Category: Kansas City Chiefs

Friday roundup: Plano residents to vote on $700m Stars arena subsidy, Bears still playing hard to get with IL and IN

access_time personNeil deMause

In case you missed it, sports economist/meme master J.C. Bradbury has a new book on sports subsidy deals due out soon: This One Will Be Different details the latest in stadium and arena deals and why they never pay off for the public, with a particular focus on the Atlanta Braves‘ extraction of money from Cobb County for a new stadium just 17 years after getting their last one, which he had a front row seat for. And for the run up to the publication date, Bradbury has been building out his sports economics website with all sorts of fresh goodies: FAQs on stadium economics and how stadiums are funded, links to academic studies and presentations, and even a series of YouTube shorts on the lessons of past deals and the prospects for future ones. Check it out, it’s entertaining and eye-opening rabbit holes all the way down!

But don’t go just yet, because first we have another week of stadium and arena news to get through:

Share this post:

Chiefs owners claim report they won’t show you says stadium will create $8.4B in something or other

access_time personNeil deMause

The Kansas City Chiefs (actually the owners of the Kansas City Chiefs, but journalists like to refer to team management metonymically this way, even though, like calling the current leadership of the United States “the United States,” it causes all sorts of problems, sorry, where were we?) released an economic impact report claiming that their new stadium will create a huge benefit for the Kansas state economy, and … ugh, do we really have to do this? You know where this is going, I know where this is going, there’s a whole category full of analysis of these clown documents, can’t we just take it as given that they’re not worth the pixels they’re printed in and move on with our day? Though then the Chiefs execs get away with putting out their take in the media and on the socials with no dissent other than the economists who show up in the later paragraphs of the news coverage at best, so fine.

Who did team officials hire this time? Is it the LOLconsultants at Convention, Sports & Leisure? Some bespoke firm with a name like Fiscalmetrics or Lucresolv and a CEO with a degree in business marketing?

According to a report from Econsult Solutions, Inc.

Checks out! At least they have an actual economist on board, that’s something. So how many billions of dollars did they project the Chiefs stadium will bring in to make up for its $4.1 billion in public costs?

The one-time capital investment of $4.5 billion could generate $1.9 billion in “indirect impact,” or business-to-business spending, and $1.8 billion in “induced impact,” or spending of wages. The report describes this as a “total impact” of $8.4 billion during the construction period.

$8.4 billion is bigger than $4.1 billion! It’s also inevitably going to be if all you’re doing is adding up how much will be spent on the Chiefs stadium ($4.5 billion) and then applying a multiplier for the fact that any local businesses that the Chiefs (and taxpayers) pay for construction will then re-spend a portion of those paychecks on other things. If these were the only criteria, anything at all would be a good spending decision — Kansas could spend $4.1 billion on fake blood testing machines and it would be considered a win, because just think of all the spending on PR firms and lawyers that this would generate!

Anyway, let’s take a look at the report, maybe it has some amusing charts or something.

KMBC 9 asked, but neither the Chiefs nor their consulting firm provided a copy of the full study.

Look. I get that the 24/7 news cycle is tough on journalists, and especially TV stations, which are expected to tell you the latest news the second it happens, even if all the details aren’t known yet. And KMBC did talk to an independent economist who warned that the report “just gives us gross output numbers without proving that taxpayers are getting a return on that investment,” unlike some other local news outlets. But how many times do you need to be told: There’s no law saying that just because somebody with a fancy suit issues a press release means you have to write an article about it. Especially when you ask if you can see the report the press release is about and are told, “No.”

Instead, we get a news report that “Supporters, Critics Split Over Impact,” because when you have a secret document showing that $4 billion is $4 billion on the one hand, and an economist saying that’s silly on the other, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. So we are cursed to do this every time one of these reports is issued — or vaguely referenced in a press statement — until either we get decent journalism in this country or the sun burns out, I think you know which one I’m betting happens first.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Manfred’s funny Rays poll numbers, Chiefs sales tax fight, MLS wants even more Big O money

access_time personNeil deMause

You probably noticed, but it’s Friday! Which brings us, with no further ado, to the rest of the week’s news:

  • MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has said that he’s “hopeful” that a Tampa Bay Rays stadium in Tampa will win final approval, given that “we think the polling runs about 60-40 in favor of the stadium.” Actual polling shows that residents would like a new stadium in the abstract by a 58-29% margin, but oppose the Rays’ funding scheme by 59-34%; congrats to Manfred, I guess, on figuring out how to dispense with the actual asking-people-questions business and pioneer vibe polling.
  • Meanwhile, the Tampa Sports Authority has issued a letter saying the Buccaneers should get first dibs over the Rays on any available public stadium money, which isn’t going to make any easier the already difficult road to approval of the couple billion dollars in stadium subsidies Rays owner Patrick Zalupski is seeking from the city, county, and state.
  • People in Wyandotte County is worried that the state of Kansas may try to bigfoot it into expanding its STAR district to redirect more county sales taxes to a Chiefs stadium; in other news, Wyandotte County included a poison pill in the STAR district legislation that if the state tries to expand it, the county automatically rescinds it. It looks like at the very least the county would have to go back and revote on a larger tax district, at which point hopefully residents would re-up their concerns like whether siphoning off more county sales taxes could force the county to, say, raise property taxes to make up for any resulting budget gap.
  • The province of Quebec is already spending $870 million (Canadian) to put a new roof on Montreal’s Olympic Stadium because it’s too big to tear down, but MLS commissioner Don Garber wants even more public money to make it a “best-in-class experience” for CF Montréal. The MLS team mostly doesn’t play at the Big O — it occupies the 18-year-old open-air Stade Saputo for all but big matches like the home opener and playoff games — but may need to more once MLS switches to a fall-to-spring schedule next year, plus Garber says the smaller stadium is “an MLS 1.0 stadium” and the team needs “an MLS 3.0 stadium.” Why any of this is Quebec’s problem to solve, Garber didn’t say, beyond insisting that CF Montréal’s owners are committed to staying in town but need to “have a best-in-class facility to be able to drive revenue,” hint hint.
  • Records obtained by Crain’s Chicago Business show that Bears attorneys called or met six times with their city counterparts in April, even as team officials insisted that remaining in Chicago was off the table by then. The team says these calls were all about their current lease at Soldier Field; a city source told Crain’s their lawyers wouldn’t have taken six calls on that. This all matters because Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is still holding out hope for keeping the Bears in Chicago while team execs insist they won’t consider it — if nothing else, it’s going to make for an even more complicated decision by team owner George McCaskey in coming weeks about whether to pull the trigger on a move to Indiana or keep pushing for public funding for a stadium somewhere in Illinois.
  • The start of the men’s World Cup is only a week away, and already fans are excited to maybe have to cross a picket line if they want to go to games or at least dodge flaming naked mannequins and certainly not be allowed to bring in water bottles during the peak of North American summer! It’s not great! At least a member of the L.A. Host Committee has described the deal U.S. cities got from FIFA as a “very tough, one-sided agreement,” and … oh, he means one-sided that way. Welp.
  • “Portland’s own study said the Moda Center needed $500M in repairs — so why are the Trail Blazers asking for more?” asks the Oregonian, and the answer appears to be that the $500 million figure was just to “maintain the building in its current configuration in good working order,” while $600 million is to conduct a “transformative renovation” that can “support the power, technology, and production demands of tomorrow’s largest concerts and events.” In exchange for which, Blazers owner Tom Dundon has agreed to extend his lease on the newly transformed arena by … oh, he hasn’t said how long, or agreed to a new lease yet at all? Welp.
  • And if even after all those bullet points you still want more stadium content for your weekend, I was interviewed this week by Heartland Labor Forum’s podcast about the Kansas City Royals stadium plans, check it out here.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Has Cleveland’s mayor actually found a way to make Guardians and Cavs owners help pay for own repair costs?

access_time personNeil deMause

No time for a lengthy roundup intro today, I’m too busy catching up with the latest problems resulting from sending Microsoft Outlook into space. Plenty of juicy bullet points, though, you can dig into those right now:

  • Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb is proposing establishing sales tax surcharge of up to 5% in and around the Guardians‘ stadium and Cavaliers‘ arena to help fund what could be $400 million in ongoing repairs and upgrades at the venues, expenses the city’s sports authority is required to cover under the teams’ leases but which it has no money for. Cleveland.com describes this as “Cavs and Guardians fans footing the bill,” but actually a lot of this could fall on the team owners, as fans are unlikely to put up with higher prices on tickets (or, to a somewhat lesser degree, hot dogs or souvenirs) just because taxes went up. One catch: Any “New Community Authority” would require any property owners to agree to join and be subject to the tax; the stadium and arena are owned by the sports authority, though, so it’s at least possible Bibb could force this on the teams over their objections. Lots of team prepare for such backdoor funding attempts by inserting “no ticket tax surcharge” clauses into their leases — I’m not spotting any in the Cavs and Guardians leases on an initial look, but feel free to search for yourselves.
  • NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell turned up the heat on the Chicago Bears stadium situation on Tuesday, declaring: “They need to find a solution for a stadium. … I think it’s really important that they come to a resolution on this relatively soon. … This is an important time to get this resolved sooner rather than later.” Okay, that’s less “heat” than “typical commissioner whingeing,” no reason to report on this as upping the pressure in any real oh come on, NBC Chicago.
  • Predatory lending tycoon Tom Dundon has been approved as the new owner of the Portland Trail Blazers, and he was not pleased at all that one of the first questions he got was why he hasn’t committed any of his own money toward an arena renovation that the team is seeking $600 million in public subsidies for. “No one’s ever told me I didn’t have skin in the game before,” snapped Dundon. “We don’t know each other very well. So, look, we’re going to negotiate and do a market deal.” Easy for him to say since he’s already landed the first $365 million in state funding, but at least maybe this will give local legislators a bit more backbone as they negotiating the remaining $235 million — especially since minority owner and venture capital succubus Sheel Tyle declared, “I don’t want people to be concerned or scared. We are committed to Portland, 100 percent. Full stop.” Somebody please alert Ron Wyden.
  • The Maryland legislature has killed legislation for the 2026 session to spend $217 million in public money on a stadium to host new Baltimore men’s and women’s soccer teams, partly because there’s community opposition to building it atop a public golf course that was the site of some of the first integration of the city’s public facilities. “When we introduced the legislation, the purpose was not to get it funded,” bill sponsor state Sen. Antonio Hayes told the Baltimore Banner, “the purpose was to keep the conversation going” — so you can rest assured we’ll hear about this again in the 2027 session.
  • Denver Broncos owner Greg Penner says he won’t be able to meet an “ambitious” 2031 target date for opening a new stadium without help from “a lot of key partners at the city level [and] at state level.” In particular, Penner still needs to finish acquiring land for the stadium — he said if the new stadium isn’t ready by 2031 he could just extend his lease at the old one, so it’s not clear why anyone would feel pressured by this deadline other than him, but this is just how team owners roll.
  • The Missouri legislature is considering cutting $2 million from its stadium maintenance budget and redirecting it to a fire department program in retaliation for the Kansas City Chiefs announcing they’ll move to Kansas in 2031 — though in the meantime, it would also reduce maintenance spending on the Royals stadium as well, assuming the Royals stick around.
  • World Cup participant countries typically get tax exemptions during their teams’ time spent in the host nation, but because Trump administration is only extending that courtesy to nations that have signed specific double-taxation agreements with the U.S., “It’s going to cost most non-European countries a lot of money to go to the World Cup” this summer, says tax consultant Oriana Morrison. And that’s before visiting fans pony up for the inflated cost of train tickets to the games in Massachusetts. Props to both the federal and local governments for finding ways to claw back some of the costs of hosting the World Cup, I guess, though taking it from the pockets of Haitians seems just slightly cruel and unusual.
  • Inglewood is spending $8.5 million to “revitalize” its downtown so that it’s more lively in advance of the 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Summer Olympics, hey wait, weren’t Super Bowls and Olympics supposed to revitalize their surroundings? U.S. news media, we await your corrections.
Share this post:

Kansas house agrees to allow local officials votes on Chiefs stadium board, still gives Chiefs owner one too

access_time personNeil deMause

The Kansas state house voted 79-41 last night to pass a bill creating a sports authority to build and operate a Kansas City Chiefs stadium, and lo and behold, it now includes language subjecting the authority to public transparency laws, while also allowing the city and county where the stadium would be built to have votes on the 11-member authority board:

The board would have 11 voting members, including legislative appointees, the state commerce secretary and a representative of the team. If the stadium is built in KCK, both the Olathe and KCK mayors would receive a direct vote on the board.

The authority’s governing board includes appointed members from the governor, House speaker, House majority and minority leaders, Senate president, Senate majority and minority leaders, and the team. The secretary of commerce serves by virtue of holding office. The two mayors of the host cities serve as ex officio members if they elect to participate.

Assuming the state senate follows suit, this should put an end to the standoff where the state was threatening to disenfranchise Kansas City, Kansas and Wyandotte County unless they kicked in more local sales tax money.  Though if you read the above closely, you may have noticed that the final bill retains another provision that had raised eyebrows:

“The Hunt family would have a longer and more aggressive voice at the table,” Democrat State House Rep. Alexis Simmons said. “They would be the only owner in the NFL to have a voting voice at the table in the financing discussion.”

Setting aside the question of how long a voice should be, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt getting a vote on the public board that he’ll be negotiating his lease with later this year is indeed a conflict of interest. Bill sponsor Rep. Sean Tarwater put it differently, telling his fellow legislators that none of them should vote against the sports authority bill just because the stadium would involve billions of dollars of tax subsidies because “That deal is done. This is just our opportunity to put guardrails on it and have oversight of the project.” Sure, “guardrails,” let’s go with that.

The Chiefs have until this fall to lay out the terms of a lease, which would include who would get stadium revenues and how ongoing stadium expenses would be dealt with — good thing we have those transparency provisions, because this is going to be fascinating to watch.

Share this post:

Kansas bill would cap off $4.1B in stadium subsidies by letting Chiefs vote to approve own lease

access_time personNeil deMause

Sure, the state of Kansas already passed a bill to provide Kansas City Chiefs owner with $2.775 billion in state-backed STAR bonds and another $1.3 billion and change in additional tax money, and the city of Olathe and Wyandotte County voted to chip in their own tax revenues toward paying off that debt. But the state hasn’t actually created a sports authority yet to own the stadium so that the Chiefs can get out of paying property tax! (Yes, the linked Beacon News article says “income tax.” Why does it say that? Do I look like the king of the Beacon News here? Go do your own research!)

Where was I? Oh, right, new bill to create a sports authority. That’s straightforward enough, shouldn’t be any new wrinkles that—

The proposal appoints nine voting members, plus the mayors of Olathe and Kansas City, Kansas, in a non-voting capacity.

Non-voting capacity? That’s not great. Maybe the sponsor of the bill could be talked into—

State Rep. Sean Tarwater, R-Stilwell, is sponsoring the bill. He seemed open to giving KCK voting authority — on a condition.

He would like KCK to change a law it passed last month so that Kansas can collect increased sales tax dollars from more of Wyandotte County to pay off the stadium, instead of from a district around the stadium.

“The resolution in Kansas City probably needs to change because when they passed it, they limited [the state’s] district to the little teeny area that they drew for themselves,” Tarwater said.

Huh? No, that’s not what happened. Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County of which it is a part, only voted to limit its local sales tax district to the area just around the stadium. Kansas can still siphon off state sales taxes from 293 square miles of land, including all of Wyandotte, as originally planned. If Tarwater wants to hold KCK’s seat on the sports authority hostage in order to get more local tax money kicked into the stadium pot, that’s his right as an exortionist office holder, but at least try to get the details right, this isn’t the Beacon News here.

And anyway, how important is a sports authority seat, really? Even if KCK doesn’t get a spot at the table, the other members will surely have state residents’ best interests at—

The authority board includes “a representative of the professional sports team” using the facility as a voting member. This means the Chiefs would have a vote on such things as negotiating its lease, financing, and operations. Having the team oversee itself is a crazy conflict of interest and uncommon in other similar authorities if not absolutely unique, for obvious reasons.

The bill, according to the analysis by the Show Me Institute — which is based across the border in Missouri, so feel free to blame sour grapes if you like — also exempts the stadium project from oversight and competitive bidding rules, amid other sweetheart provisions. Kansas state senator Mike Thompson warns that this will set up “an unaccountable ‘Shadow Government,'” but you know, don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. What other alternative is there, getting enough votes together to defeat the bill? HAHAHAHAHAHA BWA HA HA HA. HA. Ha.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bears battle drags on, Blazers subsidy heats up, 15 teams now angling for Ohio unclaimed funds cash

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s Friday! But because of other commitments, I’m writing this from Thursday evening! So if there’s any breaking Friday morning news, complain about it in comments, and we’ll get to it on Monday, which for me will probably be Sunday. You following all that? Doesn’t matter, just read your bullet points, they’re good for you:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Friends don’t let friends read stadium news coverage, Bears’ list of places not to move to keeps growing

access_time personNeil deMause

One of the things you learn if you read enough articles with the word “stadium” in them, as I am condemned by an ancient mummy’s curse to do, is how very many news reports are just about nothing. For every article that tells us some actual information, there are easily five to 10 that are just meant to fill pixels with something easily reportable, regardless of whether it qualifies as “news,” let alone “reporting.”

Just this week, we’ve had: MLB commissioner Rob Manfred is in favor of the Tampa stadium plan that his co-bosses the Rays owner wants and he’s “optimistic” about getting it done; a Baltimore soccer stadium is “gaining momentum,” according to a headline describing a press conference by Baltimore’s mayor, who didn’t actually even say that; Denver Broncos president says team leaders are “laser-focused” on building the tax-subsidy-funded stadium in a rail yard they already said they want; the Broncos president says actually the rail yard is only the “preferred” site and team execs are still considering other options; Minnesota Timberwolves co-owner A-Rod says a new arena is a “necessity” for the 6th-in-the-Western-Conference, $3.6-billion-valued franchise “to compete”; Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas says he’s determined to build a new Royals stadium that will create “economic development” in a way that’s “fair and transparent for our taxpayers,” no details provided.

That’s a whole lot of Important People giving press conferences in order to get their message out in the news media, which the news media is happy to oblige for them. For normal people, meanwhile, the only option is to try to get space on an op-ed page, if you can convince the op-ed editors that you should be allowed to have an opinion that diverges from that of Important People. It’s also an awful lot of reporters’ time spent on this when they could be trying to investigate all the open questions about what these stadium deals would actually entail for taxpayers and why elected officials are pushing them — but asking questions takes up valuable time that could be spent transcribing press statements. As the old journalism adage goes, “if your grandmother says she loves you, take her at her word and put it on the front page, so long as she owns a local sports team.”

Enough whining about the news media, time to attempt to do some actual reporting by, uh, seeing what’s in the news media:

  • The Chicago Bears have almost as many places now in neighboring states wanting to be their new home (without offering any money toward it) as they do in the Illinois suburbs: In addition to Gary, Indiana, there’s now Portage, Indiana, plus the entire state of Iowa. While the Bears moving to Iowa sounds like a joke and probably is, at least there’s a bill there to provide actual state tax credits toward a stadium; in Indiana, meanwhile, even the bill to create a stadium authority with no funding attached now isn’t going to move forward, Indiana legislators say, until the Bears owners first commit to moving there if it does. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and state legislative leaders might want to just bide their time and see if all the new Bears move threats evaporate just like the last round did, though it sure sounds like they’re more interested in throwing state money at the problem while the move-threat iron is hot.
  • Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Joel Glazer still wants the major stadium renovation he asked for last April before he’ll sign a five-year lease extension, and Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan has assured Glazer that the county’s plan to divert more than a billion dollars in tax money to a Rays stadium won’t get in the way of diverting money for the Bucs. In exchange for only a five-year extension, by the way, it would only take about $220 million in subsidies to break the record for priciest per-year lease extension in U.S. sports history, you can pretty much take it to the bank that that’ll be the plan.
  • On the subject of that Baltimore soccer stadium, D.C. United owners said on Thursday that they’re planning to build a 12,000-seat venue on the site of Carroll Park Golf Course, to host a minor-league MLS Next Pro franchise and a pro women’s team owned by former NBA star Carmelo Anthony. And by “planning to build” I of course mean “hoping to receive $216 million in state money to build.” One of the state lawmakers sponsoring bills to provide the cash says “the stars have aligned” now that Carmelo Anthony is on board, maybe somebody should call a local economist to see if studies have found that involving Carmelo Anthony increases economic impact? If nothing else, it would be interesting to see what they’d say if they could ever stop laughing.
  • Foxborough, Massachusetts officials say they may not issue a permit for men’s World Cup games to be played at the New England Patriots stadium in June unless someone helps cover $8 million in security costs that the town is currently faced with paying, Asked why Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose team is worth an estimated $9 billion, couldn’t just cut a check, FIFA World Cup Boston 26 organizers said the Krafts are offering up the use of their football stadium for two months in “peak period” of the NFL offseason, what do you want from them, blood?
  • The Center Square is a libertarian-leaning news site that has generally been pretty skeptical of stadium subsidies, so for it to run the headline “Seahawks’ Super Bowl win temporarily jolts local Seattle economy” is pretty notable — or would be if the gist of the actual article weren’t “U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims Seattle will benefit from the Seahawks winning the Super Bowl, economist Victor Matheson says one study found a short-term bump in per-capita income from Super Bowl-winning cities but it may have just been a spurious finding because ‘when you test 100 different things, even if all those things are random, one of them is going to end up being the best.'” At least the Center Square called an actual economist, unlike those corporate stooges at Al Jazeera in their article on how the Super Bowl will be a windfall for the San Francisco Bay Area despite the 49ers not being in the game and also economists consistently saying no it won’t be.
  • If Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam can’t get money to build roads and pedestrian bridges around his new Brook Park stadium from the state of Ohio, he’ll ask for $25 million from the federal government instead, there’s got to be someone to stick with the bill that isn’t named Jimmy.
  • Also in K.C. Mayor Quinton Lucas news, marginally more newsworthy edition: The mayor wants to cut spending on everything except a Royals stadium and more cops.
  • Plans for an Indianapolis MLS stadium have gone from on hold to pretty much dead, according to Indiana legislative leaders, though in stadium deals just like in comic books, only Uncle Ben ever stays dead for good.
  • The Oakland/Sacramento/Las Vegas Athletics just applied for another billion dollars in building permits for their planned Vegas stadium, everyone gets that applying for a permit doesn’t mean you’re actually committing to spend the money on the project, right? Maybe requiring personal seat licenses to buy some A’s tickets in Vegas will help raise the needed funds to employ the permits, anything is possible.
  • Nope, nobody got back to me from Wyandotte County about how their Kansas City Chiefs stadium subsidy numbers were arrived at, I’ll just assume it was the traditional “dart board and add lots of zeroes” algorithm.
  • If you have time to kill next Thursday at 3 pm Eastern/noon Pacific, tune in to Alissa Walker’s Torched Talk with me and Chris Tyler from Strategic Actions for a Just Economy on whether it’s worth it to Los Angeles to host the 2028 Olympics, and what the city could do to try to extricate itself if it’s not. Zoom link is here, calendar it now, see you then!
Share this post:

Wyandotte County claims it will totally make money on $180m+ subsidy of Chiefs stadium

access_time personNeil deMause

We finally have a number for how much tax money Wyandotte County could hand over to Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt following last Thursday’s vote to funnel virtually all sales and hotel taxes from a 200-acre stadium district in Kansas City, Kansas to help pay off $2.775 billion in state STAR bonds for stadium and related construction. Or rather, a couple of numbers:

The local tax breaks could total $350 million to $450 million. The Unified Government expects the project to generate $488 million in revenue, netting the county at least $38 million over 30 years.

I have questions! So many questions:

  • How did the county estimate $350-450 million in tax expenditure (over 30 years, it sounds like, which would be more like $190-230 million or so in present value) when it’s unknown exactly what the Chiefs plan to build on the 200 acres?
  • How did the county come up with that $488 million estimate for new tax revenue, and did it account for money cannibalized from other spending that would have taken place in the county even without a stadium?
  • Since the state is planning on going ahead with the stadium regardless of whether Wyandotte County chips in, wouldn’t it get any new tax revenue either way, making the tax breaks a net loss?

Todd LaSala, a private attorney who serves as an economic development consultant for the Unified Government, attempted to answer the last question, at least, speculating that Hunt could build his stadium in a different part of the state if the county didn’t agree to the funding: “If you voted no, it sends an interesting, if not a dismissive message to the Kansas City Chiefs, who want to choose Wyandotte County as their home.” LaSala didn’t indicate why the Chiefs owner would balk at a Wyandotte stadium site when he’d be getting the same amount of STAR bonds for it regardless, but it is important to remember that if you want to remain attractive to the local billionaire, you must never speak your mind and learn how to light his cigar right.

As for the other questions, I’ve gone through all the documents presented for last week’s county commission vote, and I can’t find anything giving details about how those tax break and tax revenue projections were calculated. Given that when the state of Kansas tried a similar exercise with its own $3 billion-plus in Chiefs tax breaks, economists deemed the resulting figures to be “incredibly optimistic,” “insane,” and “just not credible,” it’s probably a good idea to take these latest numbers with a grain of salt — even before considering that these tax subsidies look to be money that Wyandotte County is voluntarily giving up to land a stadium it would get regardless. I’ve reached out to both the county and LaSala with the above questions, and will post an update here if I hear back from them.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Friends don’t let friends host the Olympics, and other cautionary tales

access_time personNeil deMause

Last week I teased a big project of mine that would drop this week, and it went live yesterday morning: a 57-page report, commissioned by Los Angeles economic justice advocacy group Strategic Action for a Just Economy, on whether L.A. can or should be trying to extricate itself from its hosting obligations for the 2028 Summer Olympics — something some local critics have suggested, especially in the wake of the city’s wildfire crisis and budget crisis and  immigration enforcement occupying force crisis. You can probably get a pretty good sense of the report’s findings from its title, “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t,” but if you want slightly more details, here’s the nut graf:

While there are numerous unknowns—the history of the Olympics shows that budget questions are never resolved until it’s far too late, a path that L.A. has headed down with its agreements for the 2028 Games as well—the available documentation and history of international event hosting shows: Yes, if Los Angeles officials, or voters, decided to withdraw from hosting the Olympics, they could do so. This would come at the risk of potentially billions of dollars in damages from a breach-of-contract lawsuit and losses from expenses already undertaken. However, continuing as host also comes with a potential risk of losses that, if history is any guide, could similarly amount to billions of dollars.

The report also contains a wealth of information about Olympic financial history, including other locales’ attempts to back out of hosting major international sporting events for fiscal reasons (the Denver 1976 Winter Olympics that never happened, plus the 2026 Commonwealth Games that the Australian state of Victoria bailed on in 2023 amid concerns about snowballing costs), as well as mention of my new favorite Olympic factoid: that time they held a Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan and nobody knows how much it cost because the local organizing committee literally set fire to its financial records. It’s all here, dig in if you’re in the mood for a long, enraging read — or if not, you can instead read the excellent summaries in Torched (which includes a quote from me on this week’s revelations about L.A. Olympics chief Casey Wasserman’s history with Jeffrey Epstein) and LAist.

And now that that’s off my plate, I have plenty of time for stadium and arena bullet points, and good thing, too, because this week brought craploads of them:

  • The Wyandotte County Commission followed suit with its neighbors in the city of Olathe and voted 7-3 to approve devoting local sales and hotel tax revenue to pay off part of the state’s $2.775 billion in bonds for a new Kansas City Chiefs stadium and surrounding development. The county, to be clear, gets absolutely nothing out of kicking in its own funding (total price tag still TBD), given that the state has indicated it will go ahead with the stadium deal regardless. Kansas City, Kansas mayor and county commission chair Christal Wilson, who didn’t vote because no ties needed to be broken, wrote on Facebook that she thinks kicking in county money is warranted because it gets the county “a seat at the table” — okay, though it’s questionable whether getting to sit at the table is worth having to split the check.
  • Indiana state Rep. Earl Harris Jr. on his bill to create a sports authority to build a Chicago Bears stadium in northwest Indiana with money from (feigns coughing fit until you go away): “Indiana does sports things like this very well. When you look at the Pacers, the Colts, the Speedway, we’re very good at figuring out a good financial plan that does not hurt the taxpayer.” Um, about that…
  • Will the Portland Trail Blazers move if the city and county decline to spend $600 million on upgrades to their arena? It’s an “urgent race against time” and “the clock continues to tick,” writes The Oregonian, citing a deadline of … huh, seems like they didn’t mention any deadline, must have run out of room. (Though there was room for “Are you ready for the Nashville or Kansas City Trail Blazers?” to cite two cities that are not particularly shopping around for NBA teams.)
  • Tampa sports radio host JP Peterson insists that spending upwards of $2 billion on a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium is warranted because it “will produce millions in tax revenue and bring major events, Super Bowls, National Championship games, World Baseball Classic, MLB All-Star games” — [citation needed], my man. Also, I can save you some time: Even if a new baseball stadium does bring in millions in tax revenue, from hosting, uh, football games, when it costs hundreds of millions a year in tax expenditures, maybe that’s … not good?
  • Speaking of the Rays, fresh Rays vaportecture! I’m sticking with my comment from yesterday: Glad to see the Rays acknowledge that even after a future stadium is built, fans still won’t buy jerseys with player names because they know they’ll be sold off as soon as they reach arbitration.
  • And if you want still more Rays commentary from me, I spoke with both WMNF radio and Tampa Bay 28 TV about the ongoing dispute this week; the former is much longer, the latter offers a view of what I have on my living room walls, pick your poison.
  • Just in time for the Super Bowl (what time does it start again?), here’s a Top 40 list of things the NFL demands from Super Bowl host cities. It’s impossible to pick just one favorite, but equally impossible to beat “three championship-level 18-hole golf courses and two top-quality bowling alleys, free of charge.”
  • Plans to build an Indy Eleven a soccer stadium for a new MLS team on Indianapolis’s former heliport are on hold because something about not rewarding a city that “continues to thumb its nose” at ICE; the FAA will soon be weighing in on the matter.
  • Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has met with NBA commissioner Adam Silver, though not in the sense of actually meeting meeting like in person, and “offered to be helpful in bringing back the Sonics” as an NBA expansion team. Seattle already has a practically brand new arena, though by the time the NBA is ready to expand it could be pushing 10 years old, is that too soon to ask for upgrades?
  • San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones says Spurs owner Michael Dell donating $6 billion to Donald Trump’s “Trump accounts” savings plan “really pissed me off” because “if you can give $6 billion for these accounts, you could have paid for your own arena.” But then Dell wouldn’t have those billions he saved by getting taxpayers to build his arena! Sounds like somebody doesn’t understand what the whole point of being a billionaire is. (Hint: It’s getting billions of dollars, not spending it.)
  • And finally on the Rays front, Frank Nockels of Land O’ Lakes, Florida asks: “If we pay for half of the Rays’ new stadium, can we get free tickets?” Ian Betteridge has some bad news, Frank.
Share this post: