The ship might be sailing on taxpayer money for NFL stadiums
For more than a decade, it's been obvious that voters won't support any proposal to give NFL owners taxpayer money for stadium construction or renovation. It's becoming more clear that the elected officials are becoming less inclined to burn political capital by giving public funds to privately-owned football teams.
That could be where the puck is moving. No more free cash for multi-billionaires. Currently, the Bears, Chiefs, Bengals, and Browns are facing resistance in their local markets. The Jaguars supposedly will have a public-private deal for a massive renovation to EverBank Stadium soon; until it's done, however, it's not.
There's a very basic reality at play here. The NFL is a victim of its own success. As franchise values continue to explode (Dolphins owner Stephen Ross reportedly turned down a $10 billion offer), why should any community pay for a stadium to be built or refurbished?
Sell a piece of the team, if need be, to pay for a stadium. Take out a loan. Sell the team to someone who can and will pay for a stadium. If it's good business for the public to own and operate it, it should be good business for the team to own and operate it, too.
That's where it could become problematic for some cities. If the owner of the local NFL team has to pay for the stadium, the stadium might be built in a place where a greater return can be expected.
Put simply, owners will move to where the money and people are, if they have to pay for their own stadiums. It will be about using the place for as many things as possible — concerts, other sporting events, etc. More money to pay the mortgage.
That's why Rams owner Stan Kroenke wanted to move to L.A., even though he could have gotten free money to stay in St. Louis. Other owners need to be thinking the same way, because it's going to get harder — not easier — for those who don't need money to get it when plenty of others actually do.
