* CBS 2…
Does the Chicago Bears’ dramatic improvement this season, culminating in their first playoff run in five years, change the discussion about where they will build a new stadium? […]
The Bears have offered to fund an enclosed stadium there with their own money, but have been unable to land a deal that would allow them to negotiate their property tax costs or to receive state funding for infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and utilities.
If you think politicians feel the heat to get a deal done when a team is hot, insiders said you’re right.
“Without a doubt, a winning team does change the political calculus,” said sports marketing expert Marc Ganis.
* OK, first of all, Kansas City-area voters soundly rejected the Chiefs’ proposal to merely extend a 3/8th-cent sales tax extension for stadium renovations, etc. just a couple months after the team had won their second-straight Super Bowl.
So, the premise is a bit off. Like off by a thousand miles. This plan is deeply unpopular and that opinion won’t change much other than maybe a post Super Bowl bump - if they make it that far (and I hope they do).
* Secondly, the widespread sports radio/podcaster myth that the Bears are unable to secure infrastructure funding has now apparently spread to TV news. Not good.
Isabel asked Gov. JB Pritzker about the premise that a playoff run would help the Bears cut some deal. His response included infrastructure plans…
I’ve always said that building a stadium is from my perspective about doing what’s best for the taxpayers. This is a private business. We help private businesses all the time in this state, and I want to help if it’s with infrastructure, as we do with other private businesses, that’s absolutely a way we could do that. But as I’ve said, and the Bears have heard this, that we’re not going to build a stadium for the Chicago Bears. But again, they’re a private business. We have offered to do a number of things, still talking, as we always do with the Bears, about how best to meet their needs, but I want what’s best for the taxpayers in the end and and we’re going to make sure that we do the best that we can for the Bears, but most of all that we’re not wasting taxpayer money.
Isabel followed up by asking if the Bears had put an infrastructure plan on the table…
They just recently told us what their infrastructure needs are, and then the question is, how can the state meet those infrastructure needs? One thing I’m optimistic about in this regard is some of the infrastructure needs that the Bears are identifying as their needs are actually needs of the area around Arlington Heights, that those were projects that we were going to build at one point or another in the Rebuild Illinois capital plan. And so some of what people are identifying as the Bears needs, the Bears are identifying as their needs are actually needs that would exist whether the Bears went to Arlington Heights or not. So I think that’s that gives me some optimism that really there is a package that could be put together that would help with infrastructure.
His staff later told Isabel that the governor’s use of the word “recently” in the above quote doesn’t mean in the last week, it means since discussions have been going on.
Pritzker continued…
It also requires, though, that local governments understand that when businesses are thinking about moving to their area, that they expect to be able to do something about property taxes for some period of time. That’s not something the state controls. That is something local governments control. And so I would hope that that those discussions have been ongoing by the Bears with local government.
* Meanwhile, Rep. Kam Buckner had this to say last night at an event…
“We have had a number of face-to-face meetings,” Buckner said. “I do think they’re becoming more transparent and more forthcoming. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting there.” […]
“Even if they do go to Arlington Heights, what I don’t want is the people of Chicago to be left high and dry holding the bag,” Buckner said. “We owe $532 million on the last Soldier Field renovation from 20 years ago. That’s not small change.” […]
Buckner said infrastructure funding itself is not off the table, but he criticized the Bears’ approach to seeking it. “It’s not that we shouldn’t have a conversation around infrastructure,” he said, adding the team “missed some opportunities” by not being “more forthcoming sooner.”
Despite the criticism, Buckner said negotiations remain alive heading into the spring legislative session. “Anything can happen,” he said. “Literally anything can happen.”
* In related news, former Rep. Mark Batinick has published a white paper on a Bears stadium. Click here to read it.
- Steve - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 12:28 pm:
-Without a doubt, a winning team does change the political calculus-
This is a pathetic statement. Illinois taxpayers have hundreds of better uses for their tax dollars than giving free money to a wealthy for profit business. Illinois has a public pension problem. How about taking all the money you want to give to the Bears and put in the pension plans? Is that so unreasonable?
- btowntruthfromforgottonia - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 12:32 pm:
Not one dime of taxpayer money.
They don’t need it
- Sox Fan - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 12:42 pm:
The white paper is interesting. If this is really about a property tax “cap”, why are the Bears, 3 years after purchasing the property, still not forthcoming on how much they want the taxes capped at?
- Annon'in - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 12:44 pm:
Can’t wait to set our eyes on Batty’s Opus
Remember he is now a finance expert…maybe after 8th beer.
Hope he addressed McCaskey paying the remainder of what they owe on Soldier’s Field AND for the destruction of horse racing IL with the untimely/premature demo of AP?
BTW infrastructure in Arlington probably means replacing 2 substandard interstate interchanges.
Bear Down
- H-W - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 12:51 pm:
The Bears owe half a billion dollars for the Soldier Field renovations.
Pay that first. Come up with a plan to pay that first. Explain what the Bears intend to do about the half a billion dollars they still owe first.
Then perhaps discuss a the infrastructure needs of a different stadium.
- Roadrager - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:01 pm:
==Secondly, the widespread sports radio/podcaster myth that the Bears are unable to secure infrastructure funding has now apparently spread to TV news. Not good.==
==If you think politicians feel the heat to get a deal done when a team is hot, insiders said you’re right.
“Without a doubt, a winning team does change the political calculus,” said sports marketing expert Marc Ganis.==
If you have been paying attention to this story, you have seen the name Marc Ganis pop up as the go-to “sports marketing expert” or “sports business expert.” He has made multiple appearances on local TV and radio over the past several months, as Warren and the McCaskeys really started flailing hard on their stadium plans.
It is important to know that Marc Ganis is nowhere near the neutral observer his media hits portray him to be, and the outlets that book him as such are either too lazy to do a cursory Google search, or are actively choosing to ignore his stake in the Bears’ stadium plans - indirect or otherwise - because he gives good soundbites and is in their Rolodex.
You tell me if this sounds like a neutral sports business expert with no skin in an NFL stadium deal:
“Marc Ganis is so tied into the financial hierarchy of the NFL as an informal/ unofficial advisor that he’s been called the ‘33rd owner,’ and is as much a part of the landscape this week during the league’s annual meetings as the cascading fountains guarding the oceanside resort at The Breakers.”
https://www.bengals.com/news/marc-ganis-praises-bengals-ja-marr-chase-tee-higgins-deals-andrew-whitworth-amarius-mims
“Ganis has also helped drive many domestic high-profile transactions and projects including… National Football League (NFL) team sales, relocations and stadium developments; and more than two dozen sports facility projects, including the new Yankee Stadium, Heinz Field, Toyota Center and Verizon Center.”
http://jiaflixsite.com/index.php/en/who-we-are/founders/marc-ganis
“On the latest Sporticast episode, hosts… speak with sports consultant Marc Ganis, a close advisor to Roger Goodell and other NFL owners, about the business of the world’s richest sports league.”
https://www.sportico.com/podcasts/sporticast/2023/nfl-marc-ganis-sporticast-1234736090/
And if you’d like to learn more about his career exploits, take a look at his early efforts in Oakland and with the Tampa Bay Lightning.
Ganis first got on my radar several months ago in an interview with John Williams on WGN. When he started touting numerous ideas about the public financial benefits and job creation associated with public stadium funding that have been widely debunked for decades, I knew this “sports business expert” was in the bag for the NFL. When he followed that up by saying that the Bears building a domed stadium instead of an open-air one would be too expensive, provide no financial benefit, and would deprive fans of the atmosphere they expect from Bears games, I could hear George McCaskey moving Ganis’ mouth with one hand while pinching a penny with the other.
The bottom line is that the Bears’ stadium financial fabrications keep getting oxygen because local outlets, knowingly or not, keep platforming a voice who is more Astroturf than the stuff that blew out both of Wendell Davis’ knees in Philadelphia.
- DS - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:03 pm:
Ganis must think he’s going to will a taxpayer gift to the Bears into existence if he repeats this often enough.
- Save Ferris - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:05 pm:
Mr. Ganis is a known entity. He’s a hack and a shill hired by teams. And he’s often very wrong.
He’s a sports stadium influencer without an Instagram account.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:10 pm:
Multi-billion dollar, extremely profitable entertainment business does need or deserve any public dollars.
State owned infrastructure that connects to private businesses is a normal thing (highways, sewers, train stations, etc) and can always be discussed.
Anything else is a complete non-starter.
- Rudy’s teeth - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:13 pm:
The Bears mention of a move to Indiana is a joke. Indy streets and roads are filled with potholes and drivers complain to no avail.
If the Indy government won’t fund public schools and maintain roads, in what scenario would they fund roads and transportation for a Bears stadium in NWI.
Not happening.
- Think again - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:15 pm:
=The Bears owe half a billion dollars for the Soldier Field renovations=
JB said that, but the at does not make it fact. The 500 million is a talking point, not based in legal reality…
“The team’s lease of Soldier Field from the Chicago Park District expires in 2033. The Bears pay $6.48 million annually to use Soldier Field and can terminate that agreement early, as long as the team pays a penalty.”
https://news.wttw.com/2025/12/17/team-heats-chicago-bears-float-move-northwest-indiana#:~:text=The%20team’s%20lease%20of%20Soldier,the%20team%20pays%20a%20penalty.
- Evanston Voter - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:23 pm:
–The Bears owe half a billion dollars for the Soldier Field renovations.–
The Chicago Park District, not the Bears, owes a half a billion dollars for the last Soldier Field renovation. That is true whether the Bears stay or go.
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:37 pm:
The principal on the original ISFA debt was $398 million - It was a true Daley and Ryan special that backloaded the debt and let the amount due balloon over the years.
- thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Jan 13, 26 @ 1:44 pm:
Kevin Warren and the Bears just refuse to accept the idea that they’re not gonna get bags of money handed to them by Illinois. The latest NW Indiana (not Indianapolis, since they have the Colts) noise is just playing a shell game with everybody to see who takes the bait. Gary is the easiest target because they’d eminent domain almost the entire town if need be, and they’d cut a deal that would still put money back into the City of Gary’s treasury even at reduced rates, as opposed to vacant land and vacant homes and businesses.