What Happens to Chicago if the Bears Leave for the Suburbs?

The Chicago Bears are likely leaving Chicago for Arlington Heights.

In June of 2021, the Chicago Bears — a founding member-team of the National Football League (NFL) — purchased Arlington International Racecourse for $197.2 million. The final sale is expected to close by early 2023, but the team has already announced plans to develop the 326 acres into a stadium with restaurants, bars, a business center, and other attractions nearby.

Concerned by the prospect of the Bears’ departure, Mayor Lightfoot and her administration have proposed a set of renovations to Soldier Field, the Bears’ current home, to entice the franchise to stay in Chicago.

As a historic football team with deep roots to the city, the uncertainty around the Bears’ future home begs a few questions: what are the economic ramifications for the city if the Bears depart for the suburbs? What are the costs associated with keeping the Bears in Chicago? And finally, and perhaps most importantly, how are Chicago taxpayers affected by either option?

Background

In analyzing the economic impact of the Bears’ potential relocation, it’s important to understand why the franchise wants to leave Soldier Field. Soldier Field is extremely limited as a modern NFL stadium. It’s both the oldest stadium in the NFL (built in 1924) and the smallest with merely 61,500 seats. Comparatively, Lambeau Field, home to Bears’ rival Green Bay Packers, seats 81,441. And without a roof, Soldier Field makes for brutal winter viewing experiences for fans and eliminates the stadium as a potential host for other major sporting events, such as the Super Bowl or the Final Four.

Furthermore, the Bears do not own Soldier Field; the team is a tenant of the Chicago Park District, owner and operator of the stadium. This gives the franchise limited revenue opportunities and decision-making capacity over stadium renovations, overall upkeep, and strategic initiatives. The Bears seek freedom — operationally, financially, and creatively — and have found that opportunity in Arlington Heights.

Financial Impact

From the city’s perspective, there are three financial considerations to the Bears leaving: lease payments, bond payments, and effect on the local economy.

Lease

The Bears pay the Chicago Park District $6.48 million per year according to the Chicago Tribune’s analysis of the lease agreement. The lease runs until 2033, so if the Bears skip to Arlington Heights before then, they would be required to pay a financial penalty. The longer the team stays in Soldier Field, the lower that financial penalty becomes once the franchise decides to leave. According to the same Tribune analysis, if the Bears depart Soldier Field in 2026, they will pay their annual lease payment plus a financial penalty of $84 million to the city. While $84 million may seem substantial, the Bears’ 2021 revenue according to a Statista analysis was $520 million, a figure that should increase by the time 2026 rolls around. Additionally, the cost of a new campus in Arlington Heights is estimated to be over $5 billion, so an $84 million penalty is negligible for the Bears in considering the move. Nonetheless, an early Bears’ exit from Soldier Field means Chicago loses its rent revenue from the team but gains a hefty fee for the team breaking their lease early.

Bonds

In 2003, Soldier Field was renovated for $690 million — around $430 million of which was financed through bonds. The issuing body, the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA) — a government entity responsible for building and renovating sport stadiums in Illinois — relies on the city’s hotel tax revenue to cover the bonds’ annual debt payments. An important aspect of the original transaction was that Chicago’s City Hall agreed to provide funding for any remaining gap should the city’s hotel taxes fall short of the necessary revenue for ISFA to cover its debt. This scenario has already occurred: in 2011, in 2021, and there is a $18.4 million gap forecasted for fiscal year 2023.

The trickiness of the bonds will become more important in 2033 when the full debt is set for repayment, but it doesn’t appear that the Bears’ move has any direct effect on ISFA’s ability to cover its obligations. According to Professor Allen Sanderson, a sports economist at the University of Chicago, the number of Bears’ fans that travel into the city for home games is small, and these fans don’t significantly contribute to the city’s hotel tax revenue. Whether the Bears leave or stay, hotel taxes may or may not be able to cover ISFA’s debt obligations, and therefore Chicago’s responsibility as a financial gap-filler is unaffected by the Bears’ final decision.

Local Economy

To predict a dollar figure in losses or gains for the McCormick area caused by the Bears leaving Soldier Field is difficult. Yet, there are two key factors to consider for potential local economic deterioration: employment and business activity. Employment at the stadium is largely comprised of part-time workers whose services are used ten times a year for Bears’ home games. Although eliminating these jobs with a Bears’ exodus seems like a sizable loss in neighborhood employment, Professor Sanderson insists it is only a “small fraction of full-time equivalent jobs.” The employment loss, strictly related to the Bears leaving Chicago, is minimal.

As for loss in local economic activity, Sanderson notes most fans who attend Bears games are Chicago locals who drive-in from nearby neighborhoods and don’t stay overnight in the city. Consequently, “the amount of money they spend outside the stadium is trivial. They may buy a sweatshirt once during the season, they may have lunch ten times a year, but that’s basically it.” Additionally, the high-earning players on the team generally don’t live near the stadium and aren’t investing in the local area. The team and its players don’t fuel local economic activity, so the team’s departure shouldn’t result in substantial local economic or business loss.

 Mayor Lightfoot’s Proposals

Mayor Lightfoot’s proposals to renovate Soldier Field provide an opportunity to speculate on the costs associated with keeping the Bears in Chicago but don’t pinpoint a party responsible for paying those expenses. The proposals support three different renovations: rebuild the stadium with a dome (dome), rebuild the stadium with the potential to support a dome (dome ready), or modify Soldier Field to better fit a soccer stadium and improve the stadium’s ability to handle other major events (multi-purpose).

The price on each option ranges from $2.2 billion for the dome, to $900 million for the multi-purpose approach according to an analysis by the Illinois Policy Institute. Although Lightfoot hasn’t announced how the renovations will be paid for, the IPI analysis projects that potential renovations, should taxpayers cover the entirety of the cost, could cost Chicagoans anywhere from $2,036 per household for a new dome to $833 for the multi-purpose option. Since the Bears and the City haven’t formally sat down to discuss all considerations around moving or staying, the final cost will likely not be released for some time.

Bears’ Perspective

Knowing all the information laid out above, how do the Bears’ owners view their options? Naturally, it’s all about money. Currently, the franchise operates in a revenue-limited environment by renting Soldier Field. Their only negotiated-upon revenue opportunities through the stadium are “tickets, concessions, stadium signage, and the use of 4,250 parking spots.” In contrast, five of the top eleven revenue-generating NFL franchises own their stadiums, and these franchises’ average revenue totals $588 million annually. The Bears bring home $520 million per year, meaning the franchise is likely missing out on an estimated $60-70 million annually by not owning their stadium, a loss of approximately $600-700 million in future earnings over ten years.

Owning a new stadium would enable the Bears’ franchise to gain revenue from various streams: naming rights to the new stadium, renting out the various buildings surrounding the stadium, and hosting non-football related events like concerts. Although the Lightfoot administration could offer the Bears a renovated stadium with a dome, 25,000 more seats, and luxury suite and seating opportunities, such proposals will likely not financially equate to the Bears’ opportunities in Arlington Heights.

Conclusion

In sum, the only definitive effect a potential Bears’ move has on Chicago is the city’s loss of lease income and the gain of a financial penalty should the Bears break their lease early. The other considerations — bonds, local economic impact, taxpayer costs if renovations proceed and the Bears stay in Chicago — cannot be fully calculated due to a lack of information from both the team and the city on who will pay for such items.

As for the Bears’ approach, they may take the time to hear out the city and review renovation proposals, but the franchise owners’ goal is to afford themselves complete revenue control, which can only be accomplished by a move to Arlington Heights. The negotiations and strategies will become clearer over the next few months as the Bears finalize their plans and the city continues to develop its vision for what Soldier Field will one day look like — with or without the Bears.