Big League City: Big League States | The real advantage is held by the sports teams

This is a follow up to "Big League City: Small Cities."

========

Over the decades many teams have left their city and state for locales far away, such as the Indianapolis Colts moving from Baltimore, the Arizona Cardinals from St. Louis, the Houston Oilers to Nashville, and the ur event of the Brooklyn Dodgers to LA and the NY Giants to San Francisco.  There are many others, such as the Philadelphia A's to Kansas City to Oakland to Las Vegas.

But there is a more subtle competition between states that teams can take advantage of when their team is in a metropolitan area that spans state lines. 

A few weeks back there was a blockbuster announcement wrt the Kansas City Chiefs search for a new stadium.  A couple years ago, Missouri voters chose not to support a sales tax for the team.  Partly this was because it was paired with an underdeveloped proposal for the baseball team too.

But one advantage a team has on the border with another state is playing the states off each other for the best deal.  Sometimes it's a subterfuge, sometimes it's the real thing.  

Rendering for a new Commanders stadium.

The New York Giants and the New York Jets play in New Jersey.  

The New Jersey Nets basketball team moved to Brooklyn and has had some difficulties establishing a new fan base ("Who Are the Brooklyn Nets Fans?," GQ).  Although they make it up with international fans ("Brooklyn Nets Boast 'Tremendous' Global Fanbase," Sports Illustrated, "Nets’ international popularity turned them into NBA’s ambassadors," New York Post).

he Washington Commanders play in Maryland, not DC, and their headquarters is in Virginia.  The team has played Virginia, Maryland, and DC against each other, ending up with a forthcoming stadium in DC.  

Just last year, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin tried to land the Washington Wizards and Washington Capitals teams--which were based in Maryland before 1997.  

The Philadelphia 76ers have their arena in Philadelphia and their practice facility in Camden, New Jersey.  The Carolina Panthers, based in NC, proposed a practice facility in SC. 

Intra-metropolitan area moves can be economically significant.  Teams went through a period of leaving the center city and moving to the suburbs, then returning (while some are still moving out to the suburbs like the Atlanta Braves, San Francisco 49ers, and the Buffalo Bills).

Most economic research, conducted at the metropolitan scale, doesn't find much economic benefit from teams, as households have a budget for entertainment, and what they spend on sports attendance usually comes at the expense of other forms of entertainment.

DC.  As one example, in DC coming out of a multi-decade period of disinvestment in the 1990s, that the basketball and hockey teams moved back to the city was a big deal.  It helped speed up development in the east end of the city, brought new businesses to restaurants and retailers, and provided a reason for suburbanites to "re-sample" the city.  Something similar happened with the Washington Nationals, although that team moved from Montreal.  But there was a proposal for a stadium in Virginia, and the city would have lost out from the push it gave to development in the Navy Yard.

The Barclays Center. | AP Photo/Henny Ray Abrams

Brooklyn.  Similarly, the Nets moving from Newark to Brooklyn anchored a new arena in Brooklyn, giving the borough some development energy vis a vis Manhattan ("The Barclays Effect," Politico, "Brooklyn brings it: Barclays Center set to make an instant impact as NYC entertainment option," Global News), home to the Knicks in basketball, Rangers in hockey, and of course the Yankees baseball team, a perennial World Series competitor ("A Nascent Rivalry for the Fans, Too," NYT).   

Still what matters is how that new energy is harnessed.  DC doesn't make much in taxes from the teams, but it has reaped a fair amount of development of office, retail, and housing, an undeterminable amount generated by the teams.  This is probably true for other similar sited facilities across the country.

Intra-city moves.  Another wrinkle is moves within a city.  For example, the Baltimore Orioles from a neighborhood-anchored stadium to a facility within Downtown.  It could leverage new development in a manner that the neighborhood site wouldn't support.  

I also think that Philadelphia would have benefited if the 76ers moved Downtown from its car centric location to one well served by transit.  Besides the transit benefits, it would have provided new energy to a Downtown that still lags.

Kansas City Chiefs.  A few weeks ago there was the earth shattering news that the Kansas City Chiefs will leave Missouri--voters in KC had rejected a sales tax referendum to fund a new stadium--for a blockbuster deal in Kansas, with financial benefits DOUBLE than typically received ("Kansas still has time to reverse course on an awful stadium subsidy," Washington Post).

The state of Kansas is set to smash records for public-financed stadium deals, joining D.C. in that ignominious pantheon. The tentative agreement the state has made with the Chiefs directly provides $2.775 billion in public funding. This is likely far below the final price tag, with one estimate putting the total public cost at $6.3 billion over 30 years.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) insists that the agreement includes “no new state taxes” and “no impact on the current state budget.” If it’s true that Kansas can give billions of dollars to the Chiefs without raising anyone’s taxes, that raises the question of why Kansas couldn’t spend this magic money on highways or education — or return it to the taxpayers it was taken from.

Washington DC is prepared to provide about $1 billion in infrastructure and other improvements.  The State of New York is paying more than $1 billion for a new Buffalo Bills stadium.  

Kansas: now is a Big League State.  The Post argues that the team is worth almost $7 billion and the owners over $25 billion so they should be able to pay for it themselves.  But Kansas really wanted it, to be a "Big League State" ("'A game-changer for Kansas': Kansas leaders react to Chiefs' move across state line," KMBC/ABC).

The Chiefs will build a new, $3 billion stadium in Wyandotte County. The team will also open a new headquarters and training facility in Olathe, Kansas. "Today, Kansas won the Super Bowl," Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson said. "This is a huge win for Kansas." Masterson said the boost is something Kansas really needed. He said he is excited for the deal and what it means for fans, the team and the state.

"This will create thousands of construction jobs, billions in economic activity and bring millions of new visitors to our state," Masterson said. "Best of all, this incredible deal will not cost Kansas taxpayers one penny.

Besides the price tag, the forthcoming move is seen as a slap in the face of the Missouri side of the Kansas City metropolitan area, as well as Missouri more generally.  It's not like Missouri wasn't offering a lot of money for them to stay ("Chiefs fans blast 'dumb' decision to turn down $1.5billion to stay at Arrowhead for $3b Kansas stadium," Daily Mail), and they didn't believe the team was interested in moving across state lines.

St. Louis Cardinals fans offer their thanks for the memories with a sign among the empty seat at Busch Stadium during the St. Louis Cardinals-New York Giants football game in afternoon on Sunday, Dec. 14, 1987 in St. Louis. The sign is in reference to the team’s owner, Bill Bidwill, plans to movie his football team to another city. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Missouri is still a Big League State with professional baseball in Kansas City, and baseball and hockey teams in St. Louis.  

Although St. Louis' Big League status took a hit when the football Cardinals left in 1988 ("The end of the 'Big Red' in St. Louis," KSDK-TV).  They recovered when the Rams moved to the city from LA--only for the Rams to return to LA 10 years later ("The LA Rams 10 years after return continue to build something special," USA Today) .  Although with this move, St. Louis got a big legal settlement ("Deal finalized to divide Rams settlement money in St. Louis," AP).

Indiana versus Chicago for the Bears.  The Chicago Bears have been working for a couple years for a new stadium deal but the city and state is still on the hook for $550 million in debt on the last renovation.  The City wants to keep the team, but the state hasn't been inclined to come up with incentives.  

As part of the process, the Bears bought the old Arlington Race Track in the suburbs with plans to move there.  One hang up has been an unwillingness for the local jurisdictions like the school district to give up a lot of tax concessions ("The Bears' Indiana feint may be paying off — in Arlington Heights," Crain's Chicago Business).  The team is asking for $835 million in incentives (A New Stadium and Mixed-Use District in Arlington Heights: Economic & Fiscal Impact Report, HRA).

More dough in Indiana? (The metropolitan area of Chicagoland includes Indiana).  The Bears have electrified the discussion by announcing they're looking at neighboring Indiana, a stretch but still part of "Chicagoland," for a new stadium ("Pritzker keeps door open to Bears as Indiana stadium threat heats up," "Indiana governor name-checks Bears in state of the state address,"  "Pritzker keeps door open to Bears as Indiana stadium threat heats up," "As the Bears mull a move, Indiana lawmakers make way for a new stadium authority," Crain's Chicago Business).

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun tonight used his pursuit of the Chicago Bears as an applause line and validation of his state’s appeal to businesses.

After mentioning recent expansions by U.S. Steel in Gary and BP in Whiting during his annual state of the state address, Braun said: “It’s not surprising that another organization noticed Indiana is open for business: the Chicago Bears.”

Like the Kansas deal for the Chiefs, this has come as a shock to Chicago-focused stakeholders.

Chicago:  Multiple stadium requests add up to a lot of money.  One of the problems for Chicago is that it faces multiple demands for sports stadium/arena subsidies.  The men's soccer team will self-fund its stadium but probably wants infrastructure and other improvements.

• a new White Sox baseball stadium ("MLB team facing relocation after 131 years with $2bn ballpark on rocks and mogul plotting takeover," talkSport, "White Sox Lose Stadium Direction With MLS’ Fire Claiming ‘The 78’," Forbes).

Owners of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks plan a $7 billion development of the area around the United Center, at center, including a new concert hall, restaurants, retail, hotel rooms and apartments. 

• a new arena for the Chicago Bulls basketball team ("Bulls, Blackhawks Owners Plan $7 Billion Development Around Chicago’s United Center," CoStar)
• and soccer stadiums for men ("Chicago Fire stadium plans revealed for $650 million facility in Chicago," CBS) and women ("Chicago Stars are not letting a poor 2025 stop them from dreaming about a stadium and the future," New York Times).

and the teams each compete with each other for development deals. 

Teams, not the localities, are in charge.  As mentioned earlier, a problem for government is that the teams, not the government drive the discussion ("Another example of RFPs versus plans and letting developers set the agenda: stadium projects in Chicago") and in certain situations, there are counterparties like Indiana, that want to play too.

Indiana is already a "Big League State" with the Indianapolis Colts football team and Indiana Hoosiers basketball team.  Plus the state university, Indiana University, looks to become a football power, when football had always been a poor relation to basketball.

But this can be a way for the Indiana side of Chicagoland to play bigger and harder, when certain parts of the area need real help (see the discussion of Gary and Elkart here, "Community revitalization initiatives for smaller communities | marginal attraction of people and commerce even in small amounts makes a difference").  One plus, the South Shore Line, the nation's last interurban transit service, still runs between Chicago and Northern Indiana, and it's about to launch an extension a bit deeper into Indiana. 

Conclusion. I think we can look at state competition for teams at two scales.  )1) Large scale moves such as the Oakland Raiders move from California to Nevada or the Colts from Maryland to Indiana.  (2) And Intra-metropolitan area competition for teams is a subtly different wrinkle on team relocation and subsidy deals.

===========

Past entries on professional sports and cities include:

-- "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities," 2021

-- "Revisiting "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team + Phoenix Coyotes hockey," 2022-- "Stadiums and arenas as the enabling infrastructure for "money-making" platforms," 2014
-- "Good quote on arenas and stadiums as "performing arts centers" attractions for cities," 2024
-- "Sports facilities and the reproduction of retail space often doesn't work for the locals," 2025
-- "You get what you plan for: the multi-use Miami Hard Rock Stadium versus typical football stadiums | Washington Commanders," 2025
-- "Another example of RFPs versus plans and letting developers set the agenda: stadium projects in Chicago," 2025