Could bad performance on field affect plans for taxpayer-funded stadiums for Bears, White Sox?
CHICAGO (CBS) -- Two Chicago pro teams are asking for big tax dollars to fund new stadiums—one being the White Sox, who recently wrapped up a historically bad season, the other the Bears, whose season is moving deeply in the wrong direction.
Could the quality of play on the baseball diamond and the football field impact how these bids for new stadiums shake out?
Back in April, the Bears announced a $4.7 billion plan for a new domed lakefront stadium complex, including added green space and other amenities on the Museum Campus and their current home at Soldier Field—shifting the team's focus from a proposal to build a new stadium in Arlington Heights that had been the focus of attention for nearly three years.
The very next day after the stadium plan was unveiled, the Bears drafted Caleb Williams as the first overall pick in the NFL Draft—a new franchise quarterback who was poised to bring hope following season after season of disappointment. Nevertheless, the 2024 Bears season has largely been a season of disappointment so far too.
On Sunday, the Bears lost again—falling to the New England Patriots 19-3. The weekend before, the Bears lost 18-15 to the Washington Commanders on a last-second Hail Mary play. The Bears' record is now 4-5.
Meanwhile, the White Sox were such a disaster this year it was hard to believe—if the 1959 White Sox were the Go-Go White Sox, the 2024 White Sox might have been the No-Go White Sox. They set the modern-era record for most losses in a season, finishing 41-121.
In February, well before the season started, plans were announced for a possible new White Sox stadium in "The 78" development—in the area of Clark Street, Roosevelt Road, and the South Branch of the Chicago River in the South Loop. If the stadium were built, the Sox would relocate from their home since 1991 at Guaranteed Rate Field, 333 W. 35th St., where they are under lease through 2029.
Both the Bears and the White Sox asked for massive help in financing the stadiums—in the form of taxpayer funding. So should on-field success influence whether those public dollars get approved?
"It shouldn't come into play in any way, shape or form, in my opinion," said Illinois state Rep. John Cabello (R-Machesney Park).
Cabello said quality of play is not the question.
"We've got to do what's best for number one, the taxpayers, number two, the citizens of the state of Illinois," he said.
For their stadium, the Bears are planning to contribute $2.3 billion, including a $300 million loan from the NFL, to the $3.2 billion cost of the stadium, and will seek $900 million in public funding through 40-year bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which helped fund the 2002 renovation of Soldier Field, as well as the construction and renovations of Guaranteed Rate Field, the home of the White Sox.
The $900 million in public funding for the stadium would come from an existing 2% hotel tax that already goes to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. The Bears also would ask to refinance existing debt from the prior work at Soldier Field and Guaranteed Rate Field as part of that plan.
That funding plan would require approval from the Illinois General Assembly, but both Gov. JB Pritzker and top legislative leaders have said they're not yet on board.
Taxpayers also would be asked to pay for the proposed $1.5 billion infrastructure improvements needed for the construction of the new stadium, and to modernize the surrounding Museum Campus on the lakefront – including improved public transportation, roads, and utilities; additional parking, public parks and public sports fields; and public restrooms, food, and beverage options in the area around the stadium.
Meanwhile—much as they did in 1988 when they almost moved to Tampa Bay before the State of Illinois approved taxpayer funding for the stadium now known as Guaranteed Rate Field—the White Sox have signaled that moving out of town is possible if tax dollars do not help with their plans.
Some believe a better performance on the field could help the teams' case.
"It has an effect on the margins, and I do think it helps at the negotiating table—especially at the smaller, localized scales," said Joshua Ducker, a professor of urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois Chicago.
Drucker said political winds can shift based on wins and losses.
"You don't want to draw any conclusions from one game—or even part of a game. A season is probably the smallest unit I would take on this," he said. "Fans are fickle. Announcers are fickle."
Experts say one bad season could also trigger a major delay if Bears enthusiasm sputters.
"Although no one wants to say it, this may defer the Bears' plans for another season—where they need to get the excitement that was there at the beginning of the year re-energized again," said Marc Ganis, founder and chief executive officer of Sportscorp Ltd.
So what's next? Legislators say the Bears' plan is farther along, and some adjustments could gain quick traction in Springfield as quickly as January—but there is a lot of work that needs to be done.
The White Sox' plan has fewer details. But also, if adjusted—or if the two plans merged—experts say the Sox' plan could see movement faster than some expect.
