NCSL - National Conference of State Legislatures
03/10/2026 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 03/10/2026 09:11
Stadium Game Back in Play
Explore key content...
Related Topic: Fiscal
Professional sports and the arenas that house them are an integral part of American culture, with stadiums dating back more than a hundred years. But they don't build stadiums like they used to. Gone are the Colosseum-like edifices that could last for centuries. Modern professional sports facilities have an average life cycle of just a few decades.
It's been almost 30 years since the last wave of stadium construction, when 16 new stadiums opened between 1995 and 2003-and that was just in the NFL. Baseball, hockey and basketball teams also built new facilities during that time. Most of them tapped into public funds to support construction and ongoing maintenance. Now, policymakers are facing a new round of facility-funding proposals as stadiums and arenas reach the end of their lifespan.
Teams seek new facilities for several reasons, including the desire for new technology, more amenities, greater seating capacity and, most important, the ability to raise new revenues. As a result of some sweetheart revenue sharing agreements that skewed heavily in favor of team owners over the past 25 years, public sentiment has shifted, with many disillusioned by what is perceived as team greed. This is causing many policymakers to think twice about public funding deals that give away most of the revenue. Team owners seeking to build or renew stadiums often threaten to leave their home city unless local and/or state governments contribute financially. In most instances-but not always-cities give in and contribute hundreds of millions in public money toward the construction of new facilities. When they don't, they risk losing their teams.
In 2019, the NFL's Oakland Raiders moved to Las Vegas after the team failed to secure funding for a new stadium from the state of California and Nevada lawmakers put up $750 million. Now, baseball's Oakland Athletics plan to abandon Oakland after 55 years and relocate to Las Vegas in 2024 after Nevada agreed to help fund a new ballpark.
For the past several decades, cities and states have subsidized the construction of new sports facilities. However, consensus among economists and other experts is that sports stadiums do not offer a positive return on investment.
How Do Stadiums Generate Revenue for Teams?
Stadiums generate revenue through the sale of parking, food and beverages, merchandise and advertising. More recently, team owners have learned that they can generate revenue through the sale of naming rights and personal seat licenses. Corporations spend millions of dollars yearly to have the privilege of naming a stadium. In Atlanta, Mercedez-Benz agreed to pay $324 million over 27 years for naming rights to the stadium built in 2017.
Personal seat licenses allow fans to buy season tickets or specialty seating, like club seats. Luxury seating typically includes skyboxes. Skyboxes are usually purchased by corporations at premium prices and another level of more expensive seating known as club seats. These seats offer ticket holders better view, preferred parking and higher quality food and beverage service including waitstaff. After television rights, luxury seating is the second most important source of revenue for teams.
Why Do Cities and States Subsidize Stadiums and Arenas?
Team owners and those in favor of public subsidies argue that new sports facilities are an opportunity for economic development. They claim that the construction phase creates job opportunities from the moment the building is approved to the moment it's operating. Once the stadium is operational, advocates assert that tourists and business travelers are more likely to visit the host city and spend money which in turn creates more jobs and generates revenue. Advocates also argue that ticket sales and food and merchandise sales outside stadiums contribute to the local economy.
Moreover, advocates claim the presence of a sports team brings intangible benefits to the community. Residents may perceive an increased worth and value of their community simply by being a city with a major sports league. People also bond when they follow the team and watch games together on television. All in all, they argue, the presence of a sports team can be seen as a public good that justifies public funding.
For lawmakers, the risk of losing a sports team to another city while they're in office may also influence their decision to provide funding for a new stadium. A team moving to another city would create animosity among fans and could result in less public support from constituents.
What Does the Data Say?
Much of the research indicates that the economic impact stadiums have on cities is negligible. There's no denying that the construction of a new stadium creates employment opportunities such as construction jobs and seasonal employment opportunities within the stadium. Construction jobs become available when a stadium is built and if the surrounding area develops well. However, the quality of the jobs, such as those of stadium workers, are questionable. Game-day personnel positions are low wage, temporary and part-time. Furthermore, critics raise questions such as whether investments in another business would contribute as much, if not more, economically.
In addition, consumer spending may increase in areas near the stadium, but it is not necessarily new spending. The majority of people who attend games are local residents who would still have spent money in the host city. Contrary to the claims of sport stadium advocates, the economic contribution from visitors is not always significant if the team doesn't draw many fans from outside the region. Research shows that out-of-state fans make up between 5% to 20% of attendees. Evidence also suggests that those out-of-state fans do not usually travel for the sport event. Instead, they are in the area for other reasons and would have spent money elsewhere in the city had there not been a sporting event.
Key Takeaways
-
It's been almost 30 years since the last wave of stadium constructions when 16 new stadiums opened between 1995 and 2003-and that was just in the NFL.
-
Policymakers are facing another round of new facility funding proposals as stadiums and arenas reach the end of their lifespan.
How Much Have States and Cities Contributed to Build Stadiums?
Public funding support for stadiums has come in waves, ranging from none prior to the 1930s to a peak of 100% in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when stadiums and arenas were community-owned and considered public assets. However, the process shifted in the 1990s when teams were awarded both the facilities and the revenues they generated, even though they were funded with public dollars. The greatest number of stadiums (23) was built in the 2000s and public funding averaged 81% of the total costs.
In the past 15 years, states and cities have contributed over $6 billion for the construction of basketball and football stadiums alone. This estimate does not include any recurring costs such as maintenance of the facilities or other tax incentives offered during the construction of the facility. Take Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta for example. In addition to subsidizing construction of the stadium, the city built a $23 million pedestrian bridge and paid $40 million for parking expansion, raising the total contributions to $263 million.
Public contributions have typically been paid through bond sales. In most cases, the bonds are backed by taxes imposed in the district where the stadium is located. Tourism taxes such as those on hotels and car rentals are most often used to finance the bonds, but other taxes are used as well. For instance, Minnesota used taxes on pull tabs to finance building U.S. Bank Stadium.
Table 1 below shows new stadium funding details.
Considerations for Lawmakers
It is unlikely states and cities will stop contributing public funds for sport facilities. However, lawmakers can maximize the potential economic impact of a new stadium by considering several key factors:
- Identify the actual reasons a team wants a new stadium. For example, if the team's value has declined because it is receiving little to no stadium revenue, lawmakers can reconsider the lease agreement so that the team receives more revenue. If the team wants a new stadium because it lacks luxury seating and corporate boxes, there can be an assessment to determine whether those amenities can be added to the current stadium.
- Consider the location. The location of a stadium plays a significant role in determining whether it will be economically beneficial for a community. For instance, Camden Yards in Baltimore and Coors Field in Denver served as catalysts for urban development in each city's downtown area. Both facilities were built in pedestrian-friendly locations. Stadiums built in pedestrian-friendly areas near restaurants, bars, parks, and museums tend to contribute more economically because visitors are likely to spend money in the area.
- Think about the features that will be included in the new facility and their costs. The NFL's Buffalo Bills forewent a retractable roof on the new stadium because of the great cost it added. Additionally, the cost of borrowing money should be considered. Typically, when bonds are used to finance the construction of a new stadium, the interest is not included in the debt service schedule. Such costs should be included to paint a more accurate picture of the contribution a state/city will be making.
Many stadiums are nearing 30 years of age, which seems to be the average lifespan of a modern sports facility. Accordingly, teams with aging facilities have begun their search for a new stadium or a new city to call home. Difficult decisions lie ahead for lawmakers as they face pressure from teams seeking public funding. While no elected official wants to be responsible for losing a beloved team, they must also balance their fiduciary obligations to constituents and weigh the hefty price tag of a new stadium.
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming District of Columbia American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands
Filter by States / Territories
clear search
Table 1
|
State |
Year |
Stadium Name |
Owner |
Public funding and financing |
|
California |
2019 |
Chase Center |
Golden State Warriors Arena LLC |
Total Cost:$1.4 billion | 100% private funding Chase Center was funded privately and is owned by the Golden State Warriors Arena LLC. There were no new taxes imposed to fund this stadium. In addition to revenue from ticket sales and sponsorships the team generates revenue from leasing office space built as part of Chase Center. In late 2022, the Golden State Warriors Arena LLC asked the city to lower the assessed value of the property from $1.6 billion to $670.8 million. The appeal was rejected. |
|
California |
2014 |
Levi's Stadium |
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority |
Total Cost:$1.3 billion | $114 million in public funding | $1.2B from private funding The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, a public agency made up of members from the Santa Clara City Council, owns the stadium. Of the $1.1B in private financing, the Stadium Authority was responsible for borrowing $950M in private loans for the construction of the stadium. The ballot measure that approved the construction of Levi Stadium guaranteed that the new stadium would not affect the city's general fund and accordingly, the private loan will be paid through revenue from the stadium (personal seat licenses and naming rights) rather than through revenue from the city. The NFL contributed $200 million and the 49ers team stadium company contributed $35 million. |
|
California |
2016 |
Golden 1 Center |
City of Sacramento |
Total Cost: $557 million |$233 from the city of Sacramento | $324M private funding The city of Sacramento financed $212.5 million through the sale of bonds. The bonds are backed by hotel tax revenues. The remaining $10.6 million of city funding came from parking and economic development funds. |
|
California |
2020 |
SoFi Stadium |
Stan Kroenke (LA Rams Owner) |
Total Cost:$5 billion | 100% private funding SoFi Stadium was privately funded and is owned by StadCo LA, LLC, Stan Kroenke's stadium company. The stadium developers will be eligible for a tax reimbursement on the public infrastructure they built. The reimbursement will become available after 100% of taxes generated in the first five years are paid. Estimates for tax reimbursements suggest the amount could be up to $100 million. |
|
Florida |
2010 |
Amway Center |
City of Orlando |
Total Cost: $480 million | $430 million public funding | $60 million private funding The city of Orlando sold bonds backed by Orange County's Tourist Development Tax to fund Amway Center. In the Center financing agreement, the city of Orlando was to be paid a part of naming rights and corporate suite sales. Additionally, the city is entitled to proceeds from all non-basketball event ticket sales. |
|
Florida |
2012 |
Marlins Park |
Miami Dade County |
Total Cost: $634 million |$376.3 million from the county | $132.5 million from the city | $125.2M The Marlins are responsible for maintenance of the park and routine repairs. Rent is set at a cost of $2,300,000/year and grows at 2% per operating year. |
|
Georgia |
2017 |
Mercedes-Benz Stadium |
Georgia World Congress Center Authority |
Total Cost: $1.6 billion | $200 million | $1.4 billion private funding The Atlanta Falcons Parent company, AMB Group, is responsible for the operations in the stadium and they receive all operating profits. The bonds used to finance the stadium are backed by the city's motel/hotel tax. The same tax also funded the construction of the Georgia Dome, the previous home of the Falcons. The private funding came from the NFL, private banks, personal seat licenses, and Arthur Blank, owner of the Falcons. In addition to the bonds sold to pay for the construction of the stadium itself, the city of Atlanta built a $23 million pedestrian bridge connecting the stadium to a nearby public transit stadium. The state also contributed $40 million for parking expansion. These additional amounts spent by the city and state were not included in the stadium financing agreement. Mercedes- Benz Stadium also benefited from construction sales tax exemptions. |
|
Georgia |
2017 |
Truist Park |
Cobb-Marietta Coliseum, Exhibit Hall Authority, and Cobb County |
Total Cost: $672 million | $300 million from the county and the Cumberland Improvement District | $372 million from the Braves The Atlanta Braves pay $3 million per year in rent. The Braves are responsible for maintenance and repair costs. |
|
Michigan |
2017 |
Little Ceasars Arena |
Downtown Development Authority |
Total Cost: $862.9 million | $324.1 million public funding |$538.8 million private funding The Olympia Development Authority, a subsidiary of Ilitch Holdings, financed $538.8 million of the stadium and the remaining $324 million was financed through bonds sold by the city and taxes. The bonds were in part backed by school property taxes collected by the Downtown Development Authority. |
|
Minnesota |
2010 |
Target Field |
Minnesota Ballpark Authority |
Total Cost: $550 million | $392 million from the county | $152.4 million from the Twins The county's financial contribution was funded through a .15% sales tax. Rent was set at $600,000/year. The state has paid off the remaining debt as of 2023. |
|
Minnesota |
2016 |
U.S. Bank Stadium |
Minnesota Sports Facility Authority |
Total Cost: $1.1 billion | $348 million from the state | $150 million from the City of Minneapolis | $608 million paid by the Vikings U.S. Bank Stadium was financed through bonds backed by taxes on charitable gaming, including electronic pull tabs. In 2023, the state of Minnesota paid off the remaining debt on U.S. Bank Stadium. Charitable gaming revenues exceeded expectations and were approved to be used to pay off the stadium debt. The Minnesota Sports Authority is responsible for all maintenance of the stadium. |
|
Nevada |
2020 |
Allegiant Stadium |
Las Vegas Stadium Authority |
Total Cost: $1.97 billion | $750 million in public funds | $1.25 billion from the Raiders The public funding portion of Allegiant Stadium was raised through bonds that will be paid back over 30 years through revenue raised from a room tax. The LV Stadium Events Company, an affiliate of the Raiders Football Club, are required to perform all maintenance of the stadium property. The lease established a requirement that at least 15% of the stadium project had to be subcontracted to small local businesses. |
|
New Jersey |
2010 |
MetLife Stadium |
New Meadowlands Stadium Company LLC own and operate MetLife. |
Total Cost: $1.6 billion |100% private funding MetLife Stadium, built in 2012, is owned by the New Meadowlands Stadium Company, which is a joint company between the Jets NFL team and the Giants NFL team. The New Jersey Sports Authority owns the land on which the stadium sits. The New Meadowlands Stadium Company leased the land for a period of 25 years at a cost of $5 million per year. The New Meadowlands Stadium Company is responsible for maintenance and repairs in the stadium and is responsible for managing the necessary operations. The Stadium Company is entitled to parking revenue from the western parking lot year-round. |
|
New York |
2012 |
Barclays Center |
Barclays Center is owned by the state |
Total Cost: $1.03 billion | $564 million in municipal bonds | $466 million in private funding The Brooklyn Arena Development Corporation issued bonds using a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) bond structure. In 2016, the Brooklyn Arena Development Corporation refunded all the bonds issued in 2009. The annual payments go towards paying the debt and do not enter the general revenue stream. Barclays Center benefited from construction sales tax and mortgage recording tax exemptions. |
|
New York |
2026 |
Buffalo Bills |
The stadium will be owned by the state. |
Total Cost: $600 million from the State of New York ($418 million of that total comes from disputed tax revenue collected from the Seneca Nation) | $250 million from Lake Erie | $690 million paid by the Bills. The Buffalo Bills will be leasing the stadium from the state. The state will cover maintenance and operation costs at a price tag of about $2.2 million to $2.4 million per year. Expected to open in2026. |
|
New York |
2009 |
Yankee Stadium |
The Stadium is owned by the state. |
Total Cost: $2.3 billion | $1.7 billion in PILOT bonds from the state of New York | $670 million from the New York Yankees Yankee Stadium was financed through bonds using a PILOT bond structure. The debt is backed through lease payments and a pledge of ticket revenues. The annual payments go towards paying the debt and do not enter the general revenue stream. Yankee Stadium benefited from construction sales tax and mortgage recording tax exemptions. |
|
Tennessee |
2027 |
Tennessee Titans |
The Nashville Sports Authority will own the stadium and land. |
Total Cost: $2.1 billion | $452.7 million in state bonds | Metro Nashville issued $705.4 million in bonds | $840 million paid by the Titans The Tennessee Titans stadium was financed through bonds issued by the state of Tennessee and the Nashville Sports Authority, totaling over $1 billion. The bonds are backed by an additional 1% hotel tax, half of sales tax made in the Development Sales Tax Area, and certain revenues from the ticket tax. Revenue from diverted sales and ticket taxes and ticket fees from non-NFL events will go towards early bond repayment and stadium maintenance and upgrades. Expected to open in 2027. |
|
Texas |
2009 |
AT&T Stadium |
City of Arlington |
Total Cost: $1.15 billion | $473 million in public financing | $150 million from the NFL | $525 million from the Dallas Cowboys The city of Arlington owns AT&T Stadium and leases it to the Dallas Cowboys for (360) monthly payments of $166,666.67. The Dallas Cowboys are responsible for maintenance of the stadium. The city of Arlington approved a total of $325 million in bonds backed by a half-cent increase in city sales tax, 2% increase in the hotel motel tax, and a 5% increase in the car rental tax. A second set of bonds, $147.9 million were issued to fund the stadium. This set of bonds are backed by ticket and parking taxes. |
|
Wisconsin |
2018 |
Fiserv Forum |
Wisconsin Center District |
Total Cost: $534 million | $203 million from the state | $47 million from the city $284 million from the Bucks The $250 million in public funding came from the city of Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin. The state's share of funding comes from the state general purpose revenue, shared revenue that would have gone to the city of Milwaukee, and funds borrowed by the Wisconsin Center District, the state entity that operates the Milwaukee Convention Center. The city's share of funding went towards building a new parking structure ($35 million). Parking revenue was to be split 50/50 with the team. The remaining $12 million of the city's contributions went towards tax incremental financing. The tax increment financing was backed by property taxes generated from new real estate around the arena. |
NCSL - National Conference of State Legislatures published this content on March 10, 2026, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on March 10, 2026 at 15:11 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]