Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, this is making the rounds over the last couple days. The Chicago Bears stadium is having some issues, and the city/state aren't all too interested in updating the facility, let alone building a new one. Iowa, the next state over (and my home) has started the negotiations and may want to build a new stadium (perhaps in Des Moines or the Quad City area???) and invite the Bears to switch cities.

I don't know how I feel about this. The bears have never been my preferred team, and even if they were a stadium for them seems like a money pit.


In other news, sounds like some investors have made a half-hearted pitch for getting a team in Japan. Yeah.... kind of doubtful about the viability of that one, simply for the time-zone difference for viewership.

Wait, my ignorance is hanging right out on this one.

But why don’t the team build their own new stadium?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait, my ignorance is hanging right out on this one.

But why don’t the team build their own new stadium?

My limited understanding it that it can be forced onto the tax payers as a "privilege" of living in X city. But the voters don't really have any say and can't opt out because reasons.
I'm sure there is more nuance than that but I think that sums it up.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait, my ignorance is hanging right out on this one.

But why don’t the team build their own new stadium?

Why build your own stadium when you can get a city to pay for it, instead?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, this is making the rounds over the last couple days. The Chicago Bears stadium is having some issues, and the city/state aren't all too interested in updating the facility, let alone building a new one. Iowa, the next state over (and my home) has started the negotiations and may want to build a new stadium (perhaps in Des Moines or the Quad City area???) and invite the Bears to switch cities.

I don't know how I feel about this. The bears have never been my preferred team, and even if they were a stadium for them seems like a money pit.


In other news, sounds like some investors have made a half-hearted pitch for getting a team in Japan. Yeah.... kind of doubtful about the viability of that one, simply for the time-zone difference for viewership.

I mean we have the Cubs why not.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait, my ignorance is hanging right out on this one.

But why don’t the team build their own new stadium?

New facilities are hellishly expensive. There are often tax breaks associated with building new facilities. If one city doesn't want to offer incentives then another may well do so if they think it will boost the local economy, even in the short term. Never underestimate the possibility of local politicians making dumb long-term decisions for short-term gain (like boosting the construction industry for 5 years or so while a new stadium is built in your area). In this case, I suspect there'd be a general boost to the Iowan economy since they don't currently have a team in the state, so it may be beneficial to offer incentives for a team to move. In fact, I don't think Iowa has any major sports teams at present.

As a European, the idea of a sports team moving city is admittedly really weird, but it's not uncommon in the US.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait, my ignorance is hanging right out on this one.

But why don’t the team build their own new stadium?

Why build your own stadium when you can get a city to pay for it, instead?

If the team leaves, Chicago isn’t at zero — it’s at negative. You’re talking about lost game-day spending, fewer hotel nights, restaurant/bar traffic, transit use, and the knock-on effect for the surrounding businesses that are built around the current setup. Add in the visibility and branding value of being an NFL city, which absolutely matters for conventions and tourism marketing.

Also, the public money conversation is rarely “write a blank check.” These deals are usually a mix of infrastructure, tax structures, bonds, etc. The question becomes whether retaining a century-old institution is worth participating financially, not whether the city is literally buying a stadium outright.

Could another place throw incentives at them? Sure. But they’d be betting on creating demand. Chicago would be deciding whether it wants to keep demand it already has.

Also loss of retail sales for merchandise.

I’m guessing we don’t tend to see city hopping in the UK for sports teams because…

A) We’re geographically tiny
B) If you’re a city, you’ve already got one (no, you can come up and see it, you son of a silly person)

We do see new build stadiums moving outside of urban areas from time to time. But that’s mostly down to space constraints, and traffic considerations etc.

For an example? Go on Google Maps, and look at Tynecastle Park and Easter Road football stadiums. Home ground for Hearts and Hibernian respectively.

Both have been redeveloped in relatively recent years. But see how they’re hemmed in on all sides. And by now historic buildings.

Right now, without buying up and demolishing the surrounding buildings, they’re probably about as big as they’re gonna get. So, if larger stadiums are needed in the future? Almost certainly looking at moving out of the city proper.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait, my ignorance is hanging right out on this one.

But why don’t the team build their own new stadium?

Because in the US it is NOT Bad Socialism when the Government gives public money to multimillion dollar private enterprises. See also Space X.

It is only Bad Socialism when the government gives money to poor people for food, clothing, and shelter.

Of course it makes no sense. This is the United States of America!

Calling it “socialism for greedy corporations” skips over the fact that a team anchored in a city supports a pretty big employment web that isn’t made up of owners.

The National Football League isn’t just players and executives. It’s stadium staff, security, concessions, maintenance, media crews, local bars and restaurants, hotel workers, rideshare drivers, merch sellers, etc. On game weekends you’re talking tens of thousands of shifts tied directly or indirectly to the team being there.

And we’ve seen what happens when a star or a team changes a local economy. When LeBron James returned to the Cleveland Cavaliers, downtown Cleveland saw huge spikes in hospitality revenue, restaurant traffic, and national attention. Jersey sales, sold-out games, playoff runs — that translated into real hours and tips for regular workers, not just balance-sheet wins for ownership.

So the debate isn’t “help a billionaire vs don’t.”
It’s “is some level of public participation worth preserving thousands of jobs, ongoing tax activity, and the city’s major-league profile?”

You can still argue about how big the subsidy should be or how deals are structured, but pretending the benefits stop at the owner’s pocket misses a lot of who actually feels the impact.

A subsidy is one thing. Paying for the whole thing is quite another.

It can also potentially be used to help regenerate areas that need it.

As you say, any major stadium that’s going to see regular use will support all manner of other businesses, and of all sizes. So offering some kind of incentive can help ensure it’s built in an area that will really benefit? That makes short, mid and even long term economic sense.

I’ll skip the actual political opinion, but it’s why when a given area has One Major Industry, and said Industry goes away? The whole area will enter a slump.

I think there’s a difference between “the public pays for everything” and what’s actually being discussed with the Chicago Bears in Chicago.

The framework that’s been floated isn’t the city cutting a blank check. It’s roughly ~$900M in public participation versus about $2B from the team. People can still argue whether that’s the right split, but it’s not remotely the same as taxpayers buying a billionaire a stadium.

The other wrinkle people gloss over is control. The Bears don’t own Soldier Field — the city does. That means the team can’t just decide to redevelop, add revenue features, modernize suites, etc. And because the city owns it, large-scale renovations depend on the city’s appetite and ability to finance them, which has been a recurring sticking point.

So from the team’s perspective, they’re being asked to remain in a building they don’t control, that lags modern NFL revenue setups, while also not getting a path to fix it themselves.

You can be pro-taxpayer and still admit that’s a tough sell.

Honestly? It’s a hefty investment, but one with about as guaranteed a return as you can expect.

Is the split fair? I couldn’t say. I’m sure there’s complex accounting behind it, based on existing tax revenues, benefit to the local economic infrastructure, how long the new stadium is expected to last and doubtless other minutiae. And indeed what is genuinely affordable for the city.

Cursory Google is of course Cursory, but it suggests Chicago as a whole generates something in the region of $919,000,000,000. Of course that doesn’t directly translate into tax revenues due to ah…efficiencies. But it does give a better sense of economic scale for Big Scary Number of $900,000,0000.00

And scale is important.

Overall? I’d have to say it seems like a sensible investment. Because you’d have to go some to see a poor return, let alone a loss.

While I'm not sure of all the intricacies of the Chicago situation, this might be worth a watch for those interested, because some cities have definitely given themselves the short end of the stick in these deals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

Des Moines has needed something more since the Grand Prix.

I think the problem is: why would some greedy billionaire pay for a stadium when he can strongarm a city into paying for it?

 BorderCountess wrote:
I think the problem is: why would some greedy billionaire pay for a stadium when he can strongarm a city into paying for it?

“Why would a greedy billionaire pay when he can strongarm the city?”

Because the city can say no. This isn’t a hostage situation, it’s a negotiation. If the numbers don’t work, elected officials are free to pass.

Also, owners put in private money all the time when it suits them. Stan Kroenke didn’t exactly hold up Inglewood before building SoFi Stadium. Turns out billionaires sometimes decide control, timelines, and long-term asset value are worth writing a very large check.

“Greedy” and “strongarm” are just emotional garnish. The actual debate is ROI for the municipality. If it’s bad, they walk. If they agree, then by definition they think it’s worth it.

Don't be so emotional about it...

 Jammer87 wrote:
Because the city can say no.

And just because one city says 'no', it doesn't stop another from saying 'yes'. If you can afford an NFL team, you can afford a stadium. It's choice NOT to.

My Dad introduced me to American football by spending hours shouting at the TV screen and making disgusting-smelling beer belches (fueled by crappy American pre-craft era beer.)

I've lived in the US all my life, and I've never understood the sport's appeal.

But this particular story reminds me of a strange European event, the Norwegian importation of royalty. Lacking a living royal lineage, the Norwegians brought Prince Carl of Denmark in to become King Haakon VII and establish a new Norwegian royal line back in 1905. Why Norwegians thought this was necessary or desirable is beyond me.

Did they build him a new stadium, too?

Thats not that strange an event in European history. A Scottish king was imported to England, Greece imported (or had imposed) royalty from both Germany and Denmark.

The European royal houses are all related and vaguely interchangeable.

And that's why World War 1 was basically a family squabble

I think pretty much every major European conflict form 1600 onward (and probably earlier) Was the same. Just unfortunate that the French had revolutionised how to raise citizen armies, and industry had caught up with how to arm truly monumental armies :(

Apparently the Bears were also in talks with somewhere in NW Indiana just outside Chicago about a stadium as well.

Wow, sounds like the Bears have options. Wouldn't blame them if they did what the Raiders have mastered.

Lost in the discussion is that arenas do not sit idle during the off-season. They also serve as concert venues and can host other athletic events.

This is why municipalities kick in some of the funding. Yes, they often overestimate the revenue increase and make foolish deals. Welcome to the real world.

Also germane is the fact that many municipalities have layer upon layer of red tape that precludes major projects without some sort of dispensation. Not sure how things are in Europe, but lots of American local government can levy their own income tax, so whether the stadium is within the city limits affects the earnings of everyone from the team owner to the janitor.

American sports franchises are quite mobile, with the Brooklyn Dodgers literally going from the East Coast to the West. I'm at a stage of life where I forget which team is where from time to time (I also quit watching the NFL when Barry Sanders walked away from the Lions).

Amazon has a great documentary on that, btw.

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently the Bears were also in talks with somewhere in NW Indiana just outside Chicago about a stadium as well.

There's a chunk of Indiana that is effectively just a part of the city of Chicago. They even have their own time zone so they can keep in sync with Illinois rather than being EST like the rest of the state.

 Jammer87 wrote:
Calling it “socialism for greedy corporations” skips over the fact that a team anchored in a city supports a pretty big employment web that isn’t made up of owners.

The National Football League isn’t just players and executives. It’s stadium staff, security, concessions, maintenance, media crews, local bars and restaurants, hotel workers, rideshare drivers, merch sellers, etc. On game weekends you’re talking tens of thousands of shifts tied directly or indirectly to the team being there.

Off topic, but fundamentally this is the same as any other subsidy. As a technocrat it of course winds me up that you don't consider all the alternative returns for you money (for example if you give a hand out of some sort to the population, say if the budget is 900m over 4 years, what effect would be giving 100,000 mums $200 per month for 4 years do for your local economy? Would it result in increased economic activity and self sustaining growth? What about other investments? House building and sales if your population is growing. Etc.). In practice ideology, legal restrictions and public 'common sense' limit heavily what you can spend money on, so what might look like sub optimal spending is the best of a bad set of options.

Recent news from the Bears and Indiana government saying they are close to finalizing a deal in Hammond, Indiana for that new stadium.

Well, good for them then. Maybe Iowa can get the Jacksonville Jaguars, lol

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, good for them then. Maybe Iowa can get the Jacksonville Jaguars, lol

Let's be honest: the Jaguars are gonna end up in London.