Standing on a portable podium at home plate of the Milwaukee Brewers ballpark, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers recently praised the professional baseball team as an “essential part” of the state's “culture and identity” and “economic success.”
With much fanfare, Evers then signed an agreement for $500 million in government aid for the stadium's renovation, adding to a remarkable string of such blockbuster deals. This year alone, about a dozen Major League Baseball and franchises have taken steps toward new or improved stadiums.
A new wave of construction of sports facilities is underway. One driven in part by a race to keep up with rivals and one that could collectively cost taxpayers billions of dollars, despite economists' skepticism that stadiums boost the local economy.
Although the Brewers mainly cited the need for repairs, many of the other new projects are much more than that. In some cases, sports teams are even looking for a new boost in public financing for state-of-the-art stadiums, while public entities are still paying off debt from the last round of renovations a few decades ago.
“These facilities are not physically outdated. It's not like the concrete is falling and people are in great danger when they attend a game,” said Rob Baade, a retired economics professor at Lake Forest College in Illinois.
“Teams are clamoring for new stadiums because it is in their economic interest to do so,” Baade said, adding: “The new stadium model extends beyond the stadium walls.”
New or improved stadiums offer team owners new revenue opportunities from luxury suites, restaurants, shops and other developments, especially for those who control the nearby area.
For many, Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke is the model: His $5 billion stadium opened in 2020 as the centerpiece of a sprawling development with apartments, offices, shops, public parks and a theater.
The difference, however, is that Kroenke is privately financing the project, having uprooted the Rams from a publicly funded stadium in St. Louis that was still being paid off.
The Kansas City Royals in August unveiled two options for a new $1 billion baseball stadium as part of an overall $2 billion development. The Tampa Bay Rays followed suit in September, unveiling plans for a $1.3 billion baseball stadium as the centerpiece of a $6.5 billion project in St. Petersburg, Florida, that will also include housing, retail, restaurants and bars and a Black History Museum includes.
They joined the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Buffalo Bills and the Tennessee Titans, all of whom announced plans for or began construction of new multibillion-dollar stadiums with luxury amenities.
Those projects all also came with public financing, including the $760 million in local bonds that the Nashville City Council approved to go along with $500 million in state bonds to pay for the Titans' new $2.1 billion stadium. As part of the deal, the Titans agreed to pay off the remaining $30 million in public debt owed for their current stadium, which opened in 1999.
When the Baltimore Ravens announced a $430 million federally funded renovation this month, the football team's senior vice president for stadium operations said the facility “is already considered top-notch by many.” But “we have to stay sophisticated and engaging,” Rich Tamayo said.
The trend extends beyond baseball and football.
On Dec. 12, Oklahoma City voters approved a 1-cent sales tax for a new Thunder basketball team arena that would cost at least $900 million. The next day, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin announced a $2 billion proposal to lure basketball's Washington Wizards and hockey's Washington Capitals to a new arena surrounded by a performing arts center, hotels, convention centers, housing and stores.
The emerging cycle of stadium construction has a “level of extravagance that has skyrocketed” and is expected to peak around 2030, said JC Bradbury, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia who tracks the projects.
Underlying the pitch for new stadiums is the assumption that teams can go elsewhere if they don't get what they want, a rare but realistic possibility highlighted by MLB's approval last month for the relocation of the Oakland Athletics from California to Las Vegas.
The team's new $1.5 billion baseball stadium in Nevada is backed by $380 million in public financing. It will be built not far from the Las Vegas Raiders' $2 billion football home, which opened in 2020 with $750 million in public funding from hotel room taxes.
The Raiders and A's previously shared the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, which was renovated at taxpayer expense in the 1990s to lure the Raiders back from Los Angeles. The remaining $13.5 million in public debt from that renovation must be paid off by February 2025, by which time both teams could be gone.
Longtime A fan Ken Rettberg is frustrated by both the A's impending departure and the generous government support that benefits wealthy team owners.
“It's crazy… how they can get away with giving away taxpayer money. It's completely absurd,” said Rettberg, a software engineer who lives near Oakland.
Wisconsin officials worried the Brewers could also leave, taking their tax dollars with them.
While approving government aid for the Brewers stadium on December 5, Evers claimed that “the loss of this team would have had a ripple effect that would have been felt by families and communities across this state.” He said the team generates billions of dollars in economic impact annually and supports thousands of jobs.
The brewery's principal owner, Mark Attanasio, said other cities inquired, but “we never considered going anywhere else.” Records show the Brewers spent $575,000 lobbying lawmakers from January through June.
American Family Field, home of the Brewers, opened in 2001 during the height of the latest round of national stadium construction, as cities replaced multi-purpose facilities with fancier sports-specific structures. Public financing covered almost three-quarters of the $392 million cost.
Wisconsin's latest stadium deal includes nearly $674 million for renovations, including a total of about $500 million from the state, county and city.
Ultimately, not everyone supports efforts to renovate or replace stadiums, or the trend of asking taxpayers to cover the costs.
The Titans' new stadium will feature the nation's largest government grant for a professional sports facility. But voters delivered a rebuke in September, electing a progressive council member who voted against the grant to become mayor.
The Chicago Bears purchased a former suburban horse track in February as a potential site for a new football stadium and surrounding buildings, but have yet to proceed with the potentially controversial move from downtown. The Illinois Sports Facilities Authority still owes $589 million through 2032 on government bonds issued 20 years ago to renovate the Bears' current stadium.
Many economists argue that public funding for stadiums is not worth it because sports tend to divert discretionary spending from other forms of entertainment rather than generating new revenue.
“If you ask economists whether we should fund sports stadiums, they can't say 'no' fast enough,” Bradbury said. “But if you ask a politician, they can't say 'yes' fast enough.”
Public opinion seems mixed.
A survey conducted last year for Arizona State University's Global Sport Institute found that professional sports teams were seen by 60% of respondents as a necessary cultural component of communities. Yet less than half believed that state and local governments should provide public funds for sports stadiums.
The proposal to build a new Royals stadium closer to downtown Kansas City spurred thousands of fans to join a Facebook site rallying to preserve the current stadium. The significant government funding is part of their objection.
“We have a great stadium there that was recently renovated and we're still paying for it,” said Royals fan Jim Meyer, who runs the website. He added: “There's no real reason to replace it.”
