Category: Washington Commanders

Friday roundup: Bears face choice which state’s $1B+ in cash to accept, Rays stadium plans face growing questions

access_time personNeil deMause

As expected, the Indiana state senate gave overwhelming (45-4) final approval to a Chicago Bears stadium subsidy package yesterday, and Gov. Mike Braun signed it into law less than an hour later. This is still a very preliminary plan — we don’t know, among other things, how big a stadium tax diversion district would be, which could go a long way toward determining if Bears owner George McCaskey would receive $400 million or $1 billion or $4 billion or what in taxpayer money. With the state government having signed off, though, that decision will now be left up to an unelected state sports authority and the city of Hammond, and neither of those is likely to have the best interests of Indiana taxpayers as a whole in mind. (Not that state legislators were necessarily thinking about that either, but at least they’re supposed to, if I’m reading the representative democracy FAQs correctly.)

At the same time, an Illinois house committee responded to events across the state border by moving forward a “megaproject” bill that Bears execs have said they require for any new stadium in Arlington Heights. The bill would allow localities to exempt any project costing over $500 million from local property taxes and instead allow it to pay a lower payment in lieu of taxes rate that developers would negotiate with the local government; for projects worth over $2 billion, like the Bears stadium, the negotiated tax rate would be allowed to be as low as zero. Property tax guru Geoff Propheter estimates the value to the Bears from this measure would be about $67 million a year, which would amount to just over $1 billion in present value. (CORRECTION: Propheter emails to say the $67 million a year was already translated into present value, so this could actually be a $2 billion tax break.)

If the bill succeeds — Chicago-area legislators are trying to block it, as they would, since there’s nothing in it for their constituents — it could also, notes Jon Styf at The Center Square, lead to data centers or battery farms demanding similar tax breaks. And because the value of those projects would count toward the local tax base without paying their usual share of local taxes, other property tax owners would end up getting soaked to cover the difference — something that should put in a slightly different light Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s comments yesterday that Indiana is setting itself up for “massive increases in taxes” while Illinois is having “really positive discussions” with the Bears.

This is going to be a difficult choice for Bears execs, given that there are lots of unknowns with both states’ offers — Illinois has also still yet to decide on how much in infrastructure money to provide to an Arlington Heights Bears project — plus the question of where the Bears owners actually think it would make more sense to play in terms of selling tickets. Fortunately for McCaskey, there’s no deadline to make a decision, so he can sit back and hope the bidding war continues to escalate. For a team owner whose options only a few months ago were a rock and a hard place, to be fielding multiple billion-dollar-plus offers is a pretty impressive an accomplishment, guess leverage really does work!

And this week in the rest of the sports extortion world:

  • Members of the Tampa Sports Authority have some questions about a proposed Rays stadium, namely how the authority will staff a stadium if Gov. Ron DeSantis goes ahead with slashing the property taxes that fund its budget, where the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County would come up with about $1 billion worth of stadium funding when the county has $1.5 billion in unmet transportation needs, and whether the planned Rays complex would include any much-needed affordable housing. Replies hazy, ask again later!
  • Meanwhile, Rays officials are planning public visioning sessions for their proposed Tampa stadium project, stock up on post-it notes!
  • The Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority has asked for $100 million in state unclaimed funds money to help pay for a $400 million Columbus Blue Jackets arena upgrade, joining the Cleveland Browns, Cleveland Guardians, Cleveland Cavaliers, and Cincinnati Bengals as teams lining up to tap that state slush fund, it’s like you can’t even put out a sign reading “FREE MONIEZ!!!” anymore without billionaires lining up to take it.
  • Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told a local business and real estate conference, “We won a World Series, Stanley Cup, hosted an All Star game for MLB and MLS. We’re going to have the NFL Draft. And we will have the Super Bowl, so I think that qualifies as the sports capital.” The result was “a big ovation,” according to WTOP, though whether this is because business leaders don’t understand how sports works or will cheer anything that results in one of their number pocketing a $7 billion check is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno determined that his team’s fans don’t care about winning by issuing a survey that didn’t including “winning” among the categories fans could pick as a priority, that’s one way to justify only signing players who are clinically dead.
  • Speaking of Jon Styf, he and I had a long talk about the proposed Bears subsidies this week in which I concluded, after seeing NFL owners’ standard stadium subsidy demands climb from $1 billion to $2-6 billion in the course of just a year, “It makes me wonder why teams don’t just ask for $10 billion or $1 trillion. Clearly it’s not like there’s any point at which legislators will start saying ‘No.’” Apologies in advance for giving them ideas.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Rays target stadium site, Bears seek Indiana stadium authority, Chiefs pursue local tax money

access_time personNeil deMause

Sorry for the late post today — I think all the images of people getting shot in the face and pulled screaming from their cars are starting to interfere with my sleep schedule. No matter what else is going on, though, the stadium and arena shakedowns continue, so let’s get to the news that we didn’t already cover this week:

  • Tampa Bay Rays owner and Gov. Ron DeSantis pal Patrick Zalupski is reportedly in advanced talks to buy the state-owned Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry Campus in Tampa for the site of a new stadium and surrounding development. (The college’s 20,000 students would possibly get a new campus elsewhere as part of a “land swap” for something or other.) How the money for any of this would work is as yet a mystery — the Hillsborough board of trustees will meet on Tuesday to discuss the plan, at which point we’ll learn a bit more, maybe.
  • The Indiana state senate is considering a bill to create a stadium authority in Northwest Indiana to lure the Chicago Bears, which would have precisely the same effect as me opening a bank account to use to buy a yacht: nothing at all, until somebody puts some money in it. (The bill language would give the authority bonding capacity, but no set revenue streams to pay off any bonds.) Bears officials nonetheless called it a “significant milestone” in their talks of getting a stadium in Indiana, guess you gotta celebrate your achievements where you can find them, especially if you want to maintain your leverage.
  • There’s been talk before that Kansas’s $4 billion subsidy offer to the Kansas City Chiefs for a new stadium in Kansas City, Kansas (their current stadium is in Kansas City, Missouri) could involve kicking in future city and county sales tax revenues as well as state sales taxes, and now it’s an official ask: Both Wyandotte County, where Kansas City, Kansas is located, and the city of Olathe, where the Chiefs’ new training facility would be built, are being asked to chip in their share of any rise in sales tax receipts to help pay the Chiefs’ construction bill. (I don’t think this changes the overall public price tag, just displaces some of the money the state might otherwise struggle to come up with.) Why the local governments would want to commit their own tax revenue to pay for something the state otherwise plans to build with its own funds, who knows, but Olathe councilmembers did call the training camp a “wonderful transformational project for us” and “a very exciting announcement,” so maybe the hope is local lawmakers will be so excited they’ll contribute to the project’s GoFundMe.
  • Unite Here Local 49 has estimated that those billboards the city of Sacramento is erecting and giving the revenue from to the Sacramento Republic F.C. owners could end up costing the city $115 million over 34 years — which would be worth less in present value, but also it looks like the union didn’t account for future inflation in billboard rates, so maybe not less in present value? Maybe we’ll find out in the year 2060, if man is still alive.
  • There are new renderings of the planned Washington Commanders stadium on the old RFK Stadium site, and they look kind of like a plus-sized version of the Saddledome, surrounded by a whole lot of garages and buildings strategically shown so all you can see are their green roofs. (No fireworks or entourage at all, Josh Harris isn’t blowing any of that $6.6 billion on the clip art budget.) One thing they don’t show: Any of the homes in the nearby neighborhood, or the grocery stores and other small businesses that residents say they would like to see built there, but aren’t hopeful anyone will be able to afford to once the stadium opens.
  • The Houston Texans just hired a chief revenue officer who last worked on the Buffalo Bills stadium project, guess we’re going to start hearing again about Texans owner Cal McNair’s desires for a new or upgraded stadium.
  • $50 million in public bonds for a cricket stadium? In Oswego? It’s all supposed to be covered by stadium revenue, but I can’t find confirmation in the (checks notes) Fox River Valley press. Anyway, I’m done, have a good holiday weekend, see you back here on Tuesday, if woman can survive.
Share this post:

Hidden subsidies cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year, yet elected officials keep pretending they’re not real money

access_time personNeil deMause

University of Colorado Denver sports economist Geoffrey Propheter, who readers here should be very familiar with as it seems like I cite him every day or so, has an essay up today at The Conversation on how “privately funded” stadium and arena deals can often cost the public big money through subsidies that aren’t counted on the official cost ledger. Propheter estimates, for example, that property tax breaks — his specialty — “have cost state and local governments US$20 billion cumulatively over the life of teams’ leases, 42% of which would have gone to K-12 education.” Likewise, taxpayer spending on infrastructure and operating costs is often discounted, while counting team rent payments as private money ignores the value of the land or property that is being rented.

Put it all together, and you get all-time hidden-subsidy champions like the Washington Commanders stadium deal:

By way of example, the Council of the District of Columbia approved a subsidy agreement last year with the NFL’s Commanders. The stadium would be financed, constructed and operated by the team owner, who would pay $1 in rent per year and remit no property taxes. In exchange for financing the stadium privately, the owner receives exclusive development rights to 20 acres of land adjacent to the stadium for the next 90 years.

The stadium is expected to cost the owner $2.5 billion, with the city contributing $1.3 billion for infrastructure.

But the city also gives up market rental income between $6 billion and $25 billion,depending on future land appreciation rates, that it could make on the 20 acres.

In other words, the rent discount alone means the city gives up revenue equal to multiple stadiums in exchange for the Commanders providing one. It is as if the council has a Lamborghini, traded it straight up for a Honda Civic, and then praised themselves for their negotiation acumen that resulted in a “free” Civic.

The Lamborghini Effect is a great image, and one that really should be drilled into the heads of all elected officials who are faced with negotiating sports deals — which sooner or later is pretty much all elected officials. Already just this week, we’ve seen a bunch of political leaders who seem to be in need of reading Propheter’s warnings:

  • The Sacramento city council approved new city digital billboards whose revenue will all be siphoned off and given to the Republic FC owners to help pay for a new soccer stadium, even though nobody has any idea how much that will be. “These billboard leases are a giant hidden subsidy for the railyards developers,” UNITE HERE Local 49 Aamir Deen told CBS News. “It’s absurd to vote on this billboard deal without even knowing what you’re giving away.”
  • Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who in the ongoing Chicago Bears stadium talks has mostly been holding a hard line against “propping up what now is an $8.5 billion-valued business” with taxpayer dollars, reiterated that he doesn’t count infrastructure spending as a subsidy, because “we help private businesses all the time in the state, and I want to help” and “some of the infrastructure needs that the Bears are identifying” for their proposed Arlington Heights stadium are “projects that we were going to build at one point or another.”
  • Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, in her final state of the state speech, gushed about her new Chiefs stadium deal that could end up costing state taxpayers a second-only-to-the-Commanders-record $4.1 billion according to Propheter’s projections, on the grounds that it won’t raise taxes or divert money from existing budget priorities — ignoring how it will divert billions of dollars from future budget priorities as tax revenue from a 300-square-mile swath of the state gets directed to Chiefs owner Clark Hunt’s bank account instead of the state treasury.

Some of these actions are more worrying than others: It’s still unclear whether Pritzker, in particular, will really be okay with the $855 million in infrastructure demands the Bears owners have levied, or if he’s just telegraphing that he’s open to the state covering a few minor expenses, so please don’t play footsie with Indiana without continuing to haggle with him. Either way, though, they’re all concerning signs that political leaders are continuing to divide public spending on private sports venues into two buckets, one marked “real tax dollars” and one “not really tax dollars because reasons” — and the latter can include pretty much anything from spending on everything around the stadium to handing over selected public revenue streams to just straight-up checks from the public treasury so long as they can be termed “no new taxes.” With elected antagonists like these, team owners don’t need friends — as we’re seeing when the largest stadium subsidies in history are being justified as not costing taxpayers anything. Not like that’s anything new, but when Propheter and I and a lot of other people have been pointing out the pitfalls of hidden sports subsidies for decades now, it’d be nice a few more people started at least acknowledging that public costs are public costs, now matter how team owners attempt to launder them.

Share this post:

Do record-breaking Commanders and Chiefs deals mean other cities need to pay more for stadiums? An investimagation

access_time personNeil deMause

Other news outlets are starting to pick up on what a crazy year this was for sports stadium deals: Just in the last couple of days we’ve had headlines reading “Sports stadium deals hand even more taxpayer money to billionaires” and “Public subsidies for stadiums are exploding.” The lessons that writers are taking from the eye-popping subsidy deals for the Washington Commanders and Kansas City Chiefs, though, are, uh, interesting.

Let’s start out with that first article, which ran on the nonprofit-owned Stateline news service. It noted the record-breaking numbers for the Commanders and Chiefs stadiums, then quoted sports economist Geoffrey Propheter as saying that these deals will end up doing a favor to other team owners seeking their own stadium deals, because “now teams can look at the Kansas deal and say, ‘Hey, what we’re asking for is not nearly as bad or as crazy or stupid as what Kansas is offering.’” It also quotes another stadium expert (that’d be me) as noting that in both cases, the elected officials who landed the stadium deals had been “negotiating against themselves,” since nobody else was offering the many billions of dollars that Kansas and D.C. ultimately came up with — and “the more they get away with that, the more their fellow owners are going to be emboldened to ask for the same thing.”

So far, so good: Because sports team owners often successfully employ the “all the other kids are doing it” argument, the Chiefs and Commanders deals are likely to lead to more multibillion-dollar stadium subsidy demands. But this brings us to article #2, by Tampa Bay Times columnist John Romano, which takes that conclusion to some unlikely places.

Romano is a weird one in the stadium coverage landscape: He’s been critical of Tampa Bay Rays ownership for demanding too much in stadium talks, but has also been an advocate for Rays stadium subsidies so long as they’re kept to a half billion dollars or so. Here, he takes the record-breaking stadium subsidies and runs with them, predicting that it could lead to a higher public price tag for a new Rays deal:

For the typical taxpayer on Main Street USA, the real culprit is your crazy neighbor in Kansas. Or Washington D.C. Or any number of other desperate municipalities.

We’re not talking about the actual cost of construction — which is significant and rising daily by itself — but the public funds/enticements that are being tossed around so towns can either lure or retain baseball, football, hockey and basketball teams.

The Chiefs and Commanders deals — and, for some reason, the Atlanta Braves deal with Cobb County, which Romano also throws into the mix — raise the prospect that “municipalities could recoup their initial investment with funds from property taxes on new construction, liquor taxes in new bars and restaurants, and a variety of other fees and taxes that would not otherwise exist without the project,” something Romano terms an “intriguing idea” before immediately noting that economists consider it “a load of hooey.” Still, there are “intangible” benefits from hosting a sports team, says Romano! Though “critics suggest that concept is also vastly overrated”! The answer must lie somewhere in the middle, or at least in just dumping the two arguments into a Word document and letting readers figure it out for themselves!

If Romano column is disappointingly bothsidesy when it comes to evaluating the alleged benefits of stadium deals, the headline it ran under put its finger definitively on the scale: The full hed is “Public subsidies for stadiums are exploding. Can Tampa Bay keep up?” That’s a very different question than whether “keeping up” is even worth it, and it makes it sound like the challenge here for elected officials is to find a way to meet the new stadium subsidy thresholds, regardless of whether they make any economic sense. After all, as Romano argues in his conclusion, it’s really all about what the guy next door is offering:

As history has shown, it only takes one desperate community armed with municipal bonds to completely change the landscape — and the zip code — of a baseball or football team.

Yeah, if Tampa Bay doesn’t come up with three or four or six billion dollars, the Chiefs and Commanders deals show that the Rays might … move to the next city over? Which would also be in Tampa Bay? “Cities are bidding more and more billions of dollars to secure stadium deals” is pretty obvious; “cities need to bid more and more billions of dollars to secure stadium deals” is a very different thing, especially when they’re bidding against themselves.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: The year that stadium subsidies went completely nuts

access_time personNeil deMause

One year ago today, this site ran an item headlined “Was the Carolina Panthers’ $650m renovation deal really the worst of 2024? An investimagation,” in response to the Center for Economic Accountability declaring Charlotte the winner of that dubious distinction. The conclusion: The Panthers deal was bad, but there were plenty of other contenders, like St. Petersburg’s attempt (eventually rejected) to give over $1 billion to the owners of the Tampa Bay Rays, the Washington Capitals and Wizards owner landing $515 million from D.C., plus non-sports megadeals for everything from an Eli Lilly drug plant in Indiana to expansion of film and TV production tax credits.

All that seems like a million years ago. The year 2025 will be remembered for lots of things, but one is that it was the year where stadium subsidies blew way past the billion-dollar mark, with Washington Commanders owner Josh Harris landing a stadium-plus deal worth at least $6.6 billion in cash, land, and tax breaks, then Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt following that up with a preliminary agreement for around $4 billion in goodies for a stadium development in Kansas. Otherwise notable events of the past year like the state of Ohio gifting Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam $600 million (or more) to move from one part of the state to another and even San Antonio providing $1.3 billion for a new San Antonio Spurs arena project — easily an NBA record — feel like chump change by comparison.

And that’s the bigger concern here: While in a sane world, elected officials would sit down and figure out how much the presence of a sports team is worth compared to having money for public services, or at least how much they need to offer to outbid other prospective host cities, if any, in this timeline it’s more about what the next guy down the road has established as the going rate. It’s impossible to say, for example, how the Chicago Bears owners’ perpetual game of footsie with both Chicago and every suburb within driving distance will turn out, or if Kansas City Royals owner John Sherman will replicate the Chiefs’ tax windfall — but when owners can point to previous deals and argue that giving 99 years of free rent or all future sales tax increases from a 300-square-mile area is just the cost of doing business, it makes it easier for state, county, and city officials to say “sure, I guess, do we at least get a luxury box?”

And on that note, let’s wrap up the final news from 2025, and the early returns from 2026:

  • Kansas state senate president Ty Masterson said the “worst case scenario” for a Chiefs stadium is “nobody buys the bonds, the bonds don’t get sold, the project doesn’t happen,” but it seems far more likely that if nobody is interested in buying the bonds, the state would make its sales tax increment district even bigger than 300 square miles, which seems like it would be considerably worse. Or the state could have to sell bonds at an interest rate of as high as 8.5% to lure bond buyers, which would definitely be worse. Let only your imagination be your limit, Ty!
  • Count newly elected Kansas City, Kansas mayor Christal Watson, who is also CEO of Wyandotte County (counties got CEOs?), among those eager to look the Chiefs stadium deal in the mouth: “If the numbers aren’t there for us to maintain the services that are needed for the community, then we’ve got to reevaluate and renegotiate,” said Watson this week. It ain’t over until it’s over!
  • Meanwhile, Kansas speaker of the house Dan Hawkins says with the clock turning over to 2026, “time’s up” for the Royals to use STAR bonds that were approved last year. Though technically the legislature can still change its mind and approve new bonds until the end of June — if it can find some bits of eastern Kansas that aren’t already part of the Chiefs stadium tax district — this seems like a good opportunity for Missouri officials to recognize that they’re the only bidder for the Royals and drive a hard bargain, though vowing to do an end run around voters doesn’t seem like a great start.
  • The Minnesota Timberwolves owners are still dreaming of a new arena that will feature augmented reality, and Wild owner Craig Leipold wants to make sure he’s in line for arena upgrades too, because “in order to survive in the NHL” you “need to be in a really good building,” and his building is a whole 25 years old and the team is only turning $68 million a year in profits, this is clearly St. Paul’s problem to fix.
  • San Antonio mayor Gina Ortiz Jones says she’s not done trying to renegotiate that Spurs deal, on the grounds that “non-binding means non-binding.” She likely needs a majority of the city council to back her up there — San Antonio has a weak-mayor form of government — but props to her for knowing how to read a dictionary.
  • The New England Revolution owners reached an agreement this week to pay Boston $48 million over 15 years to compensate for traffic and transit problems caused by a planned new stadium in Everett, as well as $90 million over 20 years in parks and transit upgrades in Everett. With team owners the Kraft family covering the $500 million stadium construction cost, I’m tempted to say this is actually a pretty fair deal and a sign that at least some local politicians can still drive a hard bargain, though it’s equally like that this is mostly a sign that nobody in the U.S. cares as much about MLS as about the other football.
  • Wahconah Park in Pittsfield, Massachusetts is set to be torn down and replaced next year, which will come as a sad note to anyone who read Foul Ball, Jim Bouton’s book on how he helped temporarily save the old ballpark 20 years ago.
  • There’s another interview with me up about the Chiefs deal, which you can listen to here — there doesn’t appear to be a way to link to particular timestamps in a YouTube short, but enjoy the whole thing anyway, it may be the last thing on the platform that’s not AI-generated!
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Chiefs stadium to cost all Kansans tax money, Royals up next

access_time personNeil deMause

I have to figure hardly anyone is reading this here on Christmas weekend, but for those of you who are, here’s an abbreviated news roundup, much of it about the proposed Kansas City Chiefs stadium deal, because almost everything is this week:

  • The STAR bonds that Kansas plans to use to finance $1.8 billion worth of a Chiefs stadium (and close to $1 billion in other development by the team) confuse a lot of people, and headlines like the Kansas City Star’s “Much of Wyandotte, Johnson counties will pay for Chiefs stadium with sales tax” aren’t helping. No, people inside the “stadium district,” which could end up covering much of those two counties, won’t be paying extra taxes for the stadium; rather, an amount equal to all future sales and liquor tax receipts above what the district is getting now will be removed from the state’s general fund and used to pay Clark Hunt’s stadium bills. (State officials seem to believe that all this will be free money because the only reason tax revenues will rise in the area will be the eight home games a year the Chiefs will play, which is insane on several levels — more on that after the holiday.) That means the cost will fall just as much on Kansans in Topeka and Wichita and points west as it will on those in and around Kansas City, since the state will have to find a way to pay its future bills without a couple hundred million dollars a year in tax revenues it would have otherwise gotten. So really it’s “Everyone anywhere in Kansas will pay for Chiefs stadium,” hth.
  • Elected officials in Missouri, meanwhile, have learned their lesson from the huge giveaway across the border: Time to try to throw billions of dollars at the Royals owners or risk being left without any billionaires to give tax money to. KC, MO Mayor Quinton Lucas noted on Tuesday that voters look to be opposed to this sort of thing, so “we’ve talked about a pathway that allows us to do it through public body approval rather than perhaps having to go to the ballot box,” take that, voters who insist on having opinions the mayor doesn’t like!
  • Construction of the Athletics‘ planned Las Vegas stadium is ongoing — for now, at least — but the casino complex that’s supposed to surround it may not happen for a while if ever: Leaseholder Bally’s has yet to announce a financing plan for its part of the project, and may yet seek another investor to take over the development. That could be a problem for A’s owner John Fisher, who was counting on Bally’s building a parking lot and other infrastructure that the ballpark would use, meaning he’d need to find a way to pay for it on his own, even while figuring out how to pay for the bulk of his $2 billion stadium on his own.
  • Greater Greater Washington has a good long rundown on how this year’s Commanders stadium deal became so bad that it still outpaces even the extremely bad Chiefs stadium deal, dipping briefly into a discussion of Swiss semioticians before returning to its main point: “The moderate flank of our government behaved as recklessly and irresponsibly with the District’s finances as their progressive colleagues are so often accused of, but, because it’s sports, masquerading as economic development, they won’t be attacked by business advocates, the press, or public opinion for putting their pet causes first.” Well, possibly by public opinion, but mayors know how to get around that.
  • Finally, I did a bunch of interviews this week about the Chiefs stadium deal, and you can find one of them here — another from December 24 should be showing up here, but it looks like it’s been delayed by the Christmas rush, check back later.
Share this post:

Will the Commanders name their stadium after Trump? A mini-investimagation

access_time personNeil deMause

I was traveling yesterday and missed the big (?) news (?) about how “a senior White House source” has been in touch with Washington Commanders owner Josh Harris about having Donald Trump’s name on the Commanders’ new stadium, something that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said “would be a beautiful name, as it was President Trump who made the rebuilding of the new stadium possible.” (Citation needed on both of those facts, Karoline.)

That Trump wants his name on a football stadium should come as no surprise, as he wants his name on pretty much everything. That Harris is talking to him about it is also unsurprising, as it’s clearly good politics to meet with Trump and at least pretend to listen to him until his attention wanders elsewhere. Actually calling it “Trump Stadium” is another story, for a bunch of reasons:

  • Naming rights are worth a lot — as much as $30 million a year, which even spread over 30 years can be worth almost half a billion dollars in present value — and that’s money Harris won’t eagerly give up. He could try for some kind of hybrid name, like “[Corporate Name Here] Stadium at Trump Field,” but he’s likely to be limited to a smaller group of potential buyers if the official brand is saddled with an unwanted partner, especially one as polarizing as Trump.
  • ESPN reported that “a source with firsthand knowledge of the process” said Harris “doesn’t have the authority” to choose a name on his own, and “the city would be involved in that decision, and the Park Service would be involved.” That’s not necessarily true: D.C.’s term sheet with Harris grants the team “exclusive rights to manage, operate, market, and control the Stadium,” which presumably includes the right to name it. (Harris is explicitly guaranteed all the proceeds from stadium naming rights.) The city and Park Service could perhaps present some roadblocks in the case of a name they didn’t like, but then so could Trump if he doesn’t get his way.
  • Stadium names, to put it mildly, come and go. Unless Trump is successful in getting it contractually guaranteed that his name will be on the stadium in perpetuity, there would be nothing stopping Harris from quietly removing it once he’s out of office. (Or, more hilariously, printing it in the smallest type size imaginable.)

So this is all firmly in the category of things to wait and only take seriously if anyone at the White House still remembers it a month from now, like the time Trump said he wouldn’t allow the stadium to be built unless the Commanders changed back to their old name or the time he threatened to take away NFL tax breaks if players kept protesting racism. Or, you could run story after story about what D.C. residents think and what people on the internet think and what Tip O’Neill would think, that’s also a choice.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Pritzker endorses “infrastructure” spending for Bears, Royals could soon propose Kansas vaporstadium

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s Friday, which means I had to take valuable time away from reading about the Mafia luring rich people into playing in rigged poker games in order to hang out with NBA players who scored 6.6 points a game so that I could instead sum up the rest of this week’s stadium and arena news, for you, because I care.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: D.C.NFL stadium comes with nine-figure Metro cost, Mets owner likely to win casino on city parking lots

access_time personNeil deMause

I had a nice talk yesterday with Chris Francis of Straight Arrow News (owned by the union-busting Joe Ricketts, sigh) about ballooning hidden public costs of sports stadiums and arenas, and the resulting article is up this morning. Key quote: “I think the team owners and the officials who work with them have realized that it sounds worse to give a check, a taxpayer check, to the team for the stadium than to say, okay, we’re not going to give you that, but we will give you money for infrastructure. We will give you tax breaks. We will give you a break on land costs.” We were talking about the Denver Broncos at the time, but really it goes for all modern sports subsidy deals: All the real costs come in the fine print.

Speaking of the fine print, let’s see what it holds this week:

  • When Washington, D.C. agreed to pay $1 billion in cash and $6 billion or so in future rent breaks to Commanders owner Josh Harris for a new stadium, did everyone forget to mention it would come with a major expansion of the Metro station near the stadium site and perhaps a new station nearby as well? That could cost “in the ballpark of hundreds of millions of dollars,” says councilmember Charles Allen, but “we cannot afford not to do it.” Remember when Allen was saying “D.C. has a responsibility to scrutinize the proposal & demand a better & fair deal” with a “billion-dollar industry”? Yeah, neither does he.
  • New York Mets owner Steve Cohen is set to be awarded a casino license for the city-owned Citi Field parking lots he controls, after it turned out the state senator opposing it was the most disliked woman in Albany. There’s no public money involved, only public land, and that was effectively given away when then-mayor Mike Bloomberg gave Cohen a 99-year lease on the property as part of his stadium deal, but if you want to be annoyed at a multibillionaire sports team owner getting his way over community opposition, don’t let me stop you.
  • The main opposition group to next month’s referendum on giving the San Antonio Spurs around $150 million worth of future tax money toward a new arena is splitting its recommendations, urging a no vote on Prop B (which would provide the arena money) but remaining neutral on Prop A, which would devote tax money to redoing the area around the old arena to attract more rodeo events. COPS/Metro wants to see the county’s money from hotel and rental car taxes spent on “a range of community projects” guided by a citizen committee; it’s not entirely clear what happens to the arena plans if Prop A passes and Prop B does not, but that’s looking like a possibility.
  • The Cleveland Browns owners have started moving dirt at their new stadium site even before figuring out how it will all be paid for. All the kids are doing it!
  • The Athletics have filed for $523 million worth of construction permits in Las Vegas; getting those still won’t guarantee that the vaporarmadillo comes to pass, but it’s edging closer to decision time.
  • Heywood Sanders has elaborated on why the $2.6 billion plan to expand the Los Angeles Convention Center in advance of the 2028 Olympics is a terrible idea, saying in a Q&A with Torched’s Alissa Walker that other similar centers are seeing attendance drop even when they expand, and are having to offer discounted rates to lure a dwindling number of events. Key quote from Walker: “[Bangs head on desk].”
  • The organizers of the New York Marathon claim that it and other running events add almost a billion dollars a year to the city economy; it doesn’t look like they even bothered to hired a consultant to write a report justifying the number, but Crain’s New York Business published it anyway, this is fine.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Fire stadium wins Chicago approval, A’s set MLB record for alienating all their new fans already

access_time personNeil deMause

With all the ginormous stadium and arena wrassles like the Washington Commanders stadium and the San Antonio Spurs arena project and the never-ending Tampa Bay Rays saga, it’s sometimes easy to forget about all the other deals that are somewhere in the vicinity of the back burner. Let’s check in on some of those this week, along with some old favorites:

  • The Chicago city council voted yesterday to approve the Chicago Fire‘s plans for a new stadium at the The 78 site, which since Fire owner Joe Mansueto says he’ll build with his own money, so there should be no public funding involved. The Chicago Tribune, though, notes that “some details still need to be ironed out” for the larger redevelopment, including what to do about a new Red Line CTA station and relocating Metra train tracks after developer Related declared the original plan too costly. And what about the rumored parking garage that would, like the now-scrapped transit improvements, possibly use kicked-back property taxes via a TIF? Maybe it’s best to say there probably won’t be any public funding involved, fingers crossed, knock wood.
  • Sacramento Athletics fans are already fast on their way to being non-Athletics fans, reports ESPN, with one season ticket holder writing to the team: “Being a season ticket holder for the Athletics is embarrassing to the point that I regret telling my friends or coworkers. I cannot give away tickets, I cannot easily sell games I can’t make it to (at market rate-especially on SeatGeek), and I feel ignored by the team sales staff.” (The team responded by giving him a plastic bag of leftover giveaways that he already had.) SFGate, meanwhile, reports that an A’s fan this summer summed things up by declaring, “Fuck John Fisher. John Fisher’s a piece of shit,” while wearing a “Sacramento hates you too” cap. Things will surely improve once the team starts playing in Las Vegas in 2028, theoretically.
  • The San Francisco 49ers owners are supposed to cover the $6.4 million cost of hosting the 2026 Super Bowl, but the team’s nonprofit that is on the hook for the costs has no money, which is maybe a problem? Sports economist Geoffrey Propheter says he is “particularly concerned about the statement that the 49ers will reimburse the city for ‘approved expenses,’ with the 49ers seemingly being the judge of what is approved,” and sports economist Michael Leeds agrees, warning that “mega-events such as the Super Bowl almost invariably have costs that are higher than predicted and local impacts that are lower than predicted.”
  • A downtown site targeted for a possible new Kansas City Royals stadium was just sold to a Wichita developer, decreasing the chances that it will end up used for a ballpark. Not that Royals owner John Sherman has said much about where he might want to build a stadium as a December deadline approaches for accepting around $700 million in tax money from Kansas if he moves there, shh, he’s trying to get city or county money to go with his state money from either Kansas or Missouri, don’t bother daddy while he’s trying to concentrate.
  • Going with the headline “Brewers bolster ballpark after $500M deal” when $471 million of the money is coming from state taxpayers is a choice, Fox6 Milwaukee.
  • Marc Normandin has a good rundown on MLB commissioners Rob Manfred’s conflicting missions of doing what team owners want and doing what’s best for baseball, especially when owners themselves can’t agree on what they want: Some owners want to force the players union into accepting a salary cap at all costs, while others are more concerned about the damage an extended lockout in 2027 would do to the league’s broadcast value when it’s time to renegotiate TV deals after 2028. Explains Normandin: “Basically, he has to use this time to convince them of what they should want, so that he can then enact it just like they want him to — otherwise, he’ll have to do what they want him to, even if he thinks it goes against their best interests, because he is beholden to them in the end.” Shaking down players and cities and TV networks for money all at once is no easy feat, you try it sometime!
  • Fine, here’s an update on the Commanders stadium deal as well: The mixed-use district around the stadium will need to go through normal zoning procedures rather than being fast-tracked under a last-minute amendment, meaning they may not be ready for years after the stadium’s planned 2030 opening. That’s bad if you want to live in the promised affordable housing, but does at least also make the development rights less valuable to team owner Josh Harris, meaning the public subsidy is now more likely to be closer to $6.6 billion than $25 billion, yay?
Share this post: