Category: the sports-media complex

Stadium questions the media shouldn’t even bother asking

access_time personNeil deMause

If you’ve been reading this site for any length of time, you’ll know that I’m a big fan of Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, which states, to save you from having to click through, that “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” It’s not 100% accurate — sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes even definitely maybe. But most of the time it’s a sign that a reporter spent a bunch of time on investigating a question, realized the answer was boringly obvious, and their editors decided to post the query as the headline instead, hoping to at least get clickthrus from readers curious to find out the details. (Which is pretty much how most headlines are designed to work these days anyway.)

Which brings us to these two recent, I’m going to call them “news stories,” though one is an item accompanying an All Things Considered radio item and the other is a repost of a Substack post:

Downtown Minneapolis is struggling. Would a new Wolves and Lynx arena help?

Pretty easy to guess no here, given that the Timberwolves and Lynx already play in a downtown Minneapolis arena, even if it’s one where, as one fan told Minnesota Public Radio, has “restrooms [that] look like they’ve been there for 20 years.” (Presumably whenever her own restrooms get too old, she moves to a new house?) And in fact, the author of the piece knows the answer, because there’s Kennesaw State University economist J.C. Bradbury down in the later grafs saying the answer is no, and it “isn’t some rogue opinion I have. It’s something that’s shared by the entire disciplin. If you ask doctors, ‘Is smoking bad?’ They’ll universally say yes. If you ask economists, ‘Are stadiums bad public investments?’ They’ll universally say yes.”

The article then pivots to talking about how much expensive arenas are to build these days (true), and how the “aging Target Center is mostly upper deck seats” which makes tickets more affordable (possibly slightly true, but probably not so much). It’s not clear why any of this story exists, though the accompanying radio piece does feature T-Wolves co-owner Alex Rodriguez (yes, that one) describing a new arena as “an anchor to the community,” so presumably this was pitched as an investigation of that claim — though if so, sticking in one quote from an economist halfway down saying this question has been asked and answered and then running a headline making it seem like an open question … that’s a choice, certainly.

Then there’s whatever you call this, which ran last week in the Rochester Beacon as a reprint of local reporter Gary Craig’s Substack column:

Is the new Bills stadium really such a bad deal for taxpayers?

Going to go with yes here, because (waves hands generally at everything that has been written about it on this website and elsewhere). But sure, let’s hear how spending $750 million in state money and $250 million in county money to move the Buffalo Bills across the street could be a good deal for taxpayers:

Tucked away in New York’s 2021 analysis of costs for a new Buffalo Bills stadium is this tidbit: “Personal income tax, primarily related to Bills team payroll, is the largest single fiscal revenue source, generating approximately $19.5 million per year for the State of New York.”

That number was likely low then, and with the increasing salary cap in the NFL, is certainly low now. Experts with whom I’ve spoken estimate the annual income tax revenue likely will be upwards of $30 million from the Bills and visiting teams…

These income taxes are numbers not often talked about in the debate over public financial support for a new stadium.

Uhhh, is this for Substack’s new posting-while-smoking-crack vertical? The benefit of getting income taxes from player payrolls is talked about all the damn time by team owners and pro-stadium-subsidy politicians — in fact, here’s then-Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing so about a new Milwaukee Bucks arena 10 years ago. The problem is threefold:

  1. Math: Even $30 million a year in new income tax revenue isn’t enough to cover $1 billion in public spending — it’d be worth a little less than half of that in present value. So even by Craig’s own logic, the answer to his question is yes, it’s a bad deal for taxpayers.
  2. New vs. existing revenue: The Bills already play in Buffalo, so this is income tax money that the state and county will be getting regardless of what stadium they play in. It would only become a windfall if you assume the Bills would have moved without a $1 billion stadium subsidy, which LOL.
  3. The but-for: Even if the Bills did move, the money Bills fans currently spend on tickets would likely be spent on something else within Erie County and certainly New York state, and would go to pay other salaries that would generate income taxes. It wouldn’t be a 1:1 replacement, no — a portion of the Bills salaries are paid by TV rights money, and that would indeed depart — but some of the tax revenue would remain, making the $1 billion taxpayer expense look even worse.

“I’m still trying to do a deeper dive on the stadium financing,” concludes Craig, and maybe he should have finished his research before posting this, or at least before letting the Rochester Beacon reprint his off-the-cuff thoughts. Anyway, hope this helps, not sure honestly why I’m still trying to critique a journalism world that is invariably headed slopwards, I’ll have to do a deeper dive on that impulse someday.

Share this post:

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

access_time personNeil deMause

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:

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:

Bears execs now likely demanding $1B+ from Arlington Heights for stadium project, fine print reveals

access_time personNeil deMause

Snuck into one of last week’s economic impact reports for a proposed Chicago Bears stadium in Arlington Heights was an eye-popping number: “To jumpstart the full redevelopment potential of the 326-acre Arlington Park site, the Bears are seeking public funding for $855 million needed for district infrastructure,” wrote consultants HR&A. Among the projects to be funded by the $855 million — the source of which remains unclear, though a tax increment financing district has been suggested — would be, according to the Chicago Tribune’s Robert McCoppin, “entrance and exit ramps from near Route 53 and changes to the adjacent Metra train line.”

Adding a nearly billion-dollar ask in the fine print of a consulting report is a choice, and it was notable enough to catch the attention of the Tribune editorial board, which weighed in today with an editorial asking the question, “Are the Bears’ high-priced demands for ‘infrastructure support’ just another form of subsidy?” Its verdict: Yeah, probably.

This page has supported the principle that government generally bears some responsibility to pay for legitimate infrastructure in order to support development sizable enough to generate a big number of jobs and major economic growth. But at some point, depending on the scale, that infrastructure tab begins to morph into subsidy. At $855 million — and let’s be honest, the cost likely will be higher — we think the Bears already are at that point.

As we have discussed here innumerable times, calculating the public cost of a development project is as much art as science, and one of the biggest judgment calls is on things like infrastructure. The best definition of a “subsidy” is a special dispensation that most people normally wouldn’t get: If you build a house, the local government often covers the cost of building the street out front, the sewer connections, etc. Though not always: In many cases developers will pay development impact fees to cover the public costs of infrastructure.

“Normally,” clearly, is doing a lot of work in that definition. (As is “legitimate” in the Tribune editorial.) Which is why sports developers, and developers in general, will often try to sneak in stuff that is not normal at all, like new highway exits or new train stations, arguing that it’s not really a subsidy because the public will get use out of it. Another way of looking at it, though, is that developers are looking to get land cheap because it has lousy transit access and then get the government to pay to improve it, providing a huge private windfall.

So determining whether something should be counted as a subsidy is less a matter of scale than of whether the Bears are trying to get taxpayers to cover something the team would normally be expected to. And that certainly looks to be the case here, though it would be nice to see an itemized list of the whole $855 million, something that team execs haven’t yet divulged.

And on top of that, of course, there’s the “tax certainty” that the Bears are trying to get as part of a state “megaproject” bill, which would allow them to lock in reduced property taxes on the entire stadium development site. How that would mesh with a TIF district to pay for the infrastructure is, once again, unclear — the whole point of a TIF is to kick back new property taxes from a development to the developer, but if property taxes are capped there won’t be much if anything to kick back — but on a multi-billion-dollar development it could be substantial. At the very least, it’s safe to say that Bears execs intend to ask for well over $1 billion in publicly provided stuff, which is a lot for a project that the team’s own extremely rosy projections say is expected to bring in $69 million a year in new state, county, and local tax revenues, a best-case scenario that would still leave the public losing money if the subsidy total tops $1.1 billion.

All of which was enough to get the Tribune editors to take a rare (for newspaper editorial boards) look into hidden tax subsidies for stadium projects, and props to them for doing so. Either the Trib’s hedge fund goon owners are singularly dedicated to robust economic analysis of development projects, or this is just what happens to media coverage when the local political establishment isn’t on board, you make the call.

Share this post:

DC passes final $6.6B Commanders stadium subsidy, there is much media rejoicing

access_time personNeil deMause

The Washington, D.C. city council cast its second and final vote yesterday on the Commanders stadium deal that will involve a record-shattering $6.6 billion (or more) in public subsidies, and as expected passed it again, this time by an 11-2 margin instead of last month’s 9-3. Let’s see how our news media, which are not at all influenced by their corporate leadership or by other political pressures, described the decision:

  • Washington Post: “Transformative $3.7 billion Commanders stadium deal passes D.C. Council”
  • USA Today: “The stadium is set to open in 2030, just in time to host big events like the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup and potentially the Super Bowl.”
  • WTOP: “The Washington Commanders are coming home.”

Not everyone was just feeling the excitement, admittedly: WUSA9 reported that the vote was “met with celebration by fans and concern by some neighbors in the surrounding community,” noting that local residents had asked for accommodations like guarantees of affordable housing, public transit, and preservation of green space. But proposed amendments on those and other matters — including the team having to repay the city if it failed to fully develop the stadium property as promised — were rejected after Commanders president Mark Clouse sent a letter to the council expressing his “deep concern” that any changes would make the project “unworkable and impractical,” at which point a councilmember who had vowed to vote no if the changes weren’t approved flipped his vote to yes anyway.

There was also some more critical coverage, including Greater Greater Washington‘s “Wednesday’s Council vote gets us a lousy RFK stadium deal,” which noted that D.C.’s CFO had declared the $6.6 billion in tax and land breaks to be “not financially necessary for the Team.” But that’s going to land far fewer eyeballs than Jeff Bezos’s WaPo calling the deal “transformative” — a word lifted from Commanders owner Josh Harris’s statement on the vote and not even dignified with quote marks in the paper’s headline (notably, it doesn’t appear in the accompanying article), something that could certainly never have been influenced by the fact that Bezos and Harris share both a socioeconomic status and a pal in the White House.

Very little of the news coverage bothered to describe the last-minute amendments (though almost all detailed Harris’s objection to them), and even less went into any detail about the $6.6 billion in stadium and garage construction payments, property tax breaks, and 26 years of free rent on 24 acres of prime city-owned property, all without even going through the motions of seeking competitive bids for the former RFK Stadium site. It all made for a shameful day for the media — okay, an even more shameful day — and prompted sports economist J.C. Bradbury to repost the Journalist’s Resource’s four tips for covering sports stadium deals, which include basic stuff like “interrogate economic impact statements or fiscal estimates from franchise owners” and “Understand how states and localities finance stadium construction.” Or, you know, you can just reprint team owner claims about all the Super Bowls this will bring. Journalists, think carefully: One may risk pissing off your publisher, while the other will get you done by lunchtime. It’s a knotty ethical conundrum!

Share this post:

One person’s red tape is another’s oversight: a Denver Broncos stadium story

access_time personNeil deMause

The Denver Post ran a big Sunday explainer yesterday on what Broncos management still needs to do to get a stadium deal done: negotiate a community benefits agreement, get the land rezoned, seek tax breaks, clean up contaminated soil. None of it is super-interesting unless you’re fascinated by environmental report minutiae (“Groundwater contaminants included additional total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, lead, cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyls”), but I want to zero in on the nut graf, which comes just two sentences in:

There will be community negotiations. There will be an environmental cleanup. There will be planning and design. And there will be a whole lot of bureaucracy.

“Bureaucracy” is an interesting word. It was coined in the 18th century by French economist Vincent de Gournay as “bureaucratie,” a portmanteau word combining French and Greek terms to mean literally “government by desk.” De Gournay created the term to describe the system of professional managers installed by King Louis XIV to oversee his sprawling empire, which the economist saw as tyrannical and overbearing. (De Gournay’s main objection was that government regulations served to hamstring businesses — a position he promulgated, ironically enough, as an appointed member of the French bureaucracy.)

From the start, then, “bureaucracy” was an epithet: It’s what you call the rules when you don’t like them. When you do like them, they get different names: “oversight,” “regulation,” “management.” It’s a political term, in other words, which isn’t to say it shouldn’t be used — it describes a very real and exasperating phenomenon, as anyone who’s tried to file an insurance claim can testify — but rather that it’s important to pay careful attention to how and when it’s deployed.

In the Post’s case, by describing the stadium as facing bureaucratic “hurdles,” the story is framed as a collision between a promised future good — “a state-of-the-art stadium as well as housing and an entertainment district that would draw events and people year-round” — and the sadly necessary steps needed to get the sausages made. It’s not a bad article: It provides a useful reference for anyone who wants a laundry list of items that the Broncos need to check off their list before breaking ground on (and potentially collecting tax money for) a new stadium development. (It’s certainly preferable to the Post’s editorial last week that argued for the stadium project as “an announcement that all of Colorado can celebrate” after only talking to three people: the Broncos CEO and the Denver mayor and Colorado governor who are pushing for the deal.) But it also establishes the public image of the essential conflict here as between well-meaning sports developers and desk-bound paper pushers, as if Broncos owners Greg and Carrie Penner are just another couple of regular Joes struggling to renew their driver’s licenses.

We see this kind of framing all over these days, of course, most notably with assaults on government “inefficiency” that turn out to involve stopping research on cancer treatment. While keeping bureaucrats from bogging everything down in red tape is a noble goal, sometimes paper pushers are the best defense against letting people pursue really bad ideas, too, so it’s important to cast them as slightly more nuanced than mere obstacles to progress.

What should be the real takeaway here: The Penners are trying to build a big, complicated project that will require all kinds of environmental remediation and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars worth of discounted land and tax breaks. And at this point, the only thing that can stand in their way is a whole bunch of spiritual descendants of Louis XIV’s desk-sitters. It’s not an optimal situation, for sure, but then, you know what Churchill never said about democracy.

Share this post:

Explaining the explainer on the San Antonio Spurs arena funding plan

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s fair to say that media coverage so far of San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt’s plans for a new arena district paid for partly by taxpayer money hasn’t been very good: The San Antonio Express-News has advocated against letting the public vote on how public money will be used, while News4SanAntonio had a reporter point to a chart showing how tax money would be used on the project and say “this doesn’t come from your tax money.” Meanwhile, local news outlets keep beating the drum to threaten that the Spurs could move without a new arena, even while acknowledging that Holt doesn’t have any great options to move to.

Against that backdrop, it’s nice to see a local news outlet, the nonprofit San Antonio Report, attempting an analysis of how the money would work for the Spurs deal. How’d they do? Let’s take a look:

Soon voters will be asked to weigh in on a portion of the NBA arena’s public funding, $311 million in county venue tax dollars, on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Another $489 million is expected to come from the city, which says it can spend the money without a public vote. And the remaining $500 million-plus would be paid for by the Spurs’ ownership.

That’s basically right, though it’s worth noting that the $311 million in county tax money would arrive over three decades, so it would only cover about half that in up-front arena expenses. Present value matters!

Unlike the city, which is using tax reinvestments, Bexar County’s taxing entities will enjoy the growth in taxable value from both the East Side developments and the new downtown sports and entertainment district — money that’s needed for a budget that relies heavily on new growth.

This is a mouthful, and it’s mostly wrong or at best misleading. So let’s unpack it bit by bit:

One part of those city “tax reinvestments” would actually come from a Project Finance Zone, a Texas-specific subsidy where state sales taxes are in and around a redevelopment area are siphoned off to help pay for the development itself. Since this is money that would otherwise go to the state treasury, one could see it as free money for the city — though, obviously, San Antonio residents are also Texas residents, so draining the state budget to help pay for a new Spurs arena isn’t exactly a free lunch.

Another part is from a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, which is just a TIF, redirecting any increase in city property taxes in the redeveloped area back to the developer. And as the Report reports, that’s not free money either: “New housing and development within the zone requires city resources, like police and fire, but the growth in property tax revenue is being directed toward special projects within the zone, instead of boosting the general fund for the entire city.” Translation: The new Project Marvel development that would include an arena would come with lots of new city costs, but the taxes that would normally pay for those added costs will instead go back to Holt to pay for building the arena.

The county money, meanwhile, would come from an existing car rental tax and an increase in hotel taxes, neither of which have much to do with a new arena — it’s unlikely Spurs fans will rent more hotel rooms or cars just because they’ve bought tickets to a sparklier home court — but which are revenue streams the county has available and if you squint they kind of have to do with “tourism,” so they’re getting thrown into the pot. Or will assuming that Bexar County voters approve them on election day in November, which no one appears to have done any polling on of late, but earlier this year support was deemed “tepid.”

And on top of all this, there’s the possibility of a city “infrastructure bond” — to be voted on separately, likely next spring — to provide $220-250 million toward new bridges and highway ramps to support the arena project. (The Report’s explainer doesn’t explain where the money to pay off the bonds would come from.)

So that’s more than $750 million worth of tax money going to the Spurs owner, in exchange for getting a big new downtown development and relief from any fears that Holt will move the team to Greensboro. Is that, like, a good deal? A bad deal? Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

Here’s the entire cast of characters quoted by the paper in its attempts to explain the situation:

  • Rena Oden, an “activist with the COPS/Metro group that opposes the program”
  • Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai, who wants to “do everything I can to keep the Spurs in town”
  • Pro-arena councilmember Marina Alderete Gavito
  • Houston Chronicle business columnist Chris Tomlinson, who is concerned the promised increased tax revenues may never arrive
  • San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones, who wants an independent analysis of the project
  • City of San Antonio Chief Financial Officer Ben Gorzell, who says the arena plan is “predicated on not using existing city resources or funds”
  • John W. Diamond, a tax and finance expert at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, who fails to really explain the infrastructure bond beyond calling it “the whole process on steroids”
  • Councilmember Teri Castillo, who doesn’t want to see money diverted from the city’s general fund

That certainly checks all the boxes of citing both proponents and critics, though it’s worth noting that most of the quotes are recycled from past public statements, so the Report’s reporters didn’t spend much time picking up the phone for this one. And they absolutely didn’t call any of the people who would be the most useful: sports economists or local budget analysts who could discuss what return on investment, if any, San Antonio and Bexar County can expect to get from $750 million in Spurs arena subsidies. Bothsidesing may make your news outlet look “neutral,” but what readers need going into public ballots is information on what exactly they’ll be voting on and how it will affect what government money they’ll have available. Without that, it’s all too easy to see this as a simple referendum on whether the Spurs leave town — which it very much isn’t, but if Holt gets to play it that way without ever having to threaten to leave, it’ll be a win-win for the Caterpillar dealership magnate.

Share this post:

Dumb reasons to build a stadium with public money just got even dumber

access_time personNeil deMause

Way back in the early days of this site, I used to do an annual “dumbest reasons of the year for building a stadium,” which I eventually stopped doing because they were all just variations on the same theme: the team will move without one, it will bring economic riches to your city, etc. But I may have to revive the tradition for 2025 if things keep going like they are this week, because hoo baby.

First up, we have this from Sports Illustrated, or at least from “Tennessee Titans on SI,” the rebranded FanNation network of blogs that aren’t really SI articles but look like them if you aren’t paying close attention:

The Tennessee Titans are opening a new and improved Nissan Stadium opening in 2027, which will feature a retractable roof.

The new stadium will help the city of Nashville’s chances at hosting a Super Bowl in the near future. … [Titans president and CEO Burke] Nihill believes hosting a Super Bowl will elevate the Titans as a franchise.

“Why not us? In terms of taking a place on the Mount Rushmore of NFL franchises and cities? I mean, you think about what our current reality has been up until now, which is an aging building built pretty basically, surrounded by parking lots, to that future where I think a lot of the energy of our city, especially for locals, will be right out our front door, and we’ll have a lot of ability to play into that,” Nihill said via Freeze.

“If the football team is sustainably great, which I believe it will be, and we do all of these things right? We’re a completely different organization than we are today.”

Like, what even? Yes, new stadiums get Super Bowls, sometimes, at least once before going back to the back of the line. The usual argument for wanting a Super Bowl is that it is a huge boon to the local economy, which is very much is not, but at least we’re used to hearing that.

But the idea that “taking a place on the Mount Rushmore of NFL franchises” — which would be a pretty damn big Mount Rushmore, with 17 cities on it — would make the Titans “a completely different organization” … that’s breaking new ground in stupid. The Nihill quote turns out to be from a longer interview by A to Z Sports, a company whose founding mission was essentially “talk radio, but made entirely of internet, that should go well,” and the Titans CEO wasn’t even talking about Super Bowls so much as how “we’re going to activate that thing like crazy with movie nights in the park and yoga and farmers markets and little concerts” — but honestly the word salad is so intense that I can see where the On SI writer could have gotten lost, though he might have wondered at what kind of sense it was supposed to make. (Ha ha, no, that’s not what he’s paid to do, if he’s paid at all.

Moving on to San Antonio, where the Express-News has been beating the drum for Spurs owner Peter Holt’s Project Marvel development project for a while now, and today the paper’s editorial board takes on the question of whether city residents should get to vote on spending $489 million in tax money on the arena project, and comes to a novel conclusion:

This would be a city election, likely in May 2026, on dedicating $489 million toward the $1.3 billion project.

It would follow a November election in which Bexar County voters will decide whether to increase the county’s hotel occupancy tax and maintain its car rental tax to dedicate $311 million toward the arena, which is proposed to be built on site of the Institute of Texan Cultures at Hemisfair.

To be clear, the city’s contribution is contingent on this vote. If voters reject the county funds, they are rejecting the entire project, city funds included. For this reason, we don’t see a need for a second vote on the same issue.

It’s far cleaner to simply have a vote and let the chips fall where they may. Let the voters decide and then let the world spin.

First off: No, the “entire project” doesn’t die if the $311 million in county funds (really more like $150 million in present value) is rejected; Holt could still take his $489 million in city funds and try to supplement it with some other funding source. But more to the point: Express-News editorial board, you do know that Bexar County (2.2 million people) and San Antonio (1.5 million people) are two distinct places, right? So just because voters in the county but outside the city vote for (or against) using county money on the arena project doesn’t mean that voters in the city will do the same with city money — it’s why they have separate elections for county and city positions, and don’t just let the county judge appoint the San Antonio mayor on the grounds that that’s “far cleaner.”

In both of these cases, the arguments being made are less reasons than pretexts — the Titans CEO wants a stadium so he can make more money on it, not to be on some “Mount Rushmore” of Super Bowl hosts, and the Express-News wants no arena vote because it really wants an arena for some damn reason, and waiting till next May and then letting voters have their say would be subjecting the Spurs owner’s desires to the whims of democracy, and we can’t have that. And hey look, there’s a headline in the San Antonio Business Journal about how San Antonio needs to build an arena for the Spurs because the Seattle Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City, though it’s paywalled and not available on either Wayback or archive.ph, so I can’t determine what exactly its case is. It’s going to be a competitive race this year for Dumbest Reason to Build a Stadium, so get your dumb reasons in now!

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Reading the fine print on stadium and arena deals is a lost art

access_time personNeil deMause

A note to all of you Field of Schemes supporters who signed up to receive the daily posts in email — I’ve been made aware of a glitch that may have been keeping some new members from getting the emails. This should now be fixed, but if you think you should be receiving emails but still aren’t, please contact me; if you think you shouldn’t be receiving emails but are, then really contact me. (And if you’re not receiving emails because you haven’t become a monthly patron but would like to, just sign up!)

And with that business out of the way, let’s move on to the real excitement: the week’s leftover stadium and arena news!

Share this post:

Bears exec to Illinois: Give us tax breaks for Arlington Heights stadium, or else (feigns coughing fit)

access_time personNeil deMause

The owners of the Chicago Bears are looking for help from the Illinois legislature for their proposed new stadium in Arlington Heights, and here’s how the Associated Press describes it:

The Bears have the plans drawn up for the indoor stadium but need a mega bill to pass in Springfield in October to supply momentum for the construction.

“The biggest item that remains, that has remained, is the fact that this mega project build that was on the docket in the spring but was not put forth for a vote, but it is very, very important that it passes,” [Bears president Kevin] Warren said. “Because without that legislation, we are not able to proceed forward.”

Momentum! Can you be a little more specific about what that means, AP?

The bill the Bears want to see passed would freeze property taxes for large-scale construction projects like the stadium.

Getting warmer, but that still doesn’t quite describe what the bill would do, which is to rule that construction projects that meet “certain investment and job creation specifications” would eligible for both a freeze on their property tax assessments and abatements of property taxes, subject to the determination of the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. As we covered here in May, this “would function exactly the same as a TIF that kicked back future tax increases to the team” — no one has yet done the calculations for what this would be worth to the Bears owners, but on a proposed $2.7 billion development, suffice to say that it could be a lot.

Whether Warren’s demands will get any more traction in Springfield than it did last session is unclear from the AP article, which only interviewed two sources, Warren and team owner George McCaskey. Warren did turn up the heat slightly on Friday, warning that Arlington Heights is “the only location in Cook County that will allow us to build a stadium — the new Chicago Bears stadium — with a fixed roof,” without which … okay, he left that to the imagination, he knows how this game is played. Warren also added that the Bears owners are “not trying to avoid paying taxes,” which is even more left to the imagination how that works for a bill that would only do one thing, and that’s to lower the team’s taxes. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the best idea to write articles about a new development project that only quote the guy seeking tax breaks for it? Something to consider trying, anyway!

Share this post:
Field of Schemes