Image Source: Kevin Hardy
Key Takeaways:
- The recent stadium deals for the Washington Commanders and Kansas City Chiefs have set records for taxpayer subsidies to sports teams, with Kansas committing to spend up to $1.8 billion and Washington dedicating over $1 billion in public funds.
- Experts believe these deals will push up the public price tag for future stadium projects in cities like Chicago, Denver, and Newark.
- Decades of research have shown that stadium subsidies are a poor investment of public dollars, yet the median stadium subsidy amount has continued to increase over time.
- The Kansas deal, in particular, has been criticized for its lopsided terms, with the state owning the stadium and the team keeping all revenue from ticket sales, parking, and concessions.
- The trend of taxpayer-funded stadium deals is likely to continue, with team owners feeling entitled to demand billions of dollars in subsidies and lawmakers often driven by "panic" and "fear" of losing their teams.
Introduction to the Issue
The recent stadium deals for the Washington Commanders and Kansas City Chiefs have sparked controversy and debate over the use of taxpayer dollars to fund sports teams. As Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver, noted, "Kansas lawmakers have done every NFL team and every pro-subsidy lawmaker everywhere else in the country a huge favor, 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.’" This statement highlights the concern that these deals will set a new standard for future stadium projects, with team owners demanding more and more public funding.
The Kansas Deal
The Kansas deal, in particular, has been criticized for its lopsided terms. The state has committed to spending up to $1.8 billion on a new stadium for the Chiefs, with the team keeping all revenue from ticket sales, parking, and concessions. As Neil deMause, a journalist who has written extensively about stadium subsidies, noted, "Kansas was effectively ‘negotiating against itself,’ since Missouri was not prepared to offer such a lucrative deal." The state will also contribute millions to a fund for ongoing facility maintenance and security, and the team will pay rent, but those funds will go into an account that can be used for the team’s benefit. As deMause said, "They could have at least held out for free jerseys or something."
The Impact on Other Cities
The trend of taxpayer-funded stadium deals is likely to continue, with team owners feeling entitled to demand billions of dollars in subsidies. In Illinois, lawmakers have discussed relocating the Chicago Bears to a new site, but have been pushing the team to provide a more detailed proposal before approving a package of taxpayer-funded site and infrastructure improvements. As Illinois state Rep. Kam Buckner noted, "What happened in Kansas is exactly what Illinois should not do. Kansas is preparing to hand billions of public dollars to one of the wealthiest ownership families in professional sports history — not for schools, not for transit, not for housing, but to subsidize a stadium for a team that’s already printing money." Buckner’s comments highlight the concern that these deals are not only a poor investment of public dollars but also prioritize the interests of wealthy team owners over the needs of local communities.
The Role of Panic and Fear
The trend of taxpayer-funded stadium deals is often driven by "panic" and "fear" of losing a team, as Buckner noted. Team owners use the threat of relocation to negotiate lucrative deals, and lawmakers often feel pressured to agree to these terms in order to keep their teams. As deMause said, "For whatever reason, we’re in a moment where team owners feel entitled to demand a lot more billions of dollars than anybody else has. And the more they get away with that, the more their fellow owners are going to be emboldened to ask for the same thing." This dynamic creates a cycle of escalating demands and subsidies, with taxpayers ultimately footing the bill.
Conclusion
The recent stadium deals for the Washington Commanders and Kansas City Chiefs have set a troubling precedent for the use of taxpayer dollars to fund sports teams. As Propheter noted, "The median, inflation-adjusted stadium subsidy amount has ballooned over time." The trend of taxpayer-funded stadium deals is likely to continue, with team owners feeling entitled to demand billions of dollars in subsidies and lawmakers often driven by "panic" and "fear" of losing their teams. As Buckner said, "It’s about panic. It’s about fear. It’s about this system that we’ve created, where, if you don’t overpay, a billionaire might just take his toys and leave town, and folks are scared of that." Ultimately, it is up to lawmakers and the public to demand more responsible and equitable use of public funds, and to prioritize the needs of local communities over the interests of wealthy team owners.
Sports stadium deals hand even more taxpayer money to billionaires