Category: Chicago Bears

Amid Bears subsidy opposition, Fire owner vows to pay for own Chicago stadium (maybe, sorta)

access_time personNeil deMause

So much going on of late with the Chicago Bears stadium plans! If, that is, by “so much” you mean team execs getting multiple doors slammed in their face by the state legislature, which adjourned over the weekend without taking action on any of three bills that the team wanted to help fund a new stadium, either in Arlington Heights or somewhere. The three bills would have: 1) allowed local government to freeze property taxes on “megadevelopment” projects, effectively providing massive tax breaks to developers; 2 and 3) some two other things, none of the news reporters bothered to mention what these were, they got places to be, man.

(Meanwhile, the Chicago Sun-Times article on all this described the legislative session as expiring “without the Chicago Bears breaking the line of scrimmage in Springfield” after the failure of legislation that “could’ve thrown the team a block in their rush to the former Arlington International Racecourse,” Bears lobbyists being “left on the Capitol sideline,” because of course it did. This is becoming less a Sun-Times tic than a journalistic cry for help.)

The Bears stadium push will now have to wait for the fall legislative session, when possible language allowing a weighted vote of all affected local taxing bodies to approve tax breaks is expected to push it across the goal line into the end zone like Walter Payton playing the game the way it was supposed to be played or something:

“We were super close and just ran out of time,” state Rep. Mary Beth Canty, a Democrat who represents the northwest suburb [of Arlington Heights] and surrounding areas, said Sunday.

Or, alternatively, the Bears bills are still somewhere deep in their own half, trying desperately to get a first down before having to give up and punt:

[Gov. JB Pritzker’s chief of staff Anne] Caprara sent a message that Pritzker has no plans to support funding for the stadium unless Illinois receives something “substantial” in return.

“Back on here briefly to respond to this bc it’s absurd,” Caprara posted on X. “No one in the Gov’s office or in state government is an expert in NFL finances. The governor has been clear that he’s not going to support state funding for a new stadium unless the state got something substantial in return.”

In the midst of all this (I am so sorry) Monday morning quarterbacking, Chicago Fire owner and investment fund billionaire Joe Mansueto announced plans for a $650 million soccer stadium to be built on the “The 78” property that had previously been targeted by White Sox billionaire owner Jerry Reinsdorf. But where Reinsdorf wanted around $1.7 billion in public money to make his stadium happen, Mansueto says he’ll build his stadium entirely with his own money — with the tiny exception of the $700 million in tax kickbacks already approved for the property in 2019:

There are railroad tracks that need to be relocated and a crumbling seawall that needs to be rebuilt. Water, sewer and power lines need to be installed, and parking garages and surface lots need to be built. So does the last leg of the Riverwalk between Lake Street and Ida B. Wells Drive that had an initial price tag of $140 million…

[Related Midwest CEO, Curt] Bailey said he was still working on what the final infrastructure plan will look like and how large of a TIF subsidy Mayor Brandon Johnson and the City Council will be asked to authorize amid the rising cost of construction materials tied to President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

So a Fire stadium is likely a ways off as well, even if Mansueto says he wants one open for 2028.

If you’re a fan of goal-line stands against stadium subsidies, all this is at least somewhat good news: Pritzker and the Illinois legislature are continuing to push back on even the kind of tax breaks that lawmakers are usually happy to throw at pro teams, and team owners are left having to scrape together whatever public money they can find around the edges, which is certainly a lot more taxpayer-friendly than what’s on the table in some other places. Tax kickbacks are real money, though, and it’ll be important to keep a close eye on what’s being proposed for both the Bears and Fire stadiums, lest the team owners pull off a trick play involving multiple laterals — okay, that’s enough for one morning, let’s blow the whistle on this now.

Share this post:

Bears’ Arlington Heights stadium plan could require “billions” in tax money

access_time personNeil deMause

Before we get to the actual news in the Chicago Sun-Times’ latest article on the Bears‘ Arlington Heights stadium plans, let’s get all the football metaphors out of the way:

A ton of things need to happen before the Bears’ quest for a new stadium reaches the end zone in Arlington Heights

for the foreseeable future, Arlington Heights has the ball and Chicago isn’t even on the field playing defense

it will take the legislative and political equivalent of a 99-yard touchdown drive

moved the ball closer to the racecourse site in Arlington Heights

The rookie mayor will essentially say that he inherited the ball deep in his own territory and drove to within scoring distance before the drive stalled.

Essentially! Equating sports team owners getting money for new stadiums with the teams’ own on-field success has a long and sad history, mostly serving to encourage fans to root blindly for ownership even if it costs them tax money, and really should be banned by journalism ethics codes. Here’s hoping the Sun-Times got it out of its system, and will never go down this road again.

Anyway, buried amid all that was some actual reporting on how the Bears’ proposed new stadium would cost Arlington Heights residents tax money:

Even if the Bears get their bill in Springfield, they would still have to find other sources to bankroll billions of dollars in building roads, sewers and other infrastructure to make the old track site viable, not to mention traffic upgrades to get almost 100,000 fans in and out of a stadium campus every game day.

Most of that funding would likely have to come from a tax increment financing district, Walker said, kicking off another political scrum at the local level.

The Arlington Heights plan has always depended on what Bears execs called “property tax certainty,” which is another way of saying they want their property taxes capped at a certain level, which is also another way of saying they want tax breaks. (This would come via legislation capping taxes on “megaprojects,” the same as the Bears tried to get two years ago, attached for some reason to the tax law on breast pumps.) The TIF district sounds separate, though, in that it would siphon off additional property taxes — from the surrounding development, presumably — to help pay for “billions of dollars” of infrastructure, which sounds like kind of a lot. And while this would be “new” money in terms of being revenue Arlington Heights didn’t collect previously, that’s not the same as free money: Any new housing development would require schools, for one thing, which are normally paid for by property taxes, so if those are already committed to roads and sewers then taxpayers will need to cover the education budget some other way.

There’s still a ways to go on any Arlington Heights stadium deal: Newly elected mayor Jim Tinaglia said last night when asked about it at a village board meeting that “this entire board” will “all have something to say” before it’s approved, plus the state legislature would still have to approve the megaproject legislation plus any TIF district. It’s still an open question whether this is Bears management’s preferred stadium plan or mostly another effort to push for more public money for a Chicago stadium — here’s a summary I wrote up two years ago that still holds today, and even ends with a football metaphor, sorry about that.

Share this post:

Bears stadium pivot to Arlington Heights includes no state subsidies, except for all the state subsidies

access_time personNeil deMause

Six weeks after saying their stadium focus “now is both downtown and Arlington Heights,” Chicago Bears execs issued a statement Friday saying their focus is now solely Arlington Heights … sorta kinda:

“Over the last few months, we have made significant progress with the leaders in Arlington Heights, and look forward to continuing to work with state and local leaders on making a transformative economic development project for the region a reality.”

That appears to be the entire statement, though the Chicago Tribune also said Bears ownership 1) said they won’t seek state funding for an Arlington Heights stadium, 2) are “likely” to seek state funding for “infrastructure,” and 3) are expected to ask the Illinois legislature to declare the stadium a “megaproject,” which under proposed legislation would freeze property taxes at the site at current levels, and so would function exactly the same as a TIF that kicked back future tax increases to the team. Neither the Bears statement nor the Tribune estimated the total public cost of the infrastructure funding or tax breaks, so use your imagination here.

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office, meanwhile, told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Bears owners “intend to prioritize” Arlington Heights but “the door remains open” in Chicago, while state Rep. Kam Buckner, who had previously backed state legislation to help fund a Bears stadium, angrily denounced the pivot back to Arlington Heights and accused Bears president Kevin Warren of “trying to marry one city and date the other.” (Buckner also called the situation “the boy who cried, ‘Bear.’” Move over, Alicia Reece, there’s a new dadaist poet in town.)

So are Bears execs really turning their focus back to Arlington Heights after getting nowhere with demands for more than $2 billion in subsidies for a Chicago stadium? Or is this just another feint to try to shake loose more money for a Chicago stadium? As is so often the case, it can be both — there’s nothing stopping Warren from focusing exclusively on Arlington Heights until he thinks he smells a chance of something better elsewhere, as he’s already done once. It seems unlikely that anything is going to get decided in the last two weeks of this spring’s legislative session, but that’s not going to stop team owners from throwing stuff at the wall in hopes that something sticks.

ADDENDUM: Apologies for leaving out the most important news, which is that if Arlington Heights is back in play, then so are the monstrous bear statues. Please enjoy some now:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: D.C. poll shows public support for spending fraction of what Commanders stadium would actually cost

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s been another long week in what feels like an endless series of long weeks, complete with the most expensive stadium subsidy demand ever and whatever the hell this was and a new pope, so let’s all take a moment to relax by watching a major league baseball player get hit on the head with a pop fly. I watched it four times in a row before writing this post, there’s something remarkably soothing about it, provided you’re not Chase Meidroth or his team physician.

And now there’s no avoiding it: the remaining news of the week!

Share this post:

WTH is up with that “Bengals should move to Chicago” story?

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s always fun when you get to see how stupidity breaks out in real time, and so it was with the story growing over the last few days that the Cincinnati Bengals ownership could respond to the looming expiration of their lease by moving, and in particular by moving to Chicago. This, it turned out, was less a rumor — a rumor needs to be spread by multiple people — than conjecture, or maybe just a looming deadline and the desperation of one man, NBC Sports’ Mike Florio:

With the [Chicago] Bears getting nowhere when it comes to finagling taxpayer funding for a new stadium, the solution could come from having a second team play there.

Instantly, the inventory of games would double, from 10 to 20. It would become much easier for the Bears (and possibly the other team, unless it’s just a tenant) to pay for the building with minimal public assistance.

Enter the Bengals. They’re less than three months away from the final countdown to the expiration of their lease at Paycor Stadium. During the league meetings this week, executive V.P. Katie Blackburn said the quiet thing out loud — after 2025, the Bengals can go wherever they want to go.

It’s easy to come up with a list of cities that currently have no NFL teams. But the best outcome for the Bengals, and the Bears, could be to partner up in a new Chicagoland stadium. Lakefront or Arlington Heights. Wherever. The revenue from 20 NFL games each year, along with everything else that could be hosted in a fixed-roof building, should be able to pay for the building.

It’s hard to know where to even begin. Yes, splitting the costs of a $2 billion or so stadium between two teams would make it somewhat more affordable — but there’s little sign that the revenue from 20 NFL games a year plus “everything else” that could be hosted there would pay for a new building. After all, the Bears and Bengals each play 20 combined home games a year (including preseason) right now, so those revenues would have to rise by about $7 million per game — that’s $100 more per ticket sold, in a future Chicago where the two teams were fighting for the same fan dollars — just to break even.

Still, it was off to the news cycle races, as the Cincinnati Enquirer and multiple other outlets repeated Florio’s suggestion without asking anyone if it made any sense; something called Motorcycle Sports even chimed in, calling it a “bold idea.” USA Today’s Bengals Wire at least called it the “worst possible take,” though in doing so the site still managed to amplify Florio’s fantasy by sending clicks its way. (I realize I’m doing the same here; fact-checking bad reporting is always tricky to do without giving more air to the original misinformation, what whatcha gonna do.)

None of which matters for the idea of the Bengals moving to Chicago, because there is zero sign that either the Bengals or Bears owners would ever consider it. But it does help cement the idea in people’s heads that the Bengals might move somewhere, which is exactly what Bengals VP Katie Blackburn was hoping to do last week by saying, “We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year if we didn’t pick the option up. So, you know, we’ll see.” (A statement, incidentally, that was called “a powerful, loaded comment“ by one Mike Florio.) That option is to extend the Bengals’ legendarily lucrative lease for five years, something the Bengals owners are mulling doing unless Hamilton County coughs up a sweet enough renovation deal to entice them to sign a new lease with fewer holographic replay system guarantees. Threatening to move the team at the same time as you’re threatening to stay and extend your sweetheart lease is … I think “bold idea” sums it up pretty well, don’t you?

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bucs want “major renovation,” won’t say yet who’d pay for it

access_time personNeil deMause

Today’s main event will be the liveblog of day two of the sports economics conference at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County, which tons of presentations on stadiums and stadium-adjacent topics, but first here’s the regular Friday weekly news r0undup, written entirely on Thursday! If anyone’s roof blew off this morning, it’ll just have to wait till Monday.

  • Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Joel Glazer wants a “major renovation” of his stadium once the Bucs’ lease expires in 2028, funded by, uh: “We’re going through a phase right now where we’re assessing the stadium and what might be needed. And I know [Hillsborough County and the Tampa Sports Authority are] assessing the stadium and what might be needed, and once both of us are done with our assessments, then we come together and go talk about it, work through things.” Asked last summer about Bucs stadium funding, Tampa city spokesperson Adam Smith said team execs “haven’t approached the city about anything like that” and “we don’t expect them to”; either that was code for “paying for this is the county’s problem” or Smith really believes in the power of positive thinking.
  • Unlike the [Sacramento] Athletics, the Tampa Bay Rays have managed to sell out their 10,000-seat minor-league stadium in their opening series, even at prices running more than $100 for every seat that comes with an actual seat. Tampa Bay Times columnist John Romano blames this on the Rays needing to make up for “a potential loss of revenue from ticket sales, concessions, luxury boxes and the associated costs of relocating for a year,” not the desire to capitalize on artificial ticket scarcity. It’ll be interesting to see if those high prices hold up once the Florida summer heat hits — for what it’s worth, there are still plenty of seats available for next week’s series against the Angels.
  • Speaking of the Rays, the clock officially ran out on their St. Petersburg stadium deal on Tuesday, and now owner Stu Sternberg is free to shop around for another city that wants to give him a billion dollars. Anyone? You in the back? You were just stretching your arms? I see.
  • Cincinnati Bengals VP Katie Blackburn was asked what’s up with the team’s lease that’s set to expire in 2026, and replied, “We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year if we didn’t pick the up option up. So, you know, we’ll see.” NFL move-threat stan Mike Florio of NBC Sports called this “a powerful, loaded comment“; one might also argue that it’s exactly the kind of vague non-threat threat that you issue when you don’t actually want anyone noting that no cities have newer stadiums ready to offer. Potato, potahto!
  • The Jacksonville Jaguars need a place to play for two years while the city of Jacksonville is paying for stadium upgrades, so they’re asking Orlando to play them to play there, cool, cool.
  • A Massachusetts judge ruled that the demolition and reconstruction of White Stadium for the Boston Legacy F.C. can move forward, though opponents say they’ll continue to fight against it. (Boston Legacy, btw, is the new name for the much-derided BOS Nation F.C. women’s soccer team, presumably meant to honor the easiest way to get into Northeastern.)
  • Chicago Bears president Kevin Warren says the team is now focused on building a stadium in Arlington Heights, except for the portion of its focus that is on the Chicago lakefront. More news as actual news comes in, not just attempts at leverage plays.
  • Los Angeles elected officials are finally starting to get steamed about how the 2028 Olympics are being planned in a city that is recovering from disastrous fires, though so far it seems to be mostly about where the sailing competition will be held. If history is any guide, the real outrage won’t come until the Games actually begin.
  • Wondering how the affordable housing promises attached to the Brooklyn Nets arena are going? Does “Empire State Development (ESD), the gubernatorially controlled authority that oversees/shepherds the project, says it might enforce the $2,000 a month penalties for each unbuilt apartment, though that process may be fraught” answer that question? If you’re wondering why ESD only “might” enforce the penalty clause that was designed to make sure developers actually build what they promised, ESD VP Arden Sokolow says that if the state fined them, “you wouldn’t be getting any housing there,” whereas this way … oh, would you look at the time, we’ll have to cut off questions there!
  • Former Anaheim mayor and illegal helicopter registrant Harry Sidhu was sentenced to jail time for deleting emails to hide them from an FBI investigation into soliciting bribes related to a proposed Los Angeles Angels stadium deal — if you had “two months in federal prison plus a $55,000 fine” in the betting pool, you’re a winner!
Share this post:

Indiana guy wants to create commission to think about building Bears stadium, maybe, if it had any money

access_time personNeil deMause

Almost as long as the Chicago Bears owners have been angling for a new stadium somewhere in the Chicago area, people have been wondering when Indiana would get involved, given that 1) every place large and small in Illinois has already been approached and 2) Indiana, amirite? And this week, the Indiana state legislature finally took the bait … sort of:

The state legislature is considering House Bill 1292 which would establish a Northwest Indiana professional sports development commission, which would study plans to attract one or more professional sports franchises…

The commission would spend money from the professional sports development fund, which would be funded through general assembly appropriations, grants, gifts and donations.

The bill, which has already passed its first state house committee, wouldn’t actually allocate any money to that sports development fund, though. So really this is more about opening a state bank account, writing “FOR STADIUMZ” on it, and then going oh please oh please.

Bill sponsor Rep. Earl Harris Jr. of East Chicago — a former Fox Sports Midwest producer who took over his house seat from his mom, who took it over when his dad died — seemed to admit as much, saying he hoped the bill would “cause attention,” and here we are, giving him that attention. Harris also acknowledged he hasn’t talked to anyone in the Bears organization yet, you know what, let’s shut this down right now, go read something else that’s actually news, there must be some out there somewhere.

Share this post:

Bears owner dies at 102, sets off speculation on how this will impact stadium talks

access_time personNeil deMause

Chicago Bears owner Virginia McCaskey died on Thursday, which will happen when you’re 102 years old. McCaskey had, understandably, not been in the public eye much of late, with her son George McCaskey serving as team chair, while president Kevin Warren took on most of the leadership duties, including trying to shake down various Chicago-area municipalities for stadium money.

Now, though, a report in Crain’s Chicago Business claims that Virginia McCaskey’s death could impact not just the team’s ownership — her roughly 30% of the team will pass down to her heirs, some of whom are reportedly eager to sell them for cash — but the team ownership’s stadium plans as well:

The team’s proposal unveiled in April for a new $3.2 billion stadium just south of Soldier Field calls for $2 billion of that to come from the Bears. While the team hasn’t specified the sources of that funding — large portions could come from things like personal seat license and naming rights revenue, for example — splintered ownership stakes could factor into their ability to finance the project. Nuances of ownership would matter to state lawmakers if they were to sign off on a large public subsidy to help, as taxpayers will need to know with whom they are doing business.

That’s pretty handwavy: If Bears ownership figures out how to pay for a stadium, and Illinois lawmakers are asked to contribute, they might care who owns the team. State elected officials are already on record as caring more about not contributing state money or at least not if the Bears keep sucking, but sure, who owns how many shares could matter, maybe.

Take that at put it through the bad 2025 journalism filter, and we get Sports Mockery’s headline:

We Finally Know Real Reason The Chicago Bears Stadium Has Stalled

Danny Ecker of Chicago Business finally revealed a new wrinkle that explains a lot. According to what he’s gathered, one reason the state is dragging its feet is the uncertainty surrounding Bears ownership. It stems from the McCaskeys giving so many shares to family members rather than just a concentrated group. That has led to reservations about whether they can finance the project as planned.

That’s not what Ecker’s article says at all: It doesn’t mention anything that could remotely be construed as a “reason the state is dragging its feet.” So Sports Mockery — which is actually a real news site, sort of, despite its name — has made up that headline out of whole cloth. All indications are that the reason the state is dragging its feet is that state leaders, not least Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, are not currently inclined to cut a billion-dollar-plus check to any Bears owners, fragmented or not.

Back in Crain’s, Ecker concludes his article with the unassailable conclusion that “the team’s moves in the weeks and months ahead will offer clues and signals about what will change and what won’t in a new era of ownership for the Monsters of the Midway.” Ah, the old “one thing’s for sure: no one knows” kicker. Now there’s some fine journalism tradition.

 

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Moreno re-ups Angels lease, plus sports leaders mumbling incoherently

access_time personNeil deMause

So this happened:

That’s it, I’m done, I can’t top that. RIP comedy (???? – 2025 AD), reality has finally become too absurd even to laugh at.

If anyone still cares about the rest of the news, here’s some:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Hamilton County spends $30m on Bengals parking land, Oakland Coliseum may get second life as soccer venue

access_time personNeil deMause

Note to reporters seeking help with your research into sports economics issues: I’m more than happy to talk with journalists from all over the political spectrum, as the great stadium swindle is, as has been discussed here time and again, one that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a monopoly on. But if you’re asking for my assistance, maybe don’t include a link to a page with a report your site did saying anti-trans legislation is about “banning males from competing on female sports teams” — if you can’t keep at least one foot on the ground of factual accuracy, what you’re doing isn’t journalism.

Speaking of factual accuracy, here’s your weekly news roundup, fact-checked as well as I can do myself while my fact-checking department is, apparently, out on a long lunch or something:

  • Hamilton County may still be negotiating a lease extension with the owners of the Cincinnati Bengals, but that hasn’t stopped the county from spending $30 million to buy a parcel of land next to the Bengals stadium to use as additional parking and green space. “The Bengals have forgiven us for our [game day] payments,” explained Hamilton County Commission president Denise Driehaus. “It’s about $30 million total. That happened to be the asking price for this property. And so, in essence, the Bengals are paying for the property, and the county owns it.” That “in essence” is doing a lot of work there: From what I can tell from this report, it was back in 2018 Bengals management first agreed to hand over the disputed game day payments, which is money the team owners wanted the county to provide to cover operational costs of holding home games, in exchange for parking — though if they were “disputed” it’s not clear that this was ever team money to begin with.
  • Remember how, just last month, the owners of the Oakland Roots and Soul soccer teams said they wanted to build a temporary stadium before maybe eventually moving to a permanent stadium at Howard Terminal? Forget all that, they were just pulling our legs, now they want to remain at the Oakland Coliseum for “a longer stay.” Guess resident opossums are only an existential threat to baseball teams, not soccer teams?
  • Your occasional reminder that when the Los Angeles Dodgers owners do renovations to their stadium, they spend their own money on it. That likely has something to do with the fact that they have some of the highest attendance numbers and highest ticket prices in baseball, so they benefit the most from upgrades — though it does raise the question of whether, if less popular teams are asking to be subsidized for renovations that won’t pay for themselves, if that’s really about needing renovations or just wanting an excuse to ask for taxpayer money.
  • Chicago Bears president Kevin Warren has upgraded from “steadfast” to “adamant” that his team will break ground on a new stadium in 2025. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
  • The St. Petersburg city council has approved funding for the repair of … Al Lang Stadium! The Tampa Bay Rowdies, who play at Al Lang, are owned by Rays owner Stu Sternberg, so at least St. Pete officials can’t be said to be holding a grudge.
  • The Super Bowl’s coming to New Orleans, everyone get ready to benefit from that cushy NFL spending that will provide … $12/hour jobs to assemble the stage for the $10 million halftime show? Well then.
Share this post: