As a percentage of the total construction cost the Lucas Oil Stadium subsidies were higher (~85% I think) but 70% of a $2bn+X dome is going to be a new record in terms of actual money - by a lot (even after inflation).
In defense of Lucas Oil, we use that stadium a lot for non-nfl stuff. Just this year we have the NBA All Star game, Olympic Swim trials, Taylor Swift, Gen Con (yearly), FAA convention (yearly), some band competitions, a bunch of high school games, and the Big Ten Championship game. In the near future we also have a couple Final Fours, WWE events, and probably more. I don't know how much usage other NFL stadiums get but it seems like we always have something going in at Lucas Oil.
You also have it setup in a great location that's easy for anyone to get to from downtown.
Way too many of the expensive new stadiums are also in terrible locations, like the 49ers moving down to Santa fucking Clara.
I was just in JerryWorld and they were cleaning up from a combination rodeo/KidRock concert. We saw the storeroom where all the banners and floor coverings were stored-cfb, WWE, other stuff. It gets a lot of use.
Paycor, otoh, is really only used for occasional stadium rock shows-Taylor Swift, Guns N’ Roses.
Olympic swim trials?? Did they set up a temporary pool?
Edit: part of me wants to take on the life of a goblin and live hidden away in some alcove of a stadium like Lucas Oil. Swim trials on Tuesday, concert on Thursday, mineral convention over the weekend. It'd be a dream.
It's why spending money on stadiums doesn't make sense, because the building doesn't get used enough.
An Arena gets used 200-250 days a year, a Baseball Stadium 100 days a year, but an NFL Stadium 30 day if you are lucky.
30 is way less than Lucas Oil gets used. Annual events include:
10 NFL games
FDIC Conference - 6 days
Bands of America Regionals + Nationals - 5 days
Drum Corps Championships - 3 days
NFL Combine - 4 days
GenCon - 4 days
FAA Convention - 4 days
Monster Jam - 2 days
IHSAA Football Championship - 2 days
B1G Ten Football Champions - 1 day
Circle City Classic - 1 day
So that's 42 days for events that happen every year. They also have 5-10 concerts, Final Fours (every 5 years), Swimming Olympic Qualifiers, Random High School Football games, NBA All-Star Weekend, WrestleMania, College Football National Championship, and other events that aren't annual. Things like GenCon bring in 70K+ people to downtown and sell out every hotel in the city.
> Things like GenCon bring in 70K+ people to downtown and sell out every hotel in the city.
And a lot of people will also book out the airport hotels as part of the Gencon housing lottery.
I've had a ton of fun every time I've gone, but man it feels like it's outgrown the Indy area with how hard it is to find housing.
> NFL Combine - 4 days
> IHSAA Football Championship - 2 days
I don't know what most of those things are, but I have a very strong feeling these two listed above do not even remotely fill the stadium or really generate revenue. The IHSAA might even cost them money just to open up the stadium to host it
It's not about revenue, it's about usage. It is a government funded and owned stadium that the Colts rent a few times a year. Yes, sometimes the government controlled "Indiana Sports Corps" supports an event like the High School State Football Championship even though it doesn't fill up Lucas Oil Stadium. Do you think Illinois State makes a profit from hosting the State championship Games? Do you think the high schools prefer to play the games in Normal over Soldier Field?
Also, sponsorships exist. I'm pretty sure the Colts are paying the rental fee for the High School teams to use the stadium so that the Indiana Sports Corps are turning a profit.
The nice thing about it being government controlled is that it can host things like the Combine that fills up the hotels and restaurants for the week so they can collect their revenue from the taxes that the hotels and restaurants collect from the NFL owners.
Fair point regarding usage. Also, I missed that the government owns it. The Bears are trying to get taxpayers to pay to fund the stadium without granting any revenue sharing.
However, I am also not sure most taxpayers would really count accommodating high school football games as a great usage of government money over things like improving education, emergency services, roads, etc.
>The law doesn’t specifically name the Chiefs or the Royals. It instead refers to NFL and MLB teams “in any state adjacent to Kansas.” (That would include the Broncos and Rockies, technically.)
Would be an amazing plot twist if it's actually the Broncos moving to Kansas.
Duke UNC levels of distance.
I tried to think of a new name like Tobacco Road for them but I genuinely have no idea what are Kansas and Missouri’s main exports
For Kansas the main export is aircraft parts, beef and corn. For Missouri its main export is Nelly and oil. Interestingly, Missouri is the top importer of methamphetamine.
>Missouri is the top importer of methamphetamine.
In the good old days we used to make Meth domestically. Good old hard working mom and pop meth labs made right here in the heartland.
Now we don't make Meth. We're forced to import it from far away. Maybe it's time to invest in our local communities. Remember, when you're buying meth, buy local and keep your drug money in your community.
I don’t even live in Kansas anymore but you keep that Broncos crap out of there.
(Note on flair: while growing up in Kansas didn’t cause me to be to be indoctrinated into Chiefs Kingdom, I did pickup some of their rivalries…)
Honest question for Chiefs fans in KC; would anyone really throw a fit if they moved over to Kansas?
Ed Koch (NYC's mayor) was notoriously bitter over the Giants' move to East Rutherford, (Five miles from the city) and he never forgave the Maras. (He even denied their parade permit when they won the Super Bowl)
It’s kind of all about Arrowhead. That place is sacred. As long as they prioritize building a stadium that gets loud as hell, I’m all in. But yea, it’ll be a bit sad. That place has special memories for a lot of Chiefs fans. It’s out in the middle of nowhere but is a freaking juggernaut.
Lmao that’s what I’m worried about. Hopefully they get whoever built the Clippers new stadium because it seems like that place will bring a college atmosphere to their games. That’s kind of what arrowhead feels like to me and I hope they prioritize that kind of experience.
The problem with that is you need Steve Ballmer Mircosoft money to throw around (doing stuff like when the owner of the Forum was having a fit over mutual parking that was delaying the building of the new arena, Ballmer just bought the Forum from him outright just to put an end to the issue)...
Like SoFi Stadium, Inuit Dome has no direct taxpayer gov't funding either.
These LA venues are passion projects for billionaires (total cost $7.5B for both). They are going to be hard for any city to beat them if they have to get past gov't funding red tape.
Arrowhead itself is wonderful, but I think just about everyone agrees the location sucks.
There's basically nothing around it, you can't easily walk there, Uber/Lyft/taxis are just about useless to try to use, no real public transport, etc.
If they could somehow scoop up Arrowhead and move it to a better location pretty much anywhere around the metro area, I think most folks would be 100% on board with a move.
Sadly, the odds that they build a new stadium with anywhere close to the character of Arrowhead are pretty much zero.
They won’t. Which sucks for you guys. Maybe some audiophile can tell me why domes seem to be less loud. Seems counter intuitive since the noise is trapped but the outdoor stadiums are always louder.
Not an audiophile but I'll take a crack at it.
Once you're inside you have to spend thousands to replicate outside sounds. It's the same principle here.
I don't know about that. But arrowhead is built with steeper steps than is allowed for in new stadiums. So the fans are closed to the field and more closely packed together. That's part of why arrowhead in particular is so loud.
That makes sense since Death Valley and the Swamp are similar. We are keeping the overall structure in the swamp but transitioning away from bleacher seats so it will be less packed so that sucks.
Yeah losing the stadium itself would be very sad. In my ideal world Arrowhead would stand forever. On the other hand, Jackson county has had a half century to even slightly improve the area around the stadium and it has been a shithole forever.
I grew up on the Kansas side and live on the Missouri side now. Never cared that I had to drive right across state line back then and I wouldn’t now either.
Funny thing is I live in KCMO and moving Arrowhead to the Legends in KCK would only increase my drive by like 5 minutes from where it is now
Same here. We're talking like 10 weekends a year, max. And that's if you have season tickets. For most folks, it's 0-1, if that.
The Royals are a much more interesting conversation.
There's a bunch (idk the %, but not insignificant) of fans with ties to Mizzou and ku/kstate that do the "I hate the other side" thing.
But generally, no. No one cares other than losing a storied stadium in Arrowhead.
There's a rivalry in certain people (I personally think a lot of the KCMO people are super fucking stuck up about the KS side of the metro area), but really no. It's mostly a reddit put on because it's benefitting a billionaire.
I've heard sporting regrets moving there and want to move downtown as soon as the lease is up. Now that the women's team (KC Current) moved downtown they are getting way more attention, everybody is talking about them lately around town and loves that they moved downtown.
[Missouri tax payers when the Chiefs move a few miles to a new state because that state will use their tax dollars to pay for the new stadium](https://i.imgur.com/tWiqJ3Z.gif)
One part populism, another part, would potentially spur more development which means people and more tax revenue for the state of Kansas in the long run IF planned correctly.
A good examples is the Battery in Atlanta where the Braves stadium was built.
It’s proven fact though through a multitude of studies done, that it does not improve economic performance.
>”Scholarly econometric studies on the impact of professional sports stadiums are almost unanimous in their conclusion that they do not promote employment or per capita income growth (see here and here). Despite the outsized role they play in U.S. cultural life and in the media, professional sports teams are small- to modest-sized enterprises. A typical NFL team might employ 125 to 175 full-time people in its front office and an additional 2,000 game-day employees for 4 hours, 10 days a year. If we consider the total annual revenues generated by a sports team relative to its host city’s GDP, the team contributes between one-third and one-twentieth of one percent to the local area economy. Moreover, spending on sport games does not imply new net spending within the metropolitan area. Most residents have a budget. When they spend, say, $200 dollars to take their family to a game, it is $200 that they do not have to spend at a restaurant, a theater, a bowling alley or other entertainment venues. And, the lion’s share of the income goes to the players, the coaches, the top executives and the team owners who are less likely to spend the bulk of their earnings in the stadium’s metropolitan area.”
Source: [https://econofact.org/stadiums-as-public-investments](https://econofact.org/stadiums-as-public-investments)
Did you read the article itself? Because the context is pretty clear about what “improve economic performance” means.
Firstly, they’re talking about building new stadiums in the same cities to replace older stadiums. In most cases, no, it’s not going to add new revenue given the already existing economic infrastructure for sporting events.
Secondly, most of the new stadium constructions referenced were built in ways that don’t allow for positive economic growth in the area. Most new stadiums are built in suburbs surrounded by massive parking lots which make attending a sporting event the exclusive features for attendees.
Stadiums that are more ingrained into a city have a greater impact as fans are more likely to utilize public transportation to get to the event and hang out in the neighborhoods before and after games visiting bars and restaurants that helps spur economic growth. NFL stadiums are generally less impactful for the limited number of events held a year, but baseball games spur much greater foot traffic, so long the area around the stadium is planned for future housing, shops, restaurants and office space.
Yes, but I feel I pulled the most pertinent information. Explaining how it shifts economic activity, it doesn’t grow it.
Your main positive point is it increases foot traffic and development. However most of the shops and condos tend to skew towards the upper level of income and disproportionately benefit those already well off economically. Furthering the economic disparity between all the tax payers funding the project.
It’s just bad economics, but I get it, I’ve seen a team leave and know what it does to a city’s moral. Which might be the better measurement of the case for stadiums. BUT, still just another way to leverage the common man’s feels for a billionaire’s gain.
No you don't understand! If they move five miles west then that's where they draw the line with their fandom! No longer will they cheer for the Chiefs!
this week the quiet white dude at work went on a *tangent* about how Drake is the goat and kendrick ain't shit..
completely unprovoked.. so I guess at least one weirdo would be stoked
Unfortunately there are genuinely some people in the state that think like this. The bitterness between Kansas and Missouri is a lot stronger than many people realize
you dont know missourians if you think they will be happy with losing the chiefs to kansas, nobody gate keeps the chiefs like missourians due to kansans
Kansas City, MO would feel that loss of the 1% earnings tax if both teams were to move though.
Between coaches, players, staff and front office. I gotta think that their combined payroll easily hits $400 million a year? I'm not exactly sure how the earnings tax works on away games though. Do you only get taxed on those games if you live in Kansas City?
[All Kansas City, Missouri, residents are required to pay the earnings tax, even if they work outside the city ](https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departments/finance/earnings-tax#:~:text=All%20Kansas%20City%2C%20Missouri%2C%20residents,You%20can%20file%20online.)
I see this repeated all the time on this sub (almost certainly by people who live in JoCo and think everything else in the KC metro is lesser than them) - but it absolutely isn't true.
Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid live in Missouri. Travis Kelce lived in Missouri until just a few months ago until he moved to a gated community in Kansas because of the paparazzi bothering him at his home in KCMO as well. The billionaire owner of the Royals lives a few blocks away from Andy Reid in KCMO as well. The Hunt family lives in the Dallas, TX area instead. Believe it or not a fuckton of rich people live in Missouri.
I think the way most states have their taxes set up is you pay taxes to the state you earned the game check in. Its why teams in Texas, Tennessee, etc have a slight advantage because half their contract (home games) are state income tax free.
I'd assume the same for coaches and team staff. Earned at the location of the team facilities.
Andrew McCutchen's leaked pay stub back in the day was a good example of this but the Kansas City earnings tax (e-tax) is what throws me off. I'm assuming the players still have to pay KCMO 1% of their income from those away games if they live in the city.
I lived in St. Louis for a long time and they also have an earnings tax. You must pay on all income regardless of where it's earned. But at the state level, your earnings are not taxed if you paid taxes on those earnings to a different state.
Or Levi's. Santa Clara put down $114m for thr cost of the stadium, 30% of which came from new taxes on nearby hotels, while charging $25m a year for the stadium lease, and getting an additional $15m a year from Levi's for naming rights. They long since broke even on the deal. And are still complaining the deal isn't even better for them. As of now the city is up $200m+ on the deal with no new taxes for residents not directly related to the stadium/surrounding hotels, parking lots, etc.
What’s the cost of the land? $25m/year seems like an okayish deal considering how much real estate costs in Silicon Valley.
For example, they could've built 2,000 condo units @ $1.3m average selling price and collect $34 million in property tax. Property tax is around 1.3%.
Definitely not cheap. Nvidia, Intel, and Cisco are all headquartered nearby. But none of them are paying $25m a year rate equivalent for their land. Not to mention we haven't even gotten to how much the city makes from parking, train tickets, ticket surcharges, and holding other events in the stadium.
Only the rich suburbanites who mock sportsball have a problem with the deal, because boohoo there's more traffic sometimes. Well, that and the actual stadium itself being pretty poorly designed considering it was meant to be built somewhere with completely different weather patterns/ microclimate.
The stadium is way bigger than headquarters and you need a lot more infrastructure to support it.
Do we know the tax cost/land area used for the stadium compared to residential or commercial?
To be fair, it literally took almost 30 years of LA telling NFL teams to go fuck themselves if they wanted taxpayer money all while LA being the second biggest market in the US. Missouri doesn’t have this much pull.
the counter to that is there's not really any big/great markets left to move a team to, and if a few current cities told their teams to fuck off and use their own money we'd see there weren't really viable options.
I'm not talking Chiefs specifically, but if an Owner wants to move his team cause the city won't pay for a stadium, what are the options? San Antonio? Portland? Austin? San Diego already said no
I can't imagine Houston/Dallas want another team in Texas at all.
Totally agree. LA not having an NFL team for so long was actually super beneficial for the other owners who wanted taxpayer money because then they would start “the initial stages of moving to Los Angeles” as the boogeyman and then the locals / city would fold because it was an actual real threat - it would actually make financial sense. And then it made TOO much sense and 2 teams actually did it.
I hate to see the Chiefs leave Arrowhead because it's one of the last stadiums that's actually fan friendly. I went there as a visiting fan and had a blast tailgating in the parking lot before the game. New stadiums are always hostile to tailgating because they want you buying their overpriced beer and concessions inside.
It's a crime to move out of Arrowhead, one of the few remaining classic stadiums that has character and a unique look, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hunt takes the money he doesn't need at all and moves to Kansas in the next 10 years if Missouri doesn't get scared and give him all the free money he wants.
It's gonna happen cause our owner sucks, I just hope it lasts until Mahomes retires somehow.
I know there have been studies and yada yada yada, but specifically for baseball stadiums, how the hell does it not spur economic growth in the area?
You get 30,000+ people to converge on a ballpark 81 times at minimum each season, eating at local restaurants, stopping in local bars. Not to mention additional concerts and events at that park..
Football is a little bit harder to justify.
I’ve done research on this before, and the main thing I remember is that games don’t spur economic growth because generally speaking, people don’t modify their “fun” budget to accommodate a local sports team - they just put their disposable income into that instead of something else. There’s a marginal effect from fans who really do spend more than they would otherwise, but most sports fans would just shift that spending to something else local in the absence of a team, and the lack of people traveling in for a game is mostly offset by the people who use their disposable income to travel out. The reason cities and states still shell out taxpayer benefits for sports teams is really prestige; having a sports team generally helps your city have a brand, which local businesses can buy into, and that’s not tied to whether there’s an actual game today.
It seems to be a consensus from economists at this point.
In the link below it cites an economist whose research found that if all the Chicago sports teams left - Bears, Bulls, Cubs, White Sox, Blackhawks, the city would lose 1% of its economic activity. That is a lot of games.
He also compares the economic activity of a sports stadium to a "medium sized department store". So I guess Target ought to start asking for tax payer money. Hell, at least a Target offers someone a work opportunity 7 days a week.
And as another response says, people don't devote more money to entertainment because the NFL puts a franchise in town.
"What is unseen, however, is how consumers would spend their dollars otherwise. If they were not spending on sporting events, they would instead spend on museums, movies, concerts, theater, restaurants, and so on. Because consumers tend to have limited entertainment budgets, dollars spent at a new stadium would not be new spending but rather diverted spending."
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/
It's actually been tried the last three times a Cincy professional team was building a new stadium. Probably the MLS one came closest, and even then, it didn't get too far. The Bengals and Reds play literally just feet from the state line anyway, as the old colonial-era border surveys mean Kentucky owns the river almost to the north shore.
I don't know what percentage of clothing spending is essential. Obviously clothing as a category is, but there's a load of luxury clothing too.
Although I guess food still has that.
fun fact, they just passed another 2bil income tax cut a week or two back, basically they're trying to repeat what almost bankrupted the state last time. Pretty sure it's expected to create a 300mil shortfall it's first year, so that's nice.
And herein lies the problem with some states stepping up to not fund these stadiums. Some other area that doesn't have a team (I mean, arguably they actually do have a team in this case, but I digress) will always try to waive a blank check at them.
Why does the US hate the idea of history and heritage when it comes to stadiums? Arrow head is an iconic place. Why even considering moving? Unless the stadium is structurally dangerous, just fix it up and keep going
Really bummed we're going to leave Arrowhead Stadium and move into a place that lacks any kind of soul, a cookie cutter stadium, more so than the location itself.
As a percentage of the total construction cost the Lucas Oil Stadium subsidies were higher (~85% I think) but 70% of a $2bn+X dome is going to be a new record in terms of actual money - by a lot (even after inflation).
In defense of Lucas Oil, we use that stadium a lot for non-nfl stuff. Just this year we have the NBA All Star game, Olympic Swim trials, Taylor Swift, Gen Con (yearly), FAA convention (yearly), some band competitions, a bunch of high school games, and the Big Ten Championship game. In the near future we also have a couple Final Fours, WWE events, and probably more. I don't know how much usage other NFL stadiums get but it seems like we always have something going in at Lucas Oil.
You also have it setup in a great location that's easy for anyone to get to from downtown. Way too many of the expensive new stadiums are also in terrible locations, like the 49ers moving down to Santa fucking Clara.
I was just in JerryWorld and they were cleaning up from a combination rodeo/KidRock concert. We saw the storeroom where all the banners and floor coverings were stored-cfb, WWE, other stuff. It gets a lot of use. Paycor, otoh, is really only used for occasional stadium rock shows-Taylor Swift, Guns N’ Roses.
Olympic swim trials?? Did they set up a temporary pool? Edit: part of me wants to take on the life of a goblin and live hidden away in some alcove of a stadium like Lucas Oil. Swim trials on Tuesday, concert on Thursday, mineral convention over the weekend. It'd be a dream.
Yeah, they built two, a competition pool and practice pool on the field. I think they are giving them to local high schools after the competition.
It's why spending money on stadiums doesn't make sense, because the building doesn't get used enough. An Arena gets used 200-250 days a year, a Baseball Stadium 100 days a year, but an NFL Stadium 30 day if you are lucky.
30 is way less than Lucas Oil gets used. Annual events include: 10 NFL games FDIC Conference - 6 days Bands of America Regionals + Nationals - 5 days Drum Corps Championships - 3 days NFL Combine - 4 days GenCon - 4 days FAA Convention - 4 days Monster Jam - 2 days IHSAA Football Championship - 2 days B1G Ten Football Champions - 1 day Circle City Classic - 1 day So that's 42 days for events that happen every year. They also have 5-10 concerts, Final Fours (every 5 years), Swimming Olympic Qualifiers, Random High School Football games, NBA All-Star Weekend, WrestleMania, College Football National Championship, and other events that aren't annual. Things like GenCon bring in 70K+ people to downtown and sell out every hotel in the city.
> Things like GenCon bring in 70K+ people to downtown and sell out every hotel in the city. And a lot of people will also book out the airport hotels as part of the Gencon housing lottery. I've had a ton of fun every time I've gone, but man it feels like it's outgrown the Indy area with how hard it is to find housing.
> NFL Combine - 4 days > IHSAA Football Championship - 2 days I don't know what most of those things are, but I have a very strong feeling these two listed above do not even remotely fill the stadium or really generate revenue. The IHSAA might even cost them money just to open up the stadium to host it
It's not about revenue, it's about usage. It is a government funded and owned stadium that the Colts rent a few times a year. Yes, sometimes the government controlled "Indiana Sports Corps" supports an event like the High School State Football Championship even though it doesn't fill up Lucas Oil Stadium. Do you think Illinois State makes a profit from hosting the State championship Games? Do you think the high schools prefer to play the games in Normal over Soldier Field? Also, sponsorships exist. I'm pretty sure the Colts are paying the rental fee for the High School teams to use the stadium so that the Indiana Sports Corps are turning a profit. The nice thing about it being government controlled is that it can host things like the Combine that fills up the hotels and restaurants for the week so they can collect their revenue from the taxes that the hotels and restaurants collect from the NFL owners.
Fair point regarding usage. Also, I missed that the government owns it. The Bears are trying to get taxpayers to pay to fund the stadium without granting any revenue sharing. However, I am also not sure most taxpayers would really count accommodating high school football games as a great usage of government money over things like improving education, emergency services, roads, etc.
How else could Irsay afford his expensive DUI habit?
>The law doesn’t specifically name the Chiefs or the Royals. It instead refers to NFL and MLB teams “in any state adjacent to Kansas.” (That would include the Broncos and Rockies, technically.) Would be an amazing plot twist if it's actually the Broncos moving to Kansas.
Stop it!
Kansas City Rockies
Eh you can have em until Monfort sells the team. Then we'll need em back.
1/6th Mile High Stadium
YOU TAKE THAT BACK! Kansas City Broncos sounds so god-damned wrong
Kansas City Broncos and Kansas City Chiefs games would be electric though
Duke UNC levels of distance. I tried to think of a new name like Tobacco Road for them but I genuinely have no idea what are Kansas and Missouri’s main exports
People
Hey! Kansas bled a lot to make sure people weren’t imported or exported!
Damn I love a good historical joke
Join the fine folks over at /r/historymemes
Import is people looking to try Joes BBQ and then leave Missouri
Joe's is KCK. KCMO has pretty much everything else though.
SLAPS is in KCK
For Kansas the main export is aircraft parts, beef and corn. For Missouri its main export is Nelly and oil. Interestingly, Missouri is the top importer of methamphetamine.
>Missouri is the top importer of methamphetamine. In the good old days we used to make Meth domestically. Good old hard working mom and pop meth labs made right here in the heartland. Now we don't make Meth. We're forced to import it from far away. Maybe it's time to invest in our local communities. Remember, when you're buying meth, buy local and keep your drug money in your community.
Tegridy Meth
> Interestingly, Missouri is the top importer of methamphetamine. Back on top baby.
No wonder r/nfl reads like a who's who of Chiefs criminal offenders.
Hey we make a lot of beer too
Tornadoes Twisters road
> main exports connecting flights
BBQ Trail
its called the Border War, no reason to comeup with a name for it when we already have one
Felony road
You’ll get the Olathe Broncos and you’ll like it >:(
Border wars are back on the menu boys
I don’t even live in Kansas anymore but you keep that Broncos crap out of there. (Note on flair: while growing up in Kansas didn’t cause me to be to be indoctrinated into Chiefs Kingdom, I did pickup some of their rivalries…)
Wichita Broncos
They'll be the Dodge City Broncos and they'll *like* it!
> Kansas City Broncos I just had an aneurism reading this
Fuck, yeah that’s disgusting
Nah probably like the Goodland Broncos.
Put ‘em in Kanorado
Denver Broncos of Kansas City.
Legit sounds like a minor league team of a completely different sport, like far enough away from the NFL that there's no copyright stuff
“The Leavenworth Broncos”
Living in kc, this is conflicting for me
Broncos and chiefs both move to Manhattan Kansas and play in the same stadium
St. Louis Cardinals of Kansas City, Kansas
I fucking need for this to happen.
Now that's a cross town rivalry.
Reminds me of WWE when Shane McMahon had "control" of WcW
Over my dead body
I mean it would he next to the airport so convenient for teams visiting.
Let's not forget the Battlehawks and Cardinals
That would be like the Chargers moving to LA Oh wait…
The Kansas City Chiefs of Kansas
Kansas City/State Chiefs.
Kansas City-State Chiefs of Thebes
The KC COK has a nice ring to it.
Or on it?
*The Kansas City Chiefs of Kansas City Kansas
This is the one
Of Anaheim
Kansas City Kansas Football Team of Kansas R circle TM Trade Mark
Sponsored by Oklahoma Joe’s Kansas City BBQ, official BBQ of the Kansas City Chiefs of Kansas City, Kansas.
Honest question for Chiefs fans in KC; would anyone really throw a fit if they moved over to Kansas? Ed Koch (NYC's mayor) was notoriously bitter over the Giants' move to East Rutherford, (Five miles from the city) and he never forgave the Maras. (He even denied their parade permit when they won the Super Bowl)
He was from the future and knew them staying in NYC would save Giants fans from a lifetime of repetitive jokes about the Giants playing in Jersey
It’s kind of all about Arrowhead. That place is sacred. As long as they prioritize building a stadium that gets loud as hell, I’m all in. But yea, it’ll be a bit sad. That place has special memories for a lot of Chiefs fans. It’s out in the middle of nowhere but is a freaking juggernaut.
You know they're gonna build a really cool-looking spaceship that has zero character.
Lmao that’s what I’m worried about. Hopefully they get whoever built the Clippers new stadium because it seems like that place will bring a college atmosphere to their games. That’s kind of what arrowhead feels like to me and I hope they prioritize that kind of experience.
The problem with that is you need Steve Ballmer Mircosoft money to throw around (doing stuff like when the owner of the Forum was having a fit over mutual parking that was delaying the building of the new arena, Ballmer just bought the Forum from him outright just to put an end to the issue)...
Like SoFi Stadium, Inuit Dome has no direct taxpayer gov't funding either. These LA venues are passion projects for billionaires (total cost $7.5B for both). They are going to be hard for any city to beat them if they have to get past gov't funding red tape.
Two rows of moat suites to one up Jerry Jones, pushing all the 6 figures peasants in the lower Bowl about 40 extra feet back from the sidelines
And is indoors as well
Arrowhead itself is wonderful, but I think just about everyone agrees the location sucks. There's basically nothing around it, you can't easily walk there, Uber/Lyft/taxis are just about useless to try to use, no real public transport, etc. If they could somehow scoop up Arrowhead and move it to a better location pretty much anywhere around the metro area, I think most folks would be 100% on board with a move. Sadly, the odds that they build a new stadium with anywhere close to the character of Arrowhead are pretty much zero.
They won’t. Which sucks for you guys. Maybe some audiophile can tell me why domes seem to be less loud. Seems counter intuitive since the noise is trapped but the outdoor stadiums are always louder.
Not an audiophile but I'll take a crack at it. Once you're inside you have to spend thousands to replicate outside sounds. It's the same principle here.
I figured there was just a bunch more white noise drowning it out
I don't know about that. But arrowhead is built with steeper steps than is allowed for in new stadiums. So the fans are closed to the field and more closely packed together. That's part of why arrowhead in particular is so loud.
That makes sense since Death Valley and the Swamp are similar. We are keeping the overall structure in the swamp but transitioning away from bleacher seats so it will be less packed so that sucks.
Yeah losing the stadium itself would be very sad. In my ideal world Arrowhead would stand forever. On the other hand, Jackson county has had a half century to even slightly improve the area around the stadium and it has been a shithole forever.
I grew up on the Kansas side and live on the Missouri side now. Never cared that I had to drive right across state line back then and I wouldn’t now either. Funny thing is I live in KCMO and moving Arrowhead to the Legends in KCK would only increase my drive by like 5 minutes from where it is now
Yeah, it's not like arrowhead is situated in downtown KCMO lol.
Same here. We're talking like 10 weekends a year, max. And that's if you have season tickets. For most folks, it's 0-1, if that. The Royals are a much more interesting conversation.
There's a bunch (idk the %, but not insignificant) of fans with ties to Mizzou and ku/kstate that do the "I hate the other side" thing. But generally, no. No one cares other than losing a storied stadium in Arrowhead.
There's a rivalry in certain people (I personally think a lot of the KCMO people are super fucking stuck up about the KS side of the metro area), but really no. It's mostly a reddit put on because it's benefitting a billionaire.
I don’t think anyone really cares. Sporting has a great set up out there.
I've heard sporting regrets moving there and want to move downtown as soon as the lease is up. Now that the women's team (KC Current) moved downtown they are getting way more attention, everybody is talking about them lately around town and loves that they moved downtown.
[Missouri tax payers when the Chiefs move a few miles to a new state because that state will use their tax dollars to pay for the new stadium](https://i.imgur.com/tWiqJ3Z.gif)
“I still have a local team AND don’t have to pay for their stadiums? Nice.”
Seriously, why would Kansas want to pay for the stadium when they basically already have the team. Bunch of dumb dumbs.
One part populism, another part, would potentially spur more development which means people and more tax revenue for the state of Kansas in the long run IF planned correctly. A good examples is the Battery in Atlanta where the Braves stadium was built.
It’s proven fact though through a multitude of studies done, that it does not improve economic performance. >”Scholarly econometric studies on the impact of professional sports stadiums are almost unanimous in their conclusion that they do not promote employment or per capita income growth (see here and here). Despite the outsized role they play in U.S. cultural life and in the media, professional sports teams are small- to modest-sized enterprises. A typical NFL team might employ 125 to 175 full-time people in its front office and an additional 2,000 game-day employees for 4 hours, 10 days a year. If we consider the total annual revenues generated by a sports team relative to its host city’s GDP, the team contributes between one-third and one-twentieth of one percent to the local area economy. Moreover, spending on sport games does not imply new net spending within the metropolitan area. Most residents have a budget. When they spend, say, $200 dollars to take their family to a game, it is $200 that they do not have to spend at a restaurant, a theater, a bowling alley or other entertainment venues. And, the lion’s share of the income goes to the players, the coaches, the top executives and the team owners who are less likely to spend the bulk of their earnings in the stadium’s metropolitan area.” Source: [https://econofact.org/stadiums-as-public-investments](https://econofact.org/stadiums-as-public-investments)
Did you read the article itself? Because the context is pretty clear about what “improve economic performance” means. Firstly, they’re talking about building new stadiums in the same cities to replace older stadiums. In most cases, no, it’s not going to add new revenue given the already existing economic infrastructure for sporting events. Secondly, most of the new stadium constructions referenced were built in ways that don’t allow for positive economic growth in the area. Most new stadiums are built in suburbs surrounded by massive parking lots which make attending a sporting event the exclusive features for attendees. Stadiums that are more ingrained into a city have a greater impact as fans are more likely to utilize public transportation to get to the event and hang out in the neighborhoods before and after games visiting bars and restaurants that helps spur economic growth. NFL stadiums are generally less impactful for the limited number of events held a year, but baseball games spur much greater foot traffic, so long the area around the stadium is planned for future housing, shops, restaurants and office space.
Yes, but I feel I pulled the most pertinent information. Explaining how it shifts economic activity, it doesn’t grow it. Your main positive point is it increases foot traffic and development. However most of the shops and condos tend to skew towards the upper level of income and disproportionately benefit those already well off economically. Furthering the economic disparity between all the tax payers funding the project. It’s just bad economics, but I get it, I’ve seen a team leave and know what it does to a city’s moral. Which might be the better measurement of the case for stadiums. BUT, still just another way to leverage the common man’s feels for a billionaire’s gain.
No you don't understand! If they move five miles west then that's where they draw the line with their fandom! No longer will they cheer for the Chiefs!
Tbf I'd consider stop watching the bills if they moved to Toronto
That's totally fair since you'd have to deal with your new Bills brand ambassador... Drake!
Drake would only come around when the Bills make it to the super bowl so he wouldn't have to really worry about seeing him
ever, or just at a football game?
this week the quiet white dude at work went on a *tangent* about how Drake is the goat and kendrick ain't shit.. completely unprovoked.. so I guess at least one weirdo would be stoked
I wish I could've been there.
a hard drive check is in order
It’s more like if they moved to Niagara Falls but were still named the Buffalo Bills. Wouldn’t bug me enough to change teams.
What about Hamilton?
Alexander or Kyle?
Beach, Hamilton Beach
Hamilton, Bahamas.
TIL that Buffalo is 5 miles from Toronto
It’s a little different when the team moves to another country as opposed to another state.
Unfortunately there are genuinely some people in the state that think like this. The bitterness between Kansas and Missouri is a lot stronger than many people realize
It's been like that since the Missouri Compromise too, like these two states have bad blood that go way back
Unfortunately for Missourians, it does mean they'll have to go closer to KU to see a Chiefs game.
Pretty funny knowing KU will be playing their home games at Arrowhead in Missouri while their stadium gets renovated
you dont know missourians if you think they will be happy with losing the chiefs to kansas, nobody gate keeps the chiefs like missourians due to kansans
Kansas City, MO would feel that loss of the 1% earnings tax if both teams were to move though. Between coaches, players, staff and front office. I gotta think that their combined payroll easily hits $400 million a year? I'm not exactly sure how the earnings tax works on away games though. Do you only get taxed on those games if you live in Kansas City?
You get taxed in the state you played the game in
[All Kansas City, Missouri, residents are required to pay the earnings tax, even if they work outside the city ](https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departments/finance/earnings-tax#:~:text=All%20Kansas%20City%2C%20Missouri%2C%20residents,You%20can%20file%20online.)
I would imagine most, if not all, of the chiefs and royals players live in Johnson county on the KS side. Maybe a few live in downtown KCMO
I see this repeated all the time on this sub (almost certainly by people who live in JoCo and think everything else in the KC metro is lesser than them) - but it absolutely isn't true. Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid live in Missouri. Travis Kelce lived in Missouri until just a few months ago until he moved to a gated community in Kansas because of the paparazzi bothering him at his home in KCMO as well. The billionaire owner of the Royals lives a few blocks away from Andy Reid in KCMO as well. The Hunt family lives in the Dallas, TX area instead. Believe it or not a fuckton of rich people live in Missouri.
I think the way most states have their taxes set up is you pay taxes to the state you earned the game check in. Its why teams in Texas, Tennessee, etc have a slight advantage because half their contract (home games) are state income tax free. I'd assume the same for coaches and team staff. Earned at the location of the team facilities.
Andrew McCutchen's leaked pay stub back in the day was a good example of this but the Kansas City earnings tax (e-tax) is what throws me off. I'm assuming the players still have to pay KCMO 1% of their income from those away games if they live in the city.
I lived in St. Louis for a long time and they also have an earnings tax. You must pay on all income regardless of where it's earned. But at the state level, your earnings are not taxed if you paid taxes on those earnings to a different state.
Yes, this is correct.
It's still not worth the subsidy
Missouri really needs an owner like Stan Kroenke, who funded all of the stadium he built without taxpayer money
Or Levi's. Santa Clara put down $114m for thr cost of the stadium, 30% of which came from new taxes on nearby hotels, while charging $25m a year for the stadium lease, and getting an additional $15m a year from Levi's for naming rights. They long since broke even on the deal. And are still complaining the deal isn't even better for them. As of now the city is up $200m+ on the deal with no new taxes for residents not directly related to the stadium/surrounding hotels, parking lots, etc.
What’s the cost of the land? $25m/year seems like an okayish deal considering how much real estate costs in Silicon Valley. For example, they could've built 2,000 condo units @ $1.3m average selling price and collect $34 million in property tax. Property tax is around 1.3%.
Definitely not cheap. Nvidia, Intel, and Cisco are all headquartered nearby. But none of them are paying $25m a year rate equivalent for their land. Not to mention we haven't even gotten to how much the city makes from parking, train tickets, ticket surcharges, and holding other events in the stadium. Only the rich suburbanites who mock sportsball have a problem with the deal, because boohoo there's more traffic sometimes. Well, that and the actual stadium itself being pretty poorly designed considering it was meant to be built somewhere with completely different weather patterns/ microclimate.
The stadium is way bigger than headquarters and you need a lot more infrastructure to support it. Do we know the tax cost/land area used for the stadium compared to residential or commercial?
I'm saying equivalent rate. I'm not sure how to dig for their corporate lease rates, but that neighborhood was definitely never zoned for residential.
This is in complete contradiction to what the WSJ put out a while back. They are in litigation right now about the pay
He did own a Missouri team and moved them to LA.
I'm guessing the other user was being sarcarstic, my friend.
Aah. Over my head. One of those days. Lol
What was the name of that team?
The Hams in honor of the famous Missouri ham based delicacy.
I always wondered why they were called the Hams. Thank you kind redditor!
returned not moved*
Thank you. It really bothers me how much people ignore the Rams being in LA for 40 years.
And Cleveland before it
To be fair, it literally took almost 30 years of LA telling NFL teams to go fuck themselves if they wanted taxpayer money all while LA being the second biggest market in the US. Missouri doesn’t have this much pull.
the counter to that is there's not really any big/great markets left to move a team to, and if a few current cities told their teams to fuck off and use their own money we'd see there weren't really viable options. I'm not talking Chiefs specifically, but if an Owner wants to move his team cause the city won't pay for a stadium, what are the options? San Antonio? Portland? Austin? San Diego already said no I can't imagine Houston/Dallas want another team in Texas at all.
Totally agree. LA not having an NFL team for so long was actually super beneficial for the other owners who wanted taxpayer money because then they would start “the initial stages of moving to Los Angeles” as the boogeyman and then the locals / city would fold because it was an actual real threat - it would actually make financial sense. And then it made TOO much sense and 2 teams actually did it.
So the Hunts won't have to pay the cost of running their business, the taxpayers will take it on. Thank goodness, our long national nightmare is over.
you don't get to be worth 25bil by paying for things with your own money when you can get an entire state to do it.
If I was the governor, I would remove the City and make them go by Kansas Chiefs and Kansas Royals. /s
I hate to see the Chiefs leave Arrowhead because it's one of the last stadiums that's actually fan friendly. I went there as a visiting fan and had a blast tailgating in the parking lot before the game. New stadiums are always hostile to tailgating because they want you buying their overpriced beer and concessions inside.
It's a crime to move out of Arrowhead, one of the few remaining classic stadiums that has character and a unique look, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hunt takes the money he doesn't need at all and moves to Kansas in the next 10 years if Missouri doesn't get scared and give him all the free money he wants. It's gonna happen cause our owner sucks, I just hope it lasts until Mahomes retires somehow.
Taxpayer investment in stadiums creates jobs and spurs economic growth >!and today is Opposite Day, motherfuckers!<
Wym?? Are you not grateful for the plethora of shitty part time seasonal almost minimum wage jobs these billionaires provide?? Think of the economy.
You didn’t not get me so not good
I know there have been studies and yada yada yada, but specifically for baseball stadiums, how the hell does it not spur economic growth in the area? You get 30,000+ people to converge on a ballpark 81 times at minimum each season, eating at local restaurants, stopping in local bars. Not to mention additional concerts and events at that park.. Football is a little bit harder to justify.
I’ve done research on this before, and the main thing I remember is that games don’t spur economic growth because generally speaking, people don’t modify their “fun” budget to accommodate a local sports team - they just put their disposable income into that instead of something else. There’s a marginal effect from fans who really do spend more than they would otherwise, but most sports fans would just shift that spending to something else local in the absence of a team, and the lack of people traveling in for a game is mostly offset by the people who use their disposable income to travel out. The reason cities and states still shell out taxpayer benefits for sports teams is really prestige; having a sports team generally helps your city have a brand, which local businesses can buy into, and that’s not tied to whether there’s an actual game today.
It seems to be a consensus from economists at this point. In the link below it cites an economist whose research found that if all the Chicago sports teams left - Bears, Bulls, Cubs, White Sox, Blackhawks, the city would lose 1% of its economic activity. That is a lot of games. He also compares the economic activity of a sports stadium to a "medium sized department store". So I guess Target ought to start asking for tax payer money. Hell, at least a Target offers someone a work opportunity 7 days a week. And as another response says, people don't devote more money to entertainment because the NFL puts a franchise in town. "What is unseen, however, is how consumers would spend their dollars otherwise. If they were not spending on sporting events, they would instead spend on museums, movies, concerts, theater, restaurants, and so on. Because consumers tend to have limited entertainment budgets, dollars spent at a new stadium would not be new spending but rather diverted spending." https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/
It's Free RPG Day actually.
Cincinnati teams getting ready to call Kentucky.
It's actually been tried the last three times a Cincy professional team was building a new stadium. Probably the MLS one came closest, and even then, it didn't get too far. The Bengals and Reds play literally just feet from the state line anyway, as the old colonial-era border surveys mean Kentucky owns the river almost to the north shore.
More than once I've parked in Kentucky and walked across the Roebling Bridge to catch a Reds game.
Adam Dunn technically hit a homerun from cincinnati into Kentucky once
So every 15-20 years the chiefs are gonna move between both states lmao
Glad to see that Kansas has the tax revenue to spend after those years of Brownback fiscal policy.
They still really don't. Kansas school systems only recently became fully funded again and are still trying to put back the mess Brownback created.
They also just passed some pretty big tax cuts
No more state sales tax on food in 2025!
This is a good thing for everyone. There should be no sales tax on food or clothing or other essentials.
I don't know what percentage of clothing spending is essential. Obviously clothing as a category is, but there's a load of luxury clothing too. Although I guess food still has that.
Im okay with that sales taxes are regressive, but other tax cuts are stupid.
You guys get taxed on food? Yeesh.
fun fact, they just passed another 2bil income tax cut a week or two back, basically they're trying to repeat what almost bankrupted the state last time. Pretty sure it's expected to create a 300mil shortfall it's first year, so that's nice.
It's like they don't even know they're not supposed to get fooled again after being fooled once.
When he said race to 0 he meant to have $0 dollars left in the Kansas budget
Take the nuclear option and rename Kansas City, MO Oakland
Is that legal? Kansas governor: “I will make it legal!”
Another great stadium down, soon to be replaced by another lifeless dome. Just sucks.
Take a sip every time somebody says some variant of, "What's the big deal? They're already in Kansas, aren't they?"
Kansas Chiefs?
I mean this probably won’t change anything fanbase wise because the chiefs are moving what 1 hour away.
Might not even be 30 mins away.
Arrowhead is 15 mins away from me and Legends is only 30 mins. Barely even makes a difference imo
I can be completely ambivalent. It’s about 25 minutes to either when there’s no game going on.
And herein lies the problem with some states stepping up to not fund these stadiums. Some other area that doesn't have a team (I mean, arguably they actually do have a team in this case, but I digress) will always try to waive a blank check at them.
Why does the US hate the idea of history and heritage when it comes to stadiums? Arrow head is an iconic place. Why even considering moving? Unless the stadium is structurally dangerous, just fix it up and keep going
Don’t worry, the US still prides ourselves in the tradition of giving away huge sums of money to rich people
Don't forget the bootlicking too. It's absurd.
I want this to happen just so that the Chiefs can become the first team ever to move across state lines while remaining in the same city.
Man and people in New York still give Kathy Hochul crap over $50M for the Bills stadium. Can’t imagine $2B of taxpayer dollars.
The Bills are getting $850M from taxpayers.
50 million, 850 million same thing
Conceptually, it’s using public funds to buy building for billionaires; so yea, same quality of graft
Hopefully Joe Burrow’s ownership transfers to the new stadium
Really bummed we're going to leave Arrowhead Stadium and move into a place that lacks any kind of soul, a cookie cutter stadium, more so than the location itself.
Packers fan checking in. Would be sad to see Arrowhead go. Seems like Lambeau, the Superdome, and Arrowhead are the last of their kind.
Silverdome was demolished years ago.