 95,000-seat capacity. The last seat at the new Yankee Stadium is about the same distance from the field as the last seat at the old one, but that’s because it has about 12% fewer seats total — the 45,000th seat is still just as bad if not worse.

To be fair, Ryan has also talked about “building things up and cantilevering them over instead of going out,” so it’s possible his designers have also worked to bring the remaining upper-deck seats closer to the field by setting them atop the lower deck, which would be a refreshing change from most recent stadium design. (Though it doesn’t really look like it from the renderings.) When stadium builders start talking about “the worst seat in the house” being closer to the action, though, it’s important for readers — and journalists — to demand proof that the new design is actually better for fans, and not just better for the ticket office since they can let the 10,000 chintziest fans stay home and watch on TV.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Rays plan return to upgraded Trop, soccer stadiums in every city not working out so well

This was a light posting week, as I was traveling and the airline mayhem as the result of the government shutdown … didn’t actually affect me at all, my flight was uneventful and actually landed ahead of schedule. The cab ride from the airport hit a lot of traffic, though!

Stadium and arena news was light as well, presumably everyone was distracted by one scandal or another, but there’s still plenty to chew on:

  • The Tampa Bay Rays confirmed that they’ll return to Tropicana Field next spring after roof repairs are done, along with “an expanded main videoboard, new video displays behind home plate and along both foul poles, a new sound system and updated suite interiors.” The city is, as required in the team’s lease, paying for $59.7 million in repairs ($7.65 million has been covered by insurance); the team owners are paying for upgrades, though they haven’t revealed how much they’re spending, and determining things like whether replacing the interior of a flooded luxury suite with a nicer interior is a repair or an upgrade could get dicey, hopefully someone either in city government or in the local media is keeping an eye on that, please?
  • Can Soccer Stadiums Revitalize American Cities?” asks the New York Times, with the big reveal being: Nope. “Mixed-use development components, particularly ones that include housing, are often delayed or, to date, are incomplete,” reports the Times. “And those projects, experts say, don’t always bring in the revenue and economic activity that are promised.” Ian Betteridge is shocked, shocked.
  • The owner of the Des Moines Menace is seeking state money for a $95 million soccer stadium for that minor-league USL team as well as a yet-to-be-created women’s pro soccer team, and the Des Moines Register is asking if it will revitalize Des Moines like soccer stadiums have other cities, guess they couldn’t get past the Times paywall. (Psst, use archive.ph.)
  • The Los Angeles City Council officially voted to oppose the Dodger Stadium gondola project, with one councilmember calling it “an insult to our communities, and the process has been an insult to our collective intelligence,” yup, that tracks. The ultimate decision is up to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which wrapped up its public comment period on the proposal yesterday.
  • The Philadelphia 76ers arena plan for the edge of Chinatown is dead, but the controversy over how the site will be “revitalized” lives on, with Sixers owner Josh Harris planning to start demolitions soon and neighborhood advocates saying that’s only “going to make the situation worse with no real guarantees that it will get better.” But blight is good for getting development projects approved, so it could end up being better for Harris, why doesn’t anyone ever think of the poor little rich boy?
Share this post: