Big League States: Illinois versus Indiana | Maybe Illinois Wins By Losing

"s" discusses how professional sports teams can help to redefine smaller communities by putting the city into global media systems communicating about particular sports leagues, especially the NBA, which like soccer outside of the US, is a more internationalized brand.

"Big League City: Big League States | The real advantage is held by the sports team" discusses the competition between states when sports teams are located in metropolitan areas spanning two states.  That entry focused on Kansas vs. Missouri in landing a new facility for the KC Chiefs NFL football team, and the offering of over $1 billion in incentives.  

"Big League City: Big League States: Part 2, Salt Lake/Utah" discusses how success of the Utah Mammoth hockey team having moved from Phoenix, is helping to reposition the Salt Lake City metropolitan area as competitive for professional baseball, even though it is a small market.

Towards the tail end of the Kansas vs. Missouri "win," Indiana threw itself successfully into the competition for a new stadium for the Chicago Bears football team.  The team had been playing off Chicago versus the suburb of Arlington Heights, where it bought an old horse racing track as a site for a new stadium, but they had a hard time getting the kind of tax breaks they wanted from the various taxing districts especially schools.

Indiana saw an opportunity and seized on it, and now according to Sports Illustrated ("Bears Heading to Indiana and It's Obvious Who Is Most to Blame"), after the Illinois Legislature failed to pass the kind of bill that the Bears wanted to facilitate their suburban location for the team are going to Indiana.  From the article:

The city and the state have had three years to take the Bears seriously and only now realize they should have. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is the chief culprit here. He drove the Bears to Indiana by insisting it had to be Chicago or he wasn't supporting it.

Illinois and Chicago chasing both business and residents away is a very common theme. This is just another example. If not, then why did Indiana have no problem getting their plan in order to add a second NFL team?

Nashville, Buffalo and Cleveland all eventually got stadium situations resolved one way or the other. Illinois' legislators and Chicago chose to take the route Kansas City, Mo. and New York City took. They let business leave.

It's all been going on in Illinois since before the Bears even batted an eyelash at Arlington Heights. And how is that kind of general approach toward business working out, by the way?

Ironically, a stadium in Hammond is easier to reach for many in the Chicago metropolitan area compared to the Arlington Heights location.

Given that football team stadiums cost so much money, and have few events, maybe Illinois is the real winner here, especially as the Chicago White Sox continue to seek public monies towards a new development for that team, as well as other sports projects seeking public funds (men's soccer, women's soccer, etc.).

If they are going to allocate scare dollars to stadiums and arenas, do it for the ones that have the most activity.

Although at least for in-city locations, football teams are starting to do a better job planning for more events, although only Miami seems to be doing it successfully, well Las Vegas maybe too but more indirectly because it's a good location for signature concerts.

-- "You get what you plan for: the multi-use Miami Hard Rock Stadium versus typical football stadiums | Washington Commanders"