Share this article!

A Phil Hall Op-Ed: On this day in 2024, I wrote an op-ed column titled “Stop Using Public Funds to Build Sports Stadiums.” Unfortunately, no one listened to me – in fact, it several cities opted to do the exact opposite of what I suggested.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about new efforts to build multibillion-dollar stadiums in major cities – with the sports team tenants paying some of the costs while taxpayers are being forced to pony up a considerable chunk of change to fund part of these endeavors. Among the projects receiving public funding are the Washington Commanders’ proposed new stadium in the nation’s capital (taxpayers would provide $1.1 billion), the New Nissan Stadium that will be the future home of the Tennessee Titans (with the City of Nashville and the state government contributing $1.26 billion), and the Las Vegas stadium that will host the A’s once they depart Oakland ($380 million is budgeted to come from taxpayers).

The one exception to this rule is Etihad Park, the future home of Major League Soccer’s New York City FC. The team will pay the full $780 million construction cost, but the taxpayers still wind up losing because the city is leasing the property to the team – the New York City Independent Budget Office estimated that the 49-year term lease will cost the city roughly $516 million in lost property tax revenue.

Supporters of these projects argue that the stadium projects are not just going to be an oversized ball field. Instead, they are being planned as mixed-used developments with housing, retail, office property and entertainment components. The Wall Street Journal quoted Andrew VanHorn, the new head of the Washington Commanders’ real estate division, who declared, “This stadium proposal is better than just a sports venue. We can lease apartments, partner with hoteliers. We can rent out restaurants and retail.”

Uh, hello? All these properties will be privately owned by the teams, which are already making significant sums of money. Taxpayers are being asked to finance real estate projects for corporations that are currently paying their players and executives millions of dollars annually, and the future profits from these endeavors will further enrich people who already more than rich.

Lest we forget, stadiums are only open to the public whenever the team’s sport is in season – and only when the team is scheduled for a home game. Stadiums could be rented for isolated events such as graduation ceremonies, other one-shot sports events or concerts, but they are mostly closed for the majority of the year.

Of course, stadium projects can easily be financed entirely with private funds – a notable case is New Jersey’s $1.6 billion MetLife Stadium, which opened in 2010 without one cent of taxpayer money going into its creation.

And not every city and state are infatuated with having public financing of new stadiums. The Chicago Bears and the Cleveland Browns have been frustrated by the lack of politician and public enthusiasm over their plans for new stadiums featuring public financing. And some members of the District of Columbia City Council have made it clear that a new Commanders stadium is a rotten idea.

“How do I go to people and say I’m going to have to cut them from healthcare, housing assistance, food assistance and yet we’re going to put $1.1 billion into an NFL stadium?” asked DC Councilmember Charles Allen.

Look, I like sports just as much as anyone else. And if my schedule allows, I have no problems going to see a game at a nearby stadium. But the home team is already getting my money through ticket sales, concession sales, and whatever team-related merchandise I buy. If professional sports teams are so gung-ho about getting a new stadium, then they can pay for it themselves.

Phil Hall is editor of Weekly Real Estate News. He can be reached at [email protected].