Cardinals owners could get $380m in state cash by piggybacking on Royals’ stadium deal

If anyone was wondering when someone would notice that the St. Louis Cardinals owners could benefit from the stadium mega-subsidy bill that passed the Missouri senate last week, that shoe has now definitively dropped:

For more than a year, Cardinals ownership has been studying the needs of the stadium as it comes up on its 20th birthday next year. Now, a bill approved by the Missouri Senate could have the state cover half the cost of any project of more than $500 million.

“We weren’t going to leave the east side of the state out,” said Sen. Kurtis Gregory, the central Missouri Republican and former Mizzou lineman carrying the stadium bill. “I’m the guy that if the Royals don’t make the playoffs, I’m cheering for the Cardinals.”

Cool, cool. And never mind that the ostensible reason for giving the Kansas City Royals state money was that they (theoretically) might move to Kansas otherwise, while the Cardinals have no offer of juicy tax breaks to move to Illinois — it’s just fairness to give state cash to every MLB and NFL owner in sight, you understand.

Cardinals officials, who last year floated the idea of getting subsidies similar in scale to the Milwaukee Brewers ($500 million) and Baltimore Orioles ($600 million, for starters), aren’t saying if or how they would get those renovation costs up over the magic half-billion-dollar mark to be eligible for state funds, but I’m sure they’ll find a way: Potential needs identified by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch include new elevators, air-conditioning units, and club areas needing a “reset” so they can keep generating “outsized revenue” for the team, which is a pretty on-the-nose way of confirming our book’s subtitle.

And while the minimum subsidy to Cardinals renovations would be $250 million, the maximum could be much higher: The team reported paying $25 million in state taxes in 2022, all of which they would be able to reclaim to use toward stadium improvements. That would be enough to cover around $380 million in renovation costs — almost as much it cost to build the Cardinals’ stadium in the first place. Quick, somebody go figure out a way to buy $760 million in air conditioners, Missouri taxpayers are buying!

Share this post:

Missouri senate agrees in middle of night to spend $1B+ on Chiefs and Royals stadiums in exchange for tornado relief, other goodies

After spending most of yesterday not meeting and instead haggling behind the scenes, the Missouri state senate finally reconvened its special session last night and then voted at 2:30 am to approve Gov. Mike Kehoe’s stadium subsidy bill. The vote was 19-13, with seven of the senate’s 10 Democrats joining 12 of its 24 Republicans in favor.

The Democrats were won over after Kehoe added $125 million in disaster relief and housing for tornado victims, funding for a new mental health hospital, and other items that had previously been left out of the state budget. He also agreed to freeze property taxes in some counties, a measure that some Republicans were holding out for but some Democrats complained would reduce funding for local school districts.

In exchange, the senate approved one of the most sweeping tax subsidy schemes for sports stadiums in U.S. history: Whereas more typical funding plans might kick back increased sales or property taxes from a project to help pay off construction costs, Kehoe’s bill would collect all tax money being received currently at a stadium and kick it back to the team that plays there, up to a maximum of 50% of any construction or renovation costs. (If you need a reminder of why tax money paid at stadiums doesn’t really belong to the teams, Oscar Madison has got you covered.) With Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt talking about $1.15 billion in renovations to Arrowhead Stadium and Royals owner John Sherman looking at a new stadium costing between $1 billion and $2 billion, this means at least $1 billion in state tax money would go to the team owners, and likely much more — especially since they could come back and demand more state money down the road so long as they were spending at least $500 million on future upgrades.

The middle-of-the-night vote does not mean that the Chiefs and Royals stadium plans are immediately a go: The bill has to pass the Missouri house first, and though it already approved the stadium measure once, if it rejects the other last-minute goodies Kehoe tacked on to win votes, the bill could be kicked back to reconciliation talks with the senate. Plus, as team lobbyists pointed out on Tuesday, they still want even more public money from city and county governments before agreeing to any stadium deals. It doesn’t seem likely that all this will be hashed out by the end of the month when the teams’ offer of stadium funding from Kansas is set to expire, but that hardly matters at this point: Assuming the Missouri house and senate can work out final bill language, the owners of the Chiefs and Royals — and the St. Louis Cardinals if they want, and potentially a new St. Louis NFL team if it ever gets one — now have an endless slush fund of state tax money to tap into anytime they want a new or renovated stadium, which is one hell of a blank check.

The takeaway here: Getting neighboring states into bidding wars works, as does offering political opponents spending items they want in exchange for holding their noses and voting for something they don’t like. Neither of which should be a surprise to anyone who’s followed U.S. legislative history, but it’s still a depressing reminder of the state of the political world in which we live.

Share this post:

Missouri gov calls special session to approve billions in subsidies for Royals, Chiefs, maybe Cardinals?

Well, that didn’t take long: The morning after Thursday night’s conclusion of the regular session of the Missouri legislature with no vote on his plan to fund half of all future sports stadiums with state money, Gov. Mike Kehoe announced he was calling legislators back for a special session to consider Kansas City Chiefs and Royals subsidies:

“The Chiefs and Royals packages, and this has been very public, about remodeling on the Arrowhead Stadium and a potential new baseball stadium are somewhere between $2.5 and $3 billion, I would consider that significant economic development.”

Yep, spending between $1.25 billion and $1.5 billion in state money on stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals would indeed represent between $1.25 billion and $1.5 billion in economic activity, if “economic activity” actually means anything, which it doesn’t really. But you know what else would create the same amount of economic activity? Spending that public money on literally anything else — for example, the $513 million in construction projects for community health centers and national guard facilities and other stuff that was killed by legislative leaders earlier this month, enraging members of the Democratic minority and leaving Kehoe’s sports subsidy plan short of votes, since Missouri Republicans are split on whether it’s good or bad to give state tax money to billionaires.

Haggling over stuff like those other construction projects is likely to be one focus of the special session. Democratic State Sen. Barbara Washington said, “While the Chiefs do bring a significant economic impact as well as the Royals, the greater economic good is to put a hospital down in the rural parts of our state, it is to make sure that we have obstetrics care north of US 36, it’s to make sure that we get the $48 million that we still need to do the mental health hospital in Kansas City,” and Kehoe said “everything is on the table” for what can be discussed going forward. How the political calculus works out is still to be determined, but clearly the governor really wants to create this ongoing stadium fund (it’s all the rage!) and is prepared to barter with whatever he can.

The time pressure here is that Kansas’s offer to siphon off future growth in sales tax receipts to pay for new Chiefs and Royals stadiums expires at the end of June, raising fears that the team owners could jump to accept that plan before time runs out, and prompting headlines about how Kehoe’s bill is needed to “keep the teams in Missouri.” (Neither Chiefs owner Clark Hunt nor Royals owner John Sherman has so much as publicly hinted at announcing a move in June, mind you, but state officials seldom let that stop them from bidding against themselves.) Kehoe’s plan would up the ante significantly — siphoning off all existing tax receipts as well as future ones — and a total price tag is hard to estimate, though it would certainly be many billions of dollars, especially if teams like the St. Louis Cardinals seek to take advantage of it for upgrades to their now-19-year-old stadium. This sure looks to be the year when all records are shattered for public stadium funding proposals; whether these break records for public stadium funding approvals as well is now in the hands of legislators. One hopes that these debates will keep focused on whether there’s any justification for spending billions of dollars of public money on private stadiums won’t just devolve into exercises in horse trading — there’s a first time for everything, right?

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Sacramento celebrates A’s move with new golf simulators, KC residents say cap public stadium funds at one-third

Sports economist Victor Matheson and I were both on a radio show this week to discuss the Cleveland Browns and Kansas City Royals and Chiefs stadium situations — you can listen to it here, but first check out the rest of this week’s stadium and arena news, it’ll be quick, I promise:

  • There’s a “major economic boost” coming to Sacramento now that the Oakland A’s are relocating there temporarily, reports KCRA-TV: A new brunch-and-golf-simulators venue is opening across the street! (It was going to open there anyway, but now that the A’s are coming, the owner is trying to open it earlier.) Also, the mayor is “in discussions” with three new restaurants! Feel the excitement!
  • There is no excitement in St. Louis, where the Cardinals are still technically in the playoff hunt, but fans in the best baseball city in the world don’t want to watch .500 baseball, it turns out, or even buy hot dogs. “I love being the hot dog lady,” says hot dog lady Karen Boschert. “I’ve cut my staff down. My prices are reasonable. You can take my food into the stadium.” Maybe she could pivot her sales pitch to point out that you can buy her food and not bring it into the stadium? Just an idea.
  • Pollsters in Missouri decided to ask an unusual question of local voters: not whether taxpayers should pay toward new stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals, but how much. The average was two-thirds team, one-sixth state, one-sixth city and county, which is kind of arbitrary and doesn’t account for whether the public would get back any share of revenues or community benefits or anything, but sure it sounds fair. Ish. Time will tell if the team owners come back with “zero-thirds team, poke in the eye with a sharp stick public.”
  • Most of the San Antonio residents who testified at a Wednesday hearing on a $160 million Missions minor-league baseball stadium “voiced concerns and skepticism,” according to Fox San Antonio. For actual quotes we have to turn to KSAT, which notes that a local arts and social justice activist said, “This project is all about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer,” while a resident of a housing complex that would be demolished to make way for the stadium said, “I would not be able to get somewhere else, and I would end up in the street yet again.”
  • Chicago’s city budget is facing a $982.4 million shortfall, and Mayor Brandon Johnson says, “There are sacrifices that will be made,” but not new Bears and White Sox stadiums, those are important even if they would cost the city upwards of $1.2 billion and $2 billion respectively, sacrifices are for little people.
  • Team-funded studies of a Philadelphia 76ers arena say it would be great, other studies show it would be a disaster; the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board says it’s up to the mayor and city council to figure out where the truth lies in the middle!
  • Another group of developers unrelated to either the Royals or the city has come up with renderings for a new downtown baseball stadium, and guys, you should at least look up how many players are on the field for a baseball game.
Share this post:

St. Louis Cardinals exec: We’re not asking yet for $500m+ in renovations to 18-year-old stadium, but wait for it

Not sure how this slipped under my radar last week, but: St. Louis Cardinals president and nepo baby Bill DeWitt III said Thursday that he’ll be asking the city, county, and state for a “big infusion of capital” to upgrade Busch Stadium, which is (checks calendar) 18 years old:

DeWitt said the Cardinals don’t have a specific request of the public support the franchise might seek for a revamp of Busch Stadium, but that officials would approach the city, county and state as plans are developed for the project.

“We’ll sit down with the appropriate folks at the right times, but it’s premature to say ‘oh, the Cardinals are asking for something,’” Dewitt said. “We want to have those conversations with the mayor, county executive, whomever else – the state – as we sort of formulate a game plan for committing to downtown for really forever.”

DeWitt further said that the money would be needed in the next three to five years, so while it may be premature to say “oh, the Cardinals are asking for something,” it is not at all premature to say “oh, the Cardinals are about to ask for something.”

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because DeWitt the Younger said all of the exact same stuff in April, down to the “significant capital infusion” line, though back then he said it was needed in the next two to five years, so either he’s scaling back his expectations a bit or he just needs a better continuity supervisor. Back then he name-checked the Milwaukee Brewers and Baltimore Orioles renovations that are expected to be in the $500-600 million range, so presumably that’s still the dollar figure on the table, though by the time we hit the 3-5 year mark the benchmarks could be higher, who knows?

Back in 2002, right after St. Louis approved about $130 million in public money for construction of this stadium, voters approved a referendum requiring any city funding for sports facilities to go to a public vote, so presumably that would be on the table for Cardinals renovations as well. Unless the DeWitt clan figures out a way to call the city share of the money “infrastructure funding” or something that doesn’t trigger the stadium language, of course — it would be premature to assume otherwise.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Rays promise “intimate” stadium with ginormous upper deck, Cleveland running out of tax money to pay for Cavs and Guardians upgrades

Happy end of the week! Surely some other news of note happened in recent days, but you chose to come to this website, so you’re looking for different news, maybe some bleak Utah minor-league baseball renderings? And that is but the beginning of the smorgasbord of stadium and arena items on tap! (Yes, you can have a smorgasbord on tap, I’m a professional wordsmith, you’ll just have to trust me on this one.)

  • Reporting live from Tampa Bay Rays owner Stu Sternberg’s colon, the Tampa Bay Times’ Marc Topkin has a love letter to the Rays’ new stadium design, gushing about how much more “intimate” it will be thanks to only having 30,000 seats and “70% of the seats in the lower two of three seating levels.” Getting rid of the worst seats doesn’t actually make the view from the remaining seats any better — getting rid of intervening luxury seating might accomplish that, but there’s no indication Sternberg plans to do that — and having 30% of the seats in a third deck actually sounds like a lot for a 30,000-seat stadium (the Pittsburgh Pirates‘ stadium holds 38,000 and doesn’t have a third deck at all), but team officials blurted all this stuff out and Topkin wrote it down and printed it verbatim, that’s the job of a journalist, right? (UPDATE: FoS reader Andrew Ross points out that the Times actually squeezed this story onto its front page alongside the other notable news of the day.)
  • Cleveland’s stadium agency is on the hook for nearly all upkeep of the Guardians stadium and Cavaliers arena, and the alcohol and cigarette taxes that are supposed to pay for them are running dry, so someone is going to need to find more money to spend on the teams. (Right now Cavs owner Dan Gilbert is fronting his team’s arena costs, and the city and county will have to pay him back.) Some of the work includes upgraded elevators and escalators for the Cavs, kitchen equipment upgrades and new in-stadium TV screens for the Guardians, and a special film on the new glass wall at the Cavs arena to keep birds from flying into it which will have to be replaced every five years, not all of which really seem like “capital repairs” to me, but from the sound of things whoever negotiated these leases on behalf of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County did an absolutely horrible job that is allowing the team owners to bill the public for any and all upgrades, can lawyers be found guilty of malpractice? Make a note to check into that.
  • Speaking of malpractice, the Baltimore Banner managed to write about the Ravens‘ new stadium upgrades with only the briefest of mentions that state taxpayers are picking up the entire $430 million tab, and not mentioning at all that Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti can avail himself of another $170 million or much more after that. The headline the Banner chose to roll with: “M&T Bank Stadium’s premium areas will soon reach new level of luxury.” Turns out corporate-run nonprofit journalism isn’t necessarily any better than corporate-run for-profit journalism, maybe we need a better model?
  • I’ve been sadly neglecting the throwdown in Indianapolis between Indy Eleven owner Ersal Ozdemir, who was planning to build a new stadium for his USL-but-wants-to-be-MLS team with $112 million in state money, and Mayor Joe Hogsett, who now wants to use the money for a different soccer stadium on a different site for a different wannabe MLS ownership group. The City-County Council is set to vote on authorizing legislation for a new “professional sports development area” (read: super-TIF district) on June 3; if it’s approved, it would then go to the state legislature for a final vote.
  • New York Mets owner Steve Cohen’s plan to build a casino in his stadium parking lot, despite it being public parkland, is likely dead after state senator Jessica Ramos said she won’t support any casino project in her district when 75% of residents say they don’t want one. The state legislature could still pass casino authorizing legislation over the local representative’s objections, but that rarely happens, and anyway the state casino location board is unlikely to hand out a casino license to a project on such shaky ground, so probably New Yorkers will get to gamble somewhere other than the Mets parking lots, which Cohen is vowing will remain parking lots until the sun burns out, because it’s the prerogative of a sports team owner to throw a hissy fit.
  • A stairway flooded during heavy rains at the St. Louis Cardinals stadium, time to build them a new one, that’s how it works, I don’t make the rules!
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Throw another $75m on the Rays subsidy fire, Phoenix mayor opposes neo-Coyotes arena tax

It’s Friday again! I tried asking Google AI some stadium questions to see if it would return entertainingly daft answers, but I didn’t get much, so just eat your rocks and let’s get on with the week’s news remainders:

  • If an estimated $1.5 billion in cash, tax kickbacks, and land breaks for the Tampa Bay Rays didn’t sound like a lot already, turns out the $155 million that Rays owner Stu Sternberg wants to pay for 65 acres of land isn’t really $155 million, because he’d be making the payments in installments over 30 years. (St. Pete Assistant City Administrator Tom Greene estimates that this would knock about one-third off the value of the payments, making them worth $103 million; I get more like $80 million, but it depends on the exact payment schedule.) “I think that if you are not accounting for inflation in the agreement, we’re not getting the value that it says there,” said city councilmember Lisset Hanewicz, and, nope, inflation is not quite the same as devaluation for present value, but good enough for government work.
  • Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego says she “does not support using taxpayer funds, including property tax abatement, for sports arenas,” which is a blow to once-and-wannabe-future Arizona Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo’s plan to build a new arena in Phoenix using a “theme park” sales tax surcharge. “Tax abatement is essentially what establishing a theme park district does — so per the statement, she is opposed,” a Gallego spokesperson clarified — I’m still not 100% convinced that’s what it does, but either way, it’s going to make it tough for Meruelo to pursue his arena plans, at least unless the state legislature passes its bill to block city officials from having any say in such matters.
  • The city of Santa Clara and the San Francisco 49ers owners have resolved their lease dispute after, as the San Francisco Chronicle put it, “the five-member City Council majority, which was elected with the help of millions in campaign contributions from 49ers CEO Jed York, approved the deal 5-2 in a closed session Monday night.” The details are too detailed to figure out exactly who came out how far ahead in the agreement, but given the above you can probably make an educated guess.
  • Voters in Eugene, Oregon have overwhelmingly rejected spending $15 million toward a new stadium for the minor-league baseball Emeralds, who have to move from their current stadium, which is only 14 years old, because MLB is making them as part of its “force all minor-league cities to build new stadiums” plan. Team officials had previously said they would move the team if the stadium measure didn’t pass; General Manager Allan Benavides said following the vote results that he didn’t know what the team owners’ next steps would be: “We’ll have to get really creative if we want to stay here, or find a new home.” Or maybe MLB could give them a waiver to keep playing in their current stadium, though that would only help the Emeralds and their fans, not MLB, so don’t hold your breath there.
  • John Mozena of the Center for Economic Accountability (the makers of these stickers) wrote an op-ed for the Tampa Bay Times yesterday on why stadium subsidies in St. Petersburg or anywhere are a bad idea, which provides a good overview of the economic arguments and more than a few bon mots — I’m partial to “stadiums don’t create more economic activity in a city any more than cutting a pizza into more slices creates more dinner for everyone,” but feel free to choose your own favorite.
  • The St. Louis Cardinals suck, which means it’s time for a news report about how hot dog trucks outside the stadium aren’t seeing as much business. Are hot dog trucks on the other side of town doing better business as a result? That’s too hard to report, you’ll have to do your own research, apparently.
Share this post:

Cardinals owner to demand upgrades to 18-year-old stadium that could cost Missouri taxpayers $600m

In case you haven’t noticed by the flood of posts on this site of late, we’re in the midst of a sports subsidy demand boom, with a record number of team owners seeking public money for either new or renovated stadiums and arenas. And that’s been especially the case with baseball, where in the last three years alone we’ve seen: the Cleveland Guardians owner get $285 million for stadium upgrades; the Milwaukee Brewers owner get $471 million in renovation money; the Arizona Diamondbacks owner demand either a new or renovated stadium, they still can’t decide; the Baltimore Orioles owner get $600 million in stadium renovation money plus $150 million in tax breaks and development rights plus a potentially bottomless pool of money for future upgrades; the Oakland A’s owner get $600 million toward a new stadium in Las Vegas; the Kansas City Royals owner push for $1 billion in public money for a new stadium; the Tampa Bay Rays owner demand $1.5 billion in cash and tax breaks and discounted land; and the Chicago White Sox owner demand $2 billion toward a new downtown stadium project.

And now, the Riverfront Times has discovered, we can add another baseball baron to the list: Bill DeWitt Jr., owner of the St. Louis Cardinals, whose son and team president Bill DeWitt III tells the alt-weekly that the family’s 18-year-old stadium, built with the help of about $130 million in state funds, county forgivable loans, and city tax breaks, will need a “significant capital infusion” in two to five years, and guess who’ll get to pay for it?

It’s “too early” to detail what the improvements would look like, he says. “Our goal would be to handle whatever back of the house things need to happen and to fix [them], as well as probably create some cool and interesting new features for fans.”

The owners would likely seek public money for that, he adds.

When asked how much such a project would cost, DeWitt III says it would likely be in a similar range to recent Milwaukee Brewers and Baltimore Orioles projects. Those are $500 million and $600 million taxpayer investments, respectively.

DeWitt III didn’t go into detail about how the money would be raised, likely because he and his dad haven’t figured that part out yet; and likewise didn’t go into detail about how they expect to pin the tab on taxpayers when their lease runs through 2041 and prohibits them from moving during that time. But this is clearly a trial balloon to anchor expectations of how big a public tithe the DeWitts are expecting, so that if the ultimate ask gets whittled down to, say, $450 million, it looks like a relative bargain for taxpayers.

The Riverfront Times article on this (backed by the River City Journalism Fund, because that’s the only way serious journalism happens these days) runs 4,600 words, and includes in-depth look at the history of Cardinals stadium shenanigans, including tidbits about:

  • The DeWitts succeeded in getting public money for their current stadium by threatening to move across the Mississippi River to Illinois.
  • Though the DeWitts claim to have paid 90% of the construction costs of that stadium, stadium cost expert Judith Grant Long of the University of Michigan says it’s more like 79% — and that’s before counting city tax breaks, infrastructure costs, or spending on municipal services, or public subsidies for the stadium’s accompanying Ballpark Village.
  • That Ballpark Village, which was supposed to “revitalize downtown,” has instead helped lead to the closure of several local restaurants by creating new dining establishments that competed with them for fan spending, including the two-story Cardinals Nation bar/restaurant owned by the DeWitts.

And more! It’s well worth a read, for a reminder of how journalism can still work, at least when you have a crowdfunded nonprofit giving reporters the time to do actual research.

As for why the surge in recent baseball stadium subsidy demands, which will reach one-third of the league when the next owner shows up with their hand out — I’ll take a stab and guess the Pittsburgh Pirates, though there are lots of contenders — there are a bunch of factors: lots of teams with stadiums built in the ’90s and ’00s with soon-to-be-expiring leases, a feeding frenzy to get subsidy deals done before MLB expands and takes two move-threat target cities off the table, and just the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses effect you get when some rich guys get suitcases full of public cash and their frenemies see it and decide they should get the same. And so long as owners’ demands are successful — and most of them have been, though the jury’s still out for the Royals, White Sox, and D-Backs — there’s no reason this trend is going to stop, ever. Get comfortable, you and I still have a lot of quality time to spend together over the coming years/decades/centuries.

Share this post:

Saturday roundup: Moreno demands Angels land sale approval now now now, and other bribery news

Told ya! And now an abbreviated (though extended by one day) look at the week’s other news:

  • Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno has responded to a judge granting a 60-day stay to his discounted purchase of stadium land thanks to the deal being caught up in a corruption and bribery scandal involving the city being run by an unelected cabal by decreeing that the city must approve the sale by June 14, or else … well, Moreno, or really Moreno’s lawyer, didn’t specify what would happen if the deal is delayed beyond that date, but you don’t want to find out what it’ll be, you hear? The Los Angeles Times speculates that the Anaheim city council could move forward with the sale despite the stay on its agreement with the state over selling the land without meeting state affordable housing laws, which would almost certainly lead the state to sue, which isn’t going to get the sale resolved by June 14, but maybe Moreno wants that for some reason? Anyway, here, thanks to reader Moose, are some photos of Mayor Harry Sidhu throwing Easter eggs from the private helicopter he’s accused of illegally registering in Arizona to save money, I know that’s what you really want.
  • Speaking of bribery scandals, the Cleveland city council is considering a resolution to demand that the electric utility FirstEnergy have its name removed from the Browns stadium after it was accused of bribing a state official. Browns officials replied that FirstEnergy is “committed to upholding a culture of integrity and accountability” going forward and also the council resolution is non-binding, which is another way of saying “Sorry, we own the naming rights to this publicly owned and paid-for stadium because that’s just how these things are done, we get to decide whose name goes on it, what part of that didn’t you understand?”
  • Tennessee Titans CEO Burke Nihill says it would cost $1.8 billion to renovate the team’s current stadium because it’s in such “disrepair,” citing … well, he didn’t actually cite any study or report or anything, but just trust him, okay? Better to just build a new stadium that would cost — oh, look, Nihill says the price tag is now $2.2 billion, while the team’s share remains at $700 million, meaning the city and state would have to come up with $1.5 billion? That totally makes sense, after all, the old place is 23 years old, it’s pretty much a given that all buildings that old get torn down, right, isn’t that just how engineering works?
  • And speaking of inflation, the Kansas City Current women’s soccer team’s stadium price tag has gone up from $70 million to $117 million, and the team’s owners are asking state taxpayers to cover $6 million of it through tax breaks. Councilmember Eric Bunch says this is fine because it would be “using state tax dollars indirectly to support a project that’s going to benefit Kansas Citians,” which seems to be a novel use of “indirectly” and also “benefit,” though I guess the team owners are technically Kansas Citians in addition to being hedge fund goons, so it would benefit two Kansas Citians, anyway.
  • And speaking of stadiums having the shelf life of mayflies, Palm Beach County is spending $111 million to renovate the spring training home of the Miami Marlins and St. Louis Cardinals; Cards VP Mike Whittle, asked if the 25-year-old Jupiter stadium’s facilities are outdated, replied, “They are. They are,” which should be good enough for you.
  • And speaking of naming rights (which we were doing a few bullet points ago, do try to keep up), the Chicago Fire owners are in hot water for allegedly trying to sell the naming rights to the Soldier Field field when they don’t actually own them, which should make for a fun lawsuit.
  • A Kentucky sports business professor says if the Cincinnati Bengals keep winning, they’ll be able to demand more publicly funded stadium upgrades, which doesn’t really make more sense, but maybe he really means “if the Bengals start losing again, no one will write their elected representatives to demand that the team owners be offered whatever they want in order to keep the team in town, which does check out.
  • Some guy wants to build a USL soccer stadium in downtown Milwaukee, which would cost an unknown amount of money and require an unknown amount of public subsidies. But look, here’s a rendering of it! True, there are no fireworks or people pointing at the sky, but you can imagine those things, no?
  • This is already more bullet points than I meant to write, let me leave you with pictures of the possum that has made its home in the Oakland Coliseum press box. Honestly, given what the A’s owners left of a team for local sportswriters to watch on the field this year with their player fire sale, this maybe should be considered a feature and not a bug.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Tokyo Olympics back on, NFL doesn’t understand vaccines, and other hygiene theater stories

It was yet another one of those weeks, where you finally look up from the news that’s obsessing everybody only to find that while you weren’t looking, monarch butterflies had moved to the verge of extinction. There doesn’t seem to be an end to this anytime soon — which is pretty much the motto of this website, so let’s get on with it:

Share this post: