Virginia Halas McCaskey, the esteemed 101-year-old matriarch of the NFL, is the chief proprietor of the Chicago Bears. Her father, George Halas, purchased the then-named Decatur Staleys for a mere $100 in 1920, allowing them to become part of the burgeoning league. Today, that modest investment is worth well over $6bn.
Regardless of her advanced years, McCaskey maintains her position as the club’s secretary and flaunts a personal fortune estimated at $2.3bn. Coincidently, this sum is comparable to what the Bears are urging local taxpayers to contribute towards the establishment of a new domed stadium, equipped to hold 77,000 spectators, on the Lake Michigan shoreline.
The audacity is simply staggering when one considers that the club, which annually makes approximately $200m in profit, is seeking financial assistance from a city already beleaguered by economic issues. Astonishingly, two-thirds of the city’s children are forced to drink polluted tap water due to the lack of funds to replace 400,000 lead-containing service pipes.
Even as local education authorities grapple with a pressing budget deficit of $391m that’s likely to heavily affect already underfunded schools and their students, the Bears manage to afford Montez Sweat, a defensive end, a yearly salary of $24.5m and price their season ticket at an average sum of $7,000.
Despite only making two Super Bowl appearances in their history, this financially robust collective deems themselves worthy of considerable financial support. Still, the Bears aren’t unique in this – the phenomenon of seeking massive subsidies from struggling cities to build new facilities is a well-established aspect of American sports, bewildering to many onlookers.
Once a team hints at possibly relocating to a competing locale, local government officials scramble to offer a package of financial offerings, land and tax concessions to persuade them to stay. They wish to avoid the stigma of being the administration responsible for the team leaving and the city’s consequent demotion. To avoid this undesirable legacy, most politicians succumb to this deception.
Ongoing dramas concerning American sports teams are currently unfolding throughout the nations. The Oakland A’s baseball unit is shifting from California to Nevada owing to Las Vegas’ generous offer of $380m for the construction of their new facility, along with a contentious assurance that the team is free to abandon the Strip whenever city taxes are hoisted on it, a cunning little scheme.
The New York City FC, partly owned by the New York Yankees and Manchester City (both not lacking financially), professed to be independently funding their new, soccer-dedicated stadium in Queens. The reality, however, is that this venture will result in a loss of nearly half a billion in local government property tax revenue, due to unbalanced negotiations – the same local governing body that is presently closing libraries on Sundays to cut costs.
A testament to dubious deals, the Buffalo Bills, despite being based in one of the most economically challenged cities in America, have been graced with substantial funding from Kathy Hochul, the Democratic Governor of New York state who is also an avid fan. She has sanctioned $600m from public resources to aid in the initial construction costs of the Bills’ new stadium, with Erie County pledging an additional $250m and state and local government matching this figure for future repair work and capital enhancements.
Terry and Kim Pegula, the proprietors of the Bills who are near $7bn in worth, mostly accumulated from natural gas and fracking, only needed to playfully hint at a shift to Toronto, the Canadian city eager for an NFL team, to secure such immense funds.
Such tactics are not unfamiliar to the Bears. In an effort to reveal their latest project, they toyfully negotiated moving to Arlington Heights, roughly 26 miles north of Soldier Field., After an investment of $200m in a racetrack development site, the venture fell apart due to a tax dispute with the local council, insisting they contribute some payment.
Luckily, in Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson is actively promoting the Bears’ agenda to redevelop the waterfront. He confidently declared that this would rejuvenate the entire city, a common yet short-sighted proclamation made by supporters of stadium construction, despite all concrete evidence suggesting otherwise.
While they may not find a lot of common grounds, economists universally concur that using taxpayer’s money to fund stadiums is abysmal policy, emphasising how no American city has successfully regained its investment made for a sporting facility. It is a common spectacle to see aspiring clubs bringing out feared consultants who assure that the revenue from the grand spectacle will overshadow the initial public expenditure. Regrettably, such scenarios never pan out.
In a recent development, the inhabitants of Jackson County, Missouri – the Kansas City Chiefs’ base, resolutely voted against a proposal to heighten the sales tax to partially finance the revamping of the Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Super Bowl victors. Despite their passion for their team, they were astute enough to see through the ruse.
Parallelly, Chicago residents should have learned their lesson as well. In 2002, the Bears splashed out $587 million for the refurbishment of Soldier Field, with nearly $400 million being sourced from city-issued municipal bonds. However, due to postponed payments and exorbitant interest rates, the city is still liable for the money even after over two decades. Yet, surprisingly these inhabitants are now expected to pool in a sum that is five times higher for erecting a better living place.
If this involved a profession more reputable than the NFL, it would likely be labelled a Ponzi scheme. Contrarily, most people are usually scammed by this just once.