I am generally against giving any public funding towards something like a sports stadium. I believe, however, this would be the only way to make it palatable for the state. Public ownership of the team would lead to new streams of income for the state, eventually covering the initial investment and more.

Sources:

ESPN article reporting the $855 million ask: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/46442282/chicago-bears-seek-855-million-public-funding-infrastructure-build-suburban-stadium

Forbes NFL evaluations: https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinteitelbaum/2025/08/28/the-nfls-most-valuable-teams-2025/

Edit: For those complaining this is not relevant, I posted this after seeing and thinking about a recent article published just this week: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/nfl/chicago-bears/bears-new-stadium-saga-illinois-house-speaker-reveals-why-legislators-arent-prioritizing-it/3872275/

27 comments
  1. I was under the impression that the monies were for the infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc) and that the stadium was proposed to be paid by the team.

  2. Look, I totally understand not wanting the public to fund the team. But under no circumstances would I ever want our state owning 10% of the team lol. No way that wouldn’t be abused.

  3. Playoff game is on Saturday. Who cares about this?

    Focus on the main thing here.

  4. This seems mad to me as someone from the UK that the local government would be asked to pay for the stadium. I get it benefits the surrounding area but so do other businesses and they have to pay for their own buildings etc

  5. The states investment is tied directly to jobs that the team and stadium bring to the city and state.

    I’m in San Diego and I can tell you first hand what happens when a franchise leaves a city. It is worth the investment to keep a billion dollar industry in town. That is why teams have leverage.

  6. Why is it that whenever we’ve been playing Green Bay they start talking about the stadium?

  7. The city and state are being asked to fund infrastructure. They will then be able to tax the revenue that goes through the property, which is de minimis today. Hospitality tax rates tend to be the highest of any taxes, so the state and city will easily net win on this proposal.

    The days of governments paying for the full build of a stadium and renting it back to the teams is over. The new investment structures are really a win/win for both sides. The city/state already economically own a piece of the team because they are going to own a % of all revenue that goes through the stadium (and concerts, etc.), hotels built on property, etc.

  8. Man you honestly should be banned for posting about this two days out from a playoff game

  9. The Bears are asking for $0 of public funding to build their stadium. They are asking for $855M for infrastructure which A) is something that municipalities routinely do, and B) would be required regardless of what is developed there.

    By this, frankly, ridiculous logic, the state should own part of the OP’s house because they built the street and the sewer line in front of it.

  10. I don’t want Illinois getting fleeced like Kansas. The city, county, and state should be getting a direct return on any investment made. They shouldn’t be bailing out billionaires for fear of the team moving.

  11. I think the Bears are being reasonable especially when you look around at other deals. The state is so broke and corrupt they want to squeeze them. It’s not the Bears fault that the state didn’t pay off their soldier field debt as an example.

  12. The property taxes pay for the infrastructure. Either the city, county, state put up the infrastructure and then their initial investment gets paid back with the standard property taxes. Orrrrr, you negotiate for your property tax abatement, but you pay for the infrastructure. You don’t get both.

  13. People forget that the McCaskey’s are cash poor. Just because their assets are deemed to be worth that much doesn’t mean they actually have that in cash. Most sports owners have businesses outside of football. The McCaskey’s do not

  14. The fix for this has to be some kind of compromise where the state/county/city fund infrastructure upgrades.

    The property is somehow divided up so that the property tax on the physical stadium and the land it directly sits on is taxed at a predetermined fixed rate. A favorable, predictable tax rate.

    However, the land surrounding the stadium where things like hotels, restaurants, etc are going are not tax advantaged. They are given fair market rate property taxes.

  15. It’s for infrastructure. It’s a dream they would give to Amazon, Ford or any large job producer. As understand it, no funds for the stadium. Chicago legislators are the issue.

  16. Our state probably has that much money in corruption. It’s Illinois, I refuse to believe there isn’t more than a few politicians lining their pockets. All the Bears need to do is make a few back room deals where certain contractors build it and they get it.

  17. You can have 100% of the ownership of the roads around the stadium that they’re asking to be paid for 

  18. Can we wait until we’re out of the playoffs (in late February) until we talk about this pleeeeeeease

  19. Teams are selling ownership all the time these days. This shouldn’t be a problem 😂

Leave a Reply