Before we get into boring things like \u201ceconomics\u201d and \u201cgeography\u201d I want to be clear on two things:<\/p>\n
The Bears will likely end up in either Hammond, Indiana, or Arlington Heights, Illinois, andRegardless of which one it is, we should make fun of them for it.<\/p>\n
Of course, there are plenty of teams that play outside of the cities for which they are named, but that should not stop us. We should also note that Hammond, Indiana has a smaller population than Green Bay Wisconsin, which is hilarious. Maybe they\u2019re just going for that small town feel; except, in this case, the town is small because it smells like rotten eggs, fireworks, and strip clubs.<\/p>\n
All of that said, the fact that we\u2019re going to make fun of them for it should not prevent the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago from making that move to Indiana happen. It\u2019s honestly the best possible outcome for everyone involved except for, ironically, Indiana, because one of the worst investments any municipality can make is paying for a stadium and the deal gets worse every day. To be clear, it\u2019s really never been a good investment \u2014 just ask Kennesaw State University economics professor JC Bradbury. You can either hit him up on Bluesky<\/a>, or go into your bathroom, turn off the lights, and say \u201cthe economic benefits to the community from this publicly financed stadium will be overwhelmingly positive\u201d<\/a> into the mirror three times.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s actually gotten worse because now when the state\/city chip in for a stadium, it\u2019s often not just \u201cthe stadium\u201d but the \u201cinfrastructure around the stadium.\u201d The current Bears proposal to Illinois is to contribute two billion dollars in construction costs while the state provides $850 million for that supporting infrastructure, plus a 40-year property tax freeze. That might sound reasonable, but as always, the devil is in the details, and the details of all modern stadia deals include not just the big building itself but a piece of the businesses around it. Think \u201cDeer District\u201d in Milwaukee, or the \u201cTitletown\u201d development in Green Bay. Or in Chicago, the Disneyfication of Wrigleyville led by the Ricketts family<\/a>.<\/p>\n The old (misguided) idea was that a sports facility would help surrounding businesses, but more often than not, those businesses are now owned by the same billionaires who own the stadium. There\u2019s no longer any good (or bad) case to publicly finance any of this, it\u2019s just a giveaway to the super rich without any potential trickle-down impact.<\/p>\n The Bears actually still owe $500 million on the previous Soldier Field renovation, but there is some urgency to escape the Chicago lakefront because you simply cannot develop anything in that location. The museum campus is too protected (see: The George Lucas Museum fiasco<\/a>), it\u2019s inconvenient to get there from a public transit perspective<\/a>, and of course, the team wants a dome so they can also host events like the final four.<\/p>\n And since this is all a bad deal, you may as well let Indiana pay for it! Wolf Lake in Hammond Indiana is 18.5 miles south of the Bears\u2019 current location in Solider Field<\/a>, and one important thing to understand about the NFL is that it doesn\u2019t actually matter where games are played. There are, after all, only nine-ish home games per season, and Soldier Field currently holds 61,500 people as the smallest stadium in the NFL. The metro Chicago area has about 9 million people meaning that, assuming no one goes to a Bears\u2019 game twice, only 5% of the population attends a game per year. And of course, many, and perhaps most fans who attend games go to more than one due to the prevalence of season tickets. That number is probably closer to 2-3%. Attending NFL games is a luxury, special event, and the vast majority of fans are happy to watch on TV at home.<\/p>\n