Is the Bears New Stadium a Good Idea for Chicago?

Sure - as long as we don’t have to pay for it

After a few years of toying around with a stadium in Arlington Heights¹, the Chicago Bears have pivoted back to Chicago. Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren has been vocal in the past month about making a new stadium on the lakefront a priority, with the team floating a proposal involving $2 billion in private funding for a new publicly owned stadium in the parking lots south of Soldier Field today.

It’s not entirely clear what this would require from the city, though I’ve seen reports that the Bears will potentially be seeking $500 million to $1 billion in public funding for the stadium as well, plus another $1 billion in public funding for infrastructure improvements around Museum Campus. If accurate, that is not a good deal for the city. State and city politicians should oppose this.

An overview

We’re short on some of the specifics thus far, but based on news coverage thus far it seems like the broad strokes of what’s on the table are something like the following:

• The Bears are putting $2 billion of private money towards a new stadium

• The new site results in 20% more open space than currently exists, along with more landscaping and public access to the lakefront

• Per the Sun-Times, infrastructure costs are “expected to top $1 billion, with most of that for expanding and/or moving exits to the stadium from DuSable Lake Shore Drive, and potentially bypassing the drive with a smoother connection from Columbus Drive to McFetridge Drive.”

• In addition, reports are that the stadium itself could cost $500 million to $1 billion more than the $2 billion the Bears are prepared to invest. Ostensibly this would also be part of the public financing the Bears will be seeking.

It’s worth noting that the 2002 renovation of Soldier Field, which was mostly financed via public subsidies, is still being paid off, with over $589 million remaining on bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA). This is the same facility which would likely be called upon to finance any new public subsidies. These bonds, as well as $50 million in debt which subsidized construction on the White Sox’s Guaranteed Rate Field, are supported primarily by revenue generated from a 2% hotel tax in the city².

Is there an economic case to subsidize the Bears?

Let’s start with the economic side of things. A pretty common argument is that having a team like the Bears and a shiny new stadium on the lakefront will boost economic activity, either in the area surrounding the stadium itself or in the city as a whole. Economists are in pretty universal agreement that this is basically nonsense, at least relative to the amount of subsidies that are being asked for. In a 2017 University of Chicago survey of economic experts, 83% of economists agreed that “Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated.” Only 4% of economists disagreed. There’s a pretty robust set of academic research backing them up on this.

Most research mainly looks at whether the economic activity generated by the subsidies is enough to outweigh their actual cost. A 2022 paper from economists JC Bradbury, Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys has a really thorough overview of the literature, covering over 130 studies on stadium subsidies (for the record, all of my references to other studies in this section come from this paper). The range of these studies is pretty wide, but the direction they point in is pretty consistent, with minimal economic impact from the presence of a sports team. Here’s a paper showing that having a pro sports team is linked with a small increase in earnings/employment in the amusement/recreation sector, but that’s offset by decreased earnings/employment in other sectors. Here’s one showing that stadium construction doesn’t have any impact on construction jobs or wages (it just redistributes workers away from other construction projects instead). Here’s one looking at what happened in Bridgeview when they opened the 100% publicly financed Toyota Park, showing no increase in sales tax revenue. A few studies do show some localized effects, with more economic activity in the areas surrounding a stadium, though the question of whether this is net new activity remains.

Tourism is also a fairly common claim - do new stadiums bring in new visitors from out of town who can help stimulate the economy? Not really. Here’s a fun study showing the NHL lockout in the mid-90s had a pretty minimal impact on hotel occupancy in Canadian cities, which isn’t what you’d expect if NHL games provided a notable boost to tourism. A 2019 study looking at events at the Staples Center showed events had a positive impact on hotel revenue within a mile of the arena, but caused a decline in revenue for hotels located 1-4 miles away, again suggesting that the stadiums just redistribute activity that would’ve otherwise occurred in other parts of the city.

In general, this is a pretty consistent theme: there’s not really any net new economic activity generated by a new stadium like this. Will you get more activity in that area? Maybe - but that’s offset by less activity elsewhere in the city. I’m also skeptical we’d really get that in our case, given the land we’re talking about here. Some reports are indicating the Bears would like to create a new hotel and entertainment district in that area - which strikes me as difficult to envision on that site without infringing upon the parkland that the Bears have promised will remain. Even if they could, it’s entirely unclear to me why that sort of playground would require public dollars. The Ricketts family was able to totally remake Clark Street and the rest of the area around Wrigley Field (and renovate Wrigley Field itself!) without a dime of taxpayer money. Private investment should be able to do the same here - unless the ROI isn’t worth it, in which case public investment shouldn’t be doing it, either.

Is there a civic case to subsidize the Bears?

So purely on the basis of whether it’ll help the local economy, I see no real justification for public subsidies here. But maybe it’s worth considering other public goods here too; it’s nice to have an NFL team, the same way it’s nice to have a world class set of museums or an incredible lakefront. Civic institutions provide meaningful intangible value. I’m open to this idea - it’s hard for me to put a price on how happy I was when Kris Bryant threw over to Anthony Rizzo for the final out in the 10th inning of game seven in 2016 and the Cubs won the World Series. That doesn’t show up in the latest statistics on Chicago’s GDP, but it made my life better. In this same vein, a bunch of studies have also tried to approximate how much that civic value is actually worth based on their willingness to pay to host sports teams, like the University of Kentucky basketball team, the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Minnesota Vikings. These estimates support the idea that there really, absolutely is civic value to having a team the city can get behind - but that value equates to something like 10-15% of the typical cost of a stadium. That’s a far cry from the multibillion dollar price tag we’re talking about here.

It’s also important to remember the alternative here is Arlington Heights. Perhaps I am alone, but my civic pride in the Bears won’t be diminished if they’re playing somewhere in the suburbs. We’re talking about a location close enough that you can ride the Metra to get there. As far as I can tell, nobody in Boston is less of a Patriots fan because they play in Foxborough. The Giants and Jets don’t even play in the state of New York, yet everybody knows they’re New York City’s teams. I can’t think of a reason why the Bears playing in Arlington Heights is supposed to offend me so badly.

What about the infrastructure and other benefits?

Part of the argument for these subsidies - and the infrastructure spending in particular - is the positive impact they’d have on other portions of the Museum Campus. For example, better roads can boost attendance at the museums and events on Northerly Island in addition to making things easier at the new stadium. I’m fairly sympathetic to that argument, at least in theory. I’ve gone to a fair number of concerts at Northerly Island, and getting home is always a nightmare which usually involves walking half an hour into Grant Park instead of fighting traffic patterns on Solidarity Drive. Leaving the Museum Campus on a crowded weekend can often be pretty brutal too. But I’m pretty skeptical on the math to make a billion dollars in infrastructure changes worth it.

The typical lifespan of a public stadium is around 30 years, and if I use that same term to amortize the infrastructure investment we’re talking about an infrastructure investment of roughly $33 million per year³. For context, activities on Northerly Island generated around $1.2 million in revenue for the Park District last year (see page 40 of the CPD budget here). The museums all operate as their own non-profit entities, so any financial benefit they’d receive from these improvements wouldn’t directly translate back to the city⁴. The math that makes a billion in infrastructure spending come back to the city in a meaningful way doesn’t work out, unless we’re focused on activity happening at the new stadium itself.

Speaking of which, we can do some back of the envelope math on what activity at the stadium returns us too. Per the Park District budget, Soldier Field is expected to generate around $54 million in revenue against $35 million in expenses this year for nearly $19 million in net revenue from the stadium (to be clear, that’s strictly the ongoing operating revenue; it ignores the ISFA’s cost of financing improvements to Soldier Field that we’re still paying off). The hope with the new stadium is that the city can host a lot more events than they currently do. Let’s assume they’re right, they do an amazing job, revenue and expense both double to $108 and $70 million and they bring in $38 million in revenue. That’s still not enough to offset the infrastructure spending - because in this scenario the old Soldier Field is now obviously not bringing in that $19 million that it used to be (since it no longer exists).

Simply put, I just don’t see how to make the math work such that a billion dollars or more in public spending is justifiable. I want to be clear - I’m not saying I’m totally opposed to any public help whatsoever. But the magnitudes being thrown around seem wildly off compared to what seems defensible.

The politics thus far

It’s worth asking given the consistency in the research here - why do these public subsidies happen all the time anyways? It’s a fair question. Notably, the public is often in agreement with the economists on this one. While lots of public subsidies pass state legislatures or city councils with lopsided votes, in most instances where they’re put to a public referendum the vote is usually much much closer. This happens enough that teams often actively try to avoid the public getting a chance to weigh in - 2022 subsidies for the Buffalo Bills’ stadium, for example were timed to happen at the last possible moment in the NY state legislature’s session. Instead, I’d argue⁵ this is a classic case of special interests dominating in politics - you’ve got a very small group of people (management and ownership of a team) pushing very hard for something while a much larger group of people (the general public) maybe have an opinion on the issue but aren’t super motivated to fight that hard for it. It’s not hard to imagine who wins that political fight. Throw in a bit of that classic Chicago style insider politics - some luxury boxes, free tickets, public appearances and the like - and it’s not hard to see how teams can extract what they need from decisionmakers without public opinion mattering one bit.

There’s some evidence that public opinion is pretty consistent here in Chicago, too. The Bears have been big on a recent poll which claims to show 80% of Chicagoans supporting a new stadium in the Museum Campus, and more than 6 in 10 supporting public financing for such a stadium. Other polls show a more skeptical public, with a Sun-Times poll from last year showing just 42% in favor and 51% opposed to public financing. Former governor Pat Quinn also sponsored a recent poll showing 25% in favor and 65% opposed to public subsidies.

In terms of insiders, it’s also unclear to me how much political support the Bears will have. On the one hand, Mayor Brandon Johnson has very clearly been signaling his openness to come to a deal with the Bears, and my guess is that this contrast with former Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s harder stance against public funding is the real reason why the Bears are shifting their plans back to the city. Former mayoral candidate and State Rep. Kam Buckner, whose district includes Soldier Field, also seems very in favor of forging some sort of public partnership with public funds to develop the area, as does Alderman Lamont Robinson, whose ward includes Soldier Field.

On the other hand, Governor Pritzker has been pretty clear about his opposition to subsidizing private businesses like the Bears (from NBC Chicago):

"Stadium projects around the country have occurred with public dollars, fewer and fewer over the years and there's a reason for that," Pritzker said when asked about the teams' efforts, "that the return on investment for taxpayers has to be proven now before we would actually move forward. I have not seen proof that this is a good deal for the taxpayers of the state of Illinois, but they have not presented that case yet."

At least a few alderman you’d usually expect to be sympathetic to Johnson’s agenda have also expressed their skepticism. Here’s Alderman Andre Vasquez on Twitter:

Alderwoman Jeanette Taylor (20th ward), a close ally of Mayor Johnson who’s increasingly becoming my favorite source of fun quotes, also had some pretty harsh words recently in the Sun-Times:

“Hell no ... We shouldn’t be giving them subsidies to do anything. They’re … billion-dollar franchises. They can afford it. Honestly, I’m really tired of all of them. They’re always coming to Chicago to beg,” Taylor told the Sun-Times.

“How much money [do] the Bears and the Sox invest back in the city? And I’m not talking about no damn free tickets. Help us build up some park districts. Adopt some of these schools. Help us have free programming in communities we know need it. At that point, maybe we can talk about some subsidies for them. But, until they come to the table with a package that we call can benefit from, they can take that somewhere else.”

Against that backdrop, I am hopeful that enough political opposition can arise to help prevent this bad deal.

A brief aside on Friends of the Parks

Among those opposed to the project is non-profit Friends of the Parks, an environmental watchdog group dedicated to opposing any development along the lakefront⁶. While I hope I’ve made my opposition to a public funding deal clear in the above, I want to stress that FOTP’s particular grounds for opposition is incredibly stupid.

My personal view is that the entire Chicago Parks system is a civic treasure, and our string of lakefront trails and parkland is the undisputed highlight of that system. I’m strongly in favor of protecting it at all costs. But that’s not what’s at risk here. The Bears proposal doesn’t reduce that system - it actually adds 20% more open space than currently exists in the area. Instead, the major thing that Friends of the Parks is fighting to preserve is a parking lot. Do you know how much time we should spend protecting parking lots? Less time than it took you to read this sentence. Protecting parking lots is not a good use of anyone’s time or effort, their stance is utterly nonsensical to me, and you should not take them seriously.

The Bottom Line

Public financing for sports stadiums is a bad idea. A new Bears lakefront stadium is cool, but the Bears do not need our charity and politicians should not offer it. Spending over a billion dollars in public funds on a new lakefront stadium is a waste of money which will result in a loss to Chicago taxpayers.

1. A small source of bewilderment for me is how quickly this seemed to turn on a dime. Ostensibly the Bears are moving away from Arlington Heights over a property tax dispute which would require them to pay something on the order $5-10MM per year more than expected… and as a result they’re pivoting towards a project where they won’t have to pay property taxes, but they’ll have to spend $2 billion and negotiate a new lease (their current lease is around $6MM per year, by the way) with the Chicago Park District for use of the stadium? I don’t see how the math makes sense to support such a steep pivot. My uneducated guess is that the Arlington property tax question is just a nice cover for whatever reason they really feel compelled to pursue a stadium on the lakefront again, but if you have an alternative way to make sense of this, please let me know.

2. An important note - while the ISFA has “Illinois” in its name, the fact the revenue for the project comes from Chicago means we’re not talking about a situation where the State of Illinois is subsidizing something the City of Chicago is doing. In other words, there’s no ‘free lunch’ to be had by the city by using state funds (it’s just Chicago’s tax base we’re pulling from here).

3. I’m being generous and ignoring any interest cost (we would likely fund this spending with public debt) here too, so it’s likely a fair amount higher than that.

4. Given that, it might probably fair to consider whether the museums would consider subsidizing a portion of these infrastructure investments as well, out of their respective capital budgets - all three seem to be very well capitalized foundations. While the Adler might be a bit small, the Shedd and Field certainly seem to have sufficient resources to contribute, if the infrastructure is actually expected to help boost their finances. If on the other hand they wouldn’t want to help fund the improvements because they’re skeptical of any benefit, that also certainly seems like something that we as a public would want to know before starting the projects!

5. If you wanna get nerdy, it’s really it’s what Mancur Olson would argue.

6. They are perhaps most famously known for preventing George Lucas from building a museum dedicated to narrative arts along the lakefront in the same parking lot area where the Bears are proposing new stadium construction.