Chicago Bears’ stadium bid unlikely to fly with unprecedented public subsidies like Buffalo Bills and Tennessee Titans received

New stadiums for the Buffalo Bills and Tennessee Titans set records for public subsidies for NFL teams — but key differences between those projects and the Chicago Bears’ proposed new stadium could determine what taxpayers here may pay.

In contrast to those deals, the Bears say they will pay to build a new stadium themselves but need to limit their taxes and get public funding for infrastructure. They see the Minnesota Vikings’ new stadium — recently paid off 23 years ahead of schedule — as a relevant example of a stadium success story. But the unprecedented deals elsewhere are prompting critics to warn lawmakers against falling into the trap of massive public subsidies.

Since 1970, one study found, public officials nationwide have committed $35 billion to fund new sports venues for pro sports teams. The recent deals in New York and Tennessee are part of what’s expected to be the next generation of costly stadium construction nationwide.

Public funding persists despite robust evidence that stadiums do not spur significant economic development, the study found.

“Our findings were clear: Professional sports had no positive impact on an area’s economy, and actually harmed residents’ per capita incomes,” University of Maryland economics professor Dennis Coates wrote.

After more than a half century playing at Soldier Field in Chicago, the Bears this year spent $197 million to buy the former Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights. The team proposed a $5 billion plan for a new enclosed stadium with an entertainment and housing district. Stymied by increased property taxes on the site, the team recently got invitations to make a new home in Naperville, Rockford or Waukegan, or to stay in Chicago, likely with some kind of public incentives.

The recent $850 million public subsidy for the new Buffalo Bills stadium was one of the worst such deals ever for taxpayers, in the eyes of sports economist Victor Matheson — that is, he said, until the Tennessee Titans said “hold my beer” and struck a deal for $1.4 billion that surpassed it. The deals offer lessons, he said, for lawmakers in Illinois.

For one thing, numerous factors had to align to make both deals happen.

In Buffalo, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo criticized the Bills’ deal, but after he resigned in 2021 due to sexual harassment allegations, Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul — of Buffalo — succeeded him and ran with the idea.

The deal included $250 million from Erie County and $600 million from the state for the $1.5 billion project. The state will use $418 million in disputed back revenue payments from Seneca Nation of Indians casinos, which Hochul helped force by freezing their accounts.

Critics ripped the deal as corporate welfare for the Pegula family, the fossil fuel billionaires and generous political donors who own the Bills. A poll last year found that 63% of New York voters disapproved of the deal.

Ironically, the new Bills stadium, being built across the street from the team’s current field in suburban Orchard Park, will be open air and hold only about 63,000 people, just slightly larger than the Bears’ home at Soldier Field, which has been derided as the smallest in the NFL.

The Bills stadium replaces a half-century-old facility that the team said needed some $1 billion in repairs. The team also agreed to a community benefits agreement to fund $3 million a year for the 30-year lease.

In Nashville, the city was contractually obligated to make costly renovations to the existing Nissan Stadium. Mayor John Cooper argued it made more sense to build anew. He said it would be “paid for by the team, the state, tourists and spending around the stadium — not by your family.”

Still, a Vanderbilt University poll found that a slim majority of Nashville residents opposed a new stadium.

A total of $1.26 billion in public money is pledged toward a $2.1 billion new enclosed stadium with a capacity of about 60,000.

This is how it is to be paid: The Titans, NFL and personal seat license sales are to raise $840 million; the state will issue $500 million in bonds; $760 million will be funded by debt issued through the Metro Sports Authority, repaid by a 1% hotel-motel tax increase, sales taxes in the stadium, and half of sales taxes in the district to be built around the stadium.

Similar to the Bears’ proposal, Nashville officials hope to develop the surrounding area with a mix of housing, transportation and other uses.

Both deals call for public bodies to own the stadiums, while the teams have 30-year leases and are to cover cost overruns. One major difference between the deals is that New York state is on the hook for an estimated $280 million in upkeep, while the Titans are responsible for maintenance in Nashville. The Titans are also due to pay some $47 million in community benefits, and $30 million in remaining bonds for their current stadium.

As an example of how stadium deals can go right, the Bears point to the $1.1 billion U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis.

In a deal that was put together for the Vikings by Kevin Warren, who is now the Bears’ president and CEO, the facility opened in 2016 at a cost of $1.1 billion, of which $498 million was paid for by state and city governments.

Now, the state is paying off $377 million in bonds 23 years early, saving $226 million in interest. Most of that will be paid for from a fund generated by electronic pull tabs, a form of gambling on tablets at bars that became popular after the state legalized them as part of the deal.

“U.S. Bank Stadium has been an incredible success story,” Vikings spokesman Lester Bagley said. “It was a huge boost to our economy and construction industry.”

One factor the Bills had in their favor was the threat of leaving. The Titans had already relocated to a new stadium in Nashville in 1997 after their previous home, Houston, failed to build them a new stadium.

More recently, three NFL teams moved to larger markets — the Los Angeles Chargers, the Los Angeles Rams and the Las Vegas Raiders. The Raiders got $750 million in public funding for the $2 billion Allegiant Stadium in Vegas.

But the Bears are unlikely to leave the third-largest market in the country. Chicago lawmakers are unlikely to support any subsidy for the team to leave the city, and since the move would be within Illinois, state lawmakers outside of the suburbs would likely need some incentive.

One proposal would create a payment in lieu of taxes, or PILOT, program, which would allow the team to negotiate its future property taxes with the school districts and other public bodies involved. But a bill to that effect stalled in Springfield, as negotiations between the team and schools hit an impasse. Municipalities like Arlington Heights still could create a special tax district that would help fund the Bears’ plan.

Ultimately, the intangibles of having an NFL team will compete with the economic costs. New York’s Gov. Hochul said there’s pride in keeping the Bills that “goes to our identity” and is “not quantifiable.” The Bears are the marquee sports franchise in Chicago, but face a lot more local competition than the Bills and Titans.

Moving out of Soldier Field might make sense for the team, but not taxpayers, said Matheson, a professor who studies sports economics at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. He previously taught at Lake Forest College, and said he even refereed professional soccer games at the Bears’ current home at Soldier Field, but remained skeptical of publicly financing a new stadium.

“It seems like a Bears’ problem, not a taxpayers’ problem,” Matheson said. “The state shouldn’t think about putting a dime into this. Moving 25 miles outside of Chicago does zero for the Illinois economy.”