Lawmakers in at least nine states are considering diverting hundreds of millions in new spending on sports stadiums and arenas, payouts meant to keep professional sports teams or attract new franchises to their largest cities.
Those legislators, conscious of the optics of spending so much money on behalf of sports teams owned by billionaires, are eyeing a host of different financing options, from bonds to special taxes aimed at visitors and even the professional athletes who will eventually work in the new arenas.
Missouri lawmakers are debating legislation that would create a new sports complex authority in Clay County, northeast of Kansas City. The area would allow construction of a new ballpark for the Kansas City Royals and a new training facility for the Kansas City Chiefs.
Both the Royals and Chiefs have leases at existing stadiums that expire in 2030, and the Royals have indicated plans to move. Kansas lawmakers have been trying to lure both teams across the state border.
In Ohio, the state House’s budget includes $600 million in new bonds for a domed stadium in Brook Park, outside of Cleveland, for the NFL’s Browns. The team has sought $1.2 billion in bonds to fund half the new project, which would include an entertainment district.
Arizona lawmakers are working on legislation to steer up to $500 million in sales and income tax revenue generated by the Diamondbacks to fill a stadium upgrade improvement fund. Im Minnesota, legislatures are considering extending a 0.15% sales tax to pay for upkeep at Target Field, home of the Twins.
In some states, legislators are moving ahead with stadium plans even before they have a team to call their own. Utah lawmakers last year approved $900 million in funding for a ballpark district. Oregon lawmakers are considering an $800 million bond package to pay for construction of a new ballpark on the banks of the Willamette River.
Both Portland and Salt Lake City are on the list of possible hosts for a new Major League Baseball franchise. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has said he wants to expand the league beginning in 2029; Nashville and Montreal are also said to be on Manfred’s list of possible hosts.
Supporters of the new spending say sports franchises lead to substantial economic activity for their host communities — which is why states like Missouri and Kansas go to war over sports teams that might be located just a few miles away from a border.
“The benefits to a sports complex in Clay County is that the Chiefs and Royals provide over a billion dollars in economic activity in Kansas City, and support thousands of jobs,” Missouri Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern (D), the bill’s lead author, told Pluribus News in an email. “This legislation will help Clay County be prepared for either team, otherwise, we risk losing everything to Kansas who has already made proposals.”
Even within a state, the politics of stadium spending can be fraught. As Missouri lawmakers consider the future of the Chiefs and Royals, a mystery group sponsored a poll showing Clay County voters opposed a new sales tax to pay for the stadium. Documents unearthed by the Missouri Independent show that group had ties to Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas (D), who wants to keep the teams inside his city limits.
Some public officials warned that stadium spending is a slippery slope, and that once a state gives money to one team, others will come calling. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R), who favors doubling a gaming tax to pay for sports facilities rather than the new bonds, warned that the Cleveland Browns won’t be the only team to come to the state hat in hand: Both the Cincinnati Bengals and the Columbus Blue Jackets will need stadium upgrades and renovations in the coming years.
“If we don’t do this, every legislature, every governor in the future is going to have to face the challenge of, ‘Gee, do we put $20 million here, do we put $40 million here for this stadium or that stadium?” DeWine told a group of business executives in Columbus last month.
Minnesota lawmakers will have to deal with multiple requests as well: The Xcel Energy Center, home of the NHL’s Wild, and the Target Center, home of the NBA’s Timberwolves and the WNBA’s Lynx, also need upgrades.
Some legislators are moving to stem the tide of stadium spending, or at least to require teams to meet benchmarks to obtain funding. Connecticut Republicans have introduced a bill to prohibit the use of state funds for stadiums, a measure meant to preempt a planned $96 million pro soccer stadium.
In Illinois, Rep. Bob Morgan (D) introduced legislation last year that would require sports teams to post winning records in three of the past five seasons to qualify for state spending. The Balanced Earnings and Record Standards and Stadium Oversight Expectations Act — the BEARS Act — comes as Chicago’s football team seeks to move out of Solider Field and into a state-of-the-art facility in Chicago or Arlington Heights.
The cost of new stadiums has ballooned substantially in recent years as team owners seek the latest and greatest amenities for their fans. Eight new stadiums for professional sports teams constructed since 2020 have cost an average of $3.3 billion, according to research published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. States have spent about $750 million in public money to help construct those new facilities.
Owners of those teams claim stadiums generate substantial economic activity. But most economists say that economic activity is marginal at best.
“You might see a little bit of a resurgence in the area right around the stadium, but it comes at a cost to less commerce in the outlying area, which is exactly what we’d expect,” John Charles Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University, told the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. “This is just a transfer of wealth within the community.”