The NFL's Fight for Stadium Subsidies Is Heating Up

Will city and state governments get swindled by sports teams?

Hello and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Time to invest in Detroit pizza company stocks, because the Lions are so back. (Sponsoring Juventus is an absolutely ridiculous way to spend taxpayer money, though.)

Speaking of taxpayer money, let's talk about stadium subsidies and a few NFL teams who are looking for some help making a buck. Then we'll talk about good news in the world of refereeing, and end with a little golf.

Locker Room Links

• The NFL didn't require home teams to hold a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk this weekend. Many did anyway (but some conservatives are still mad).
• Elsewhere in Reason: The Reason Roundtable gang discusses Kirk, cancel culture, apocalyptic politics, and more.
• The stadium public address announcer (a dream job of mine) for the Chiefs resigned because the team wouldn't let him do his famous third-down call anymore—and because he'd have more time to run for county legislator (a nightmare job for me).
• Also, wearing t-shirts in support of your teammate who pled guilty to a hit-and-run street racing crash is a bad idea.
• A bill in Congress to reform college sports might be falling apart.
• New York City mayoral favorite Zohran Mamdani hates FIFA, like everyone else. But his plan to meddle with World Cup ticket prices is just going to make the ticketing process even more random. (Sorry not sorry that prices exist and convey useful information to buyers and sellers.)
• Follow up to last week's newsletter on Kawhi Leonard: Pablo Torre found more incriminating evidence, and Mark Cuban still doesn't believe Clippers owner Steve Ballmer is implicated.
• Meanwhile, in England, West Ham United are confiscating commemorative scarves. (This is not, in fact, something we can all get behind.)
  

  Half-and-half scarves, along with any other items featuring the crest of both West Ham and Spurs, will be confiscated and not returned at the London Stadium ❌

  IS THIS SOMETHING WE CAN ALL GET BEHIND? ???? pic.twitter.com/kAUHvcLDoY

  — Men in Blazers (@MenInBlazers) September 12, 2025

Who's Taking Your Tax Dollars?

There are three NFL teams trying to take advantage of taxpayer dollars this season, and they all start with the letter B. (Coincidence? Yes.) Remember: There's no good reason for cities and states to build or subsidize sports stadiums.

We'll start with the Chicago Bears, since subscriber Steve asked me to look into it (yes, I take requests at [e-mail]). This stadium situation has been in flux for years. But the city owns the stadium, so that puts a damper on the Bears' revenue. The team's proposed move to Arlington Heights, Illinois, isn't about the stadium—it's about the adjoining development property that every sports team now wants with stadiums to bolster their revenue.

The Bears, naturally, want a cap on how much they'll have to pay in property taxes on that development. They also have to figure out who's going to pay potentially billions of dollars to upgrade the infrastructure on the site. The state, for what it's worth, does not seem willing to play ball, although Arlington Heights is planning to give that property tax break—a political favor that keeps money from the government is better than one that doles out money from the government. No political favor at all would be nice, but it's not the worst stadium deal around, and politicians in Chicago and at the state level deserve a sliver of credit for not being as bad as other politicians.

Like the ones in Ohio, for example. The Cleveland Browns stand to benefit from a plan so bonkers I can only quote Neil deMause at Field of Schemes: "Remember how the Ohio legislature proposed borrowing $600 million from the state's unclaimed property fund to use on a new Cleveland Browns stadium and repaying it with money from an omni-TIF collecting all kinds of tax money from in and around the stadium, and then the bill passed and it was described as providing '$600 million for the proposed Cleveland Browns domed stadium in Brook Park using unclaimed funds,' and I said it wasn't really because that was just where Ohio would be borrowing the money from temporarily?"

There's a lot going on there! But don't worry, other than that it's smooth sailing. Here's deMause again: "The Cleveland Browns owners' plan for a stadium in Brook Park already survived a battle between the legislature and governor over how $600 million in state money would be raised, and is still facing additional challenges including a potential class action suit over using unclaimed property funds, another city suit over the team violating its lease by negotiating a move, plus the fact that the plan relies on another $600 million in city and county money that hasn't yet been identified. But on Friday [August 15], the Ohio Department of Transportation added a new, unexpected wrinkle when it denied the team's request for a construction permit, because the stadium would be so tall that planes could crash into it." Well, good luck with that!

Our last B-team this week is the Denver Broncos, who have a plan similar to the Bears' plan. The Broncos, along with city and state leaders, announced their "preferred site" for the new stadium, not that far from the current one. The Broncos' owners have said they'll use their own funds to buy the land, build the stadium, and do some surrounding development. So far so good!

The devil is in the details, though, and we don't have those details yet. Redoing roads in the area will cost $140 million, and Denver voters will get their say. Will the owners pay market price for the land or get a sweetheart deal? Are they going to get property tax breaks on the stadium and the development like the Bears are getting?

There's also the awkwardness of the state government waving goodbye to its tenant. Mile High is on primo land walking distance from downtown Denver with easy highway access and a nice walking trail along the South Platte River (a trail I can personally recommend). Is the state going to sell the land to developers for high-density housing, or does it have some government boondoggle in mind?

What's surprising is that all three of these cases involve government-owned stadiums that are between 22 and 26 years old. (Soldier Field is technically much older, but finished a complete renovation in 2003). That's not that old! If governments are going to own stadiums, they should take better care of them. (Granted, I haven't been to any of these stadiums and can't vouch for their quality.)

In fairness to these three B-teams, in all senses of the word, the Bengals also have their own complicated stadium situation, and I'm sure every NFL owner would gladly accept some taxpayer funding for whatever they deem useful. (Don't get me started on the Kansas City Chiefs, whose stadium debacle I have nothing nice to say about.)

Referee!

After the UFL/XFL inspired kickoff changes in the NFL, it's now inspiring refereeing changes in college football, too.

Multiple times on Saturday, the ACC gave viewers a live listen-in on what officials were discussing during crucial replay reviews.

This is what it looks and sounds like when an ACC ref talks over a replay review with the ACC Game Day Operations Center. ????????????????️ #CFB pic.twitter.com/PxvF2WDksM

— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) September 13, 2025

A look inside the ACC Replay center for a CRUCIAL review of what was initially ruled a 4th quarter game-tying touchdown ????

It was overturned and Clemson would tie the game later on.

Watch the end of No. 12 Clemson-Georgia Tech on ESPN & the ESPN App: https://t.co/Nz7AG4DFyf pic.twitter.com/HDG06KnRZn

— ESPN (@espn) September 13, 2025

This should be a no-brainer for all football games, college and professional. Fans get to look behind the curtain and hear a more complete explanation of what referees are thinking when they look at reviews. Referees get to show off their professionalism, and the transparency of the extended discussions can tamp down some conspiracy theories about conference biases. Broadcasts get to play audio of something more interesting and impactful than their go-to rules analyst's speculation (as much as I love the rules analyst on each network).

I expect this will eventually become standard in major college conferences and the NFL. The only question is "How quickly?" Hopefully other sports soon follow.

While I'm generally in favor of more plays being reviewable, it's also important to avoid weird situations like this one that led to a 23-year ACC official to quit. Too bad this one didn't get the same transparency treatment, because the conversation was probably ridiculous.

Tee It Up

My closing recommendation this week is simple: Go play some golf.

It's cliché, but if you have a bad round, you'll want to play again to prove to yourself that you can do better. If you have a great round, you'll want to play again to prove you can do better. Hit up a driving range (preferably one with Toptracer technology, or Topgolf on a half-off night), then find a cheap public course to play on. (Municipal golf courses shouldn't exist but you might as well enjoy the subsidized round your tax dollars helped pay for.) Make a group chat with your golf buddies to schedule rounds but don't be afraid to get paired with strangers when your friends aren't free. Use ChatGPT to help you figure out what parts of your game to work on and how. Get pumped to watch the Ryder Cup. Realize how much you suck.

Hit personal records anyway. Make a hole-in-one. It's easy.

Replay of the Week

Not just insane to have this happen on the last play of the game, but it happened in absolutely insane fashion.

This is the greatest cover of all time ???? pic.twitter.com/OqjKIn11hj

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) September 13, 2025

That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, underrated Tulane against overrated Ole Miss on Saturday at 3:30 p.m. ET on ESPN.