The NFL’s Panthers and Jaguars score taxpayer infusions as stadium subsidies grow
Upgrading the kiss cam… with a little help from taxpayers. The Carolina Panthers secured $650M in public funds this week to renovate Charlotte’s Bank of America Stadium. That’s half the $1.3B expected cost to upgrade the nearly 30-year-old facility. (FYI: the Panthers ended last season with the worst record in the NFL.) Nearly 400 miles south, Jacksonville taxpayers will kick in $775M toward the Jaguars’ $1.4B revamp of EverBank Stadium. Economists have said that stadium subsidies don’t provide a net economic benefit for their surrounding metros. The practice doesn’t look to be letting up:
The border war: Kansas officials last week passed a law that would help cover 70% of the expected $3.5B cost of new stadiums if the Chiefs and Royals moved from Missouri.
Browns’ noise: In Cleveland, lawmakers are considering $600M in state funding for a new stadium for the Browns. That would amount to 12x Ohio’s record for state spending on a single pro-stadium project.
The money’s not here… Taxpayers have spent ~$30B on stadiums since 1990, but researchers have said the projects — often pitched as investments in jobs and growth — haven’t resulted in notable ROI for taxpayers. A 2021 New York analysis of the state’s $850M stadium subsidy for the Buffalo Bills said the largest revenue source from the deal would come from income taxes paid by the team’s players.
Fandom gives owners leverage… Stadium subsidies gain momentum through pressure on lawmakers who don’t want to be “the one who let ’em go.” Federal legislation to curb the practice hasn’t had much success. Still, when taxpayers have had a say in the matter, they’ve occasionally nixed big subsidy deals. In April, Missouri voters rejected a stadium-financing effort for the Chiefs and Royals, which led to Kansas’ poaching attempt.