The Chiefs, the Bears, and the Economics Behind NFL Stadium Deals
When the Kansas City Chiefs finalized a deal tied to Kansas’ STAR bond program, it clarified something I’d already been circling with the Chicago Bears and Indiana rumors: This isn’t just about stadiums anymore. It’s about who controls the land, the revenue streams around it, and the tax structures that make those revenues scalable.
For years, stadium debates were framed as emotional showdowns. Loyalty versus greed, fans versus owners, cities versus billionaires. That framing no longer fits the economics of modern professional sports. NFL franchises today are not just teams; they are real estate developers, entertainment operators, and long-term infrastructure investors.
And the most valuable part of that business is not what happens on Sundays.
It is everything that happens around the stadium the other 357 days of the year (356 if you’re in the AFC).
The Chiefs crossing a state line and the Bears seriously entertaining the same idea is not a coincidence. It is a signal. States are now competing not just to host teams, but to structure policy around how teams actually generate value.
The Chiefs Deal: Policy Arbitrage, Not Relocation
When the Kansas City Chiefs finalized an agreement to shift their stadium development into Kansas, much of the first reaction focused on the wrong question. People asked why a franchise would leave its home state or whether this represented a betrayal of Kansas City fans.
That framing misses what actually happened.
The Chiefs did not abandon their city or chase a new market. They crossed a state line to access a policy environment better aligned with how modern NFL franchises operate. This was not relocation in the traditional sense, but policy arbitrage.
From the team’s perspective, the decision was structural. The project under discussion has been reported as several billion dollars in total scope, far larger than a standalone stadium. The relevant questions were where financing could be structured with greater certainty, where tax treatment was clearer, and where legislation better matched a long-term, mixed-use development.
Kansas provided that clarity by authorizing the use of STAR bonds, with capacity reported to approach $1 billion, tied directly to sales tax revenue generated within the development district. That signal mattered. It framed the project as an economic engine rather than a sports facility and aligned public policy with how the team planned to generate value.
This reflects a broader shift across professional sports. State borders are no longer symbolic lines tied to history or identity. They are financial boundaries, and teams are increasingly willing to treat them that way.
The Chiefs did not need to threaten full relocation to gain leverage. They only needed a credible alternative nearby. Once Kansas demonstrated a willingness to structure incentives at the appropriate scale, the economics became compelling.
What makes this deal important is the precedent it sets. The Chiefs showed that a franchise can improve its long-term position without alienating its fanbase.
And once that playbook is proven to work, other teams will follow suit.
That is why this deal matters beyond Kansas City. The question is no longer whether a team will leave, but whether a neighboring jurisdiction is willing to offer a structure that aligns with how teams now generate value.
To understand why Kansas was able to make that case so effectively, it helps to look at the specific tool that made the economics work.
That tool is STAR bonds.
What STAR Bonds Are (and Why They Matter Now)
STAR bonds, short for Sales Tax and Revenue bonds, are easier to understand when viewed through the lens of modern stadium development.
At their core, STAR bonds allow future sales tax revenue generated within a development district to be used to fund upfront infrastructure and development costs. Instead of relying on general taxpayer dollars, the bonds are repaid by the economic activity the project itself creates, including spending at restaurants, retail, hotels, and attractions inside the district.
For states, this limits risk. Support is tied to performance, and repayment depends on whether the development generates new activity rather than shifting existing tax revenue.
For teams, the appeal is straightforward. STAR bonds reduce upfront infrastructure costs while preserving private control over the surrounding development. Owners can deploy their own capital toward revenue-generating assets, while public financing supports the district that makes those assets viable.
This is why STAR bonds matter now. They are not designed for single-use stadiums that sit idle most of the year. They are designed for activity-driven districts that operate year-round and scale with foot traffic and spending.
In the Chiefs’ case, Kansas framed the deal around the broader economic ecosystem rather than football games themselves. That distinction explains why the economics worked and why other franchises are paying attention.
It also points to the next evolution in stadium strategy, where the stadium becomes secondary to what surrounds it.
That evolution has a familiar name: The Jerry World model.
From Stadiums to Districts: The “Jerry World” Shift
For decades, stadium deals were built around a simple idea. The stadium itself was the asset, and everything else was secondary.
That idea no longer holds.
The modern NFL business model is centered on land control and continuous activity, not just game-day attendance. Teams have learned that the real value is not in filling seats eight or nine times a year, but in creating destinations that generate revenue year-round.
This shift is often traced back to AT&T Stadium, often referred to as “Jerry World”, home of the Dallas Cowboys and owned by longtime franchise owner Jerry Jones. While the stadium itself became an icon, its more important legacy was strategic. It showed owners that a stadium could anchor concerts, tours, corporate events, and non-football programming at scale.
Since then, franchises have pushed the model further.
Today’s goal is not just a multipurpose stadium, but a team-controlled district. Restaurants, bars, hotels, retail, and entertainment venues are designed to capture spending before, after, and entirely outside of game days. The stadium becomes the centerpiece of a broader ecosystem rather than the sole source of revenue.
Tools like STAR bonds fit so naturally into the picture. They are designed for places where spending is constant and activity compounds over time. The more successful the district, the stronger the financing model becomes.
From an ownership perspective, the logic is simple. Ticket revenue is capped. Media rights are shared. Surrounding development is not. Controlling the district allows teams to capture upside that traditional stadium economics never offered.
Once franchises start thinking this way, priorities shift. Land matters more than seating capacity. Tax structure matters more than architectural prestige. And policy alignment becomes as important as fan loyalty.
This framework now drives negotiations across the league. And it explains why the Bears are approaching their next move the way they are.
From the Chicago Bears to the ‘Indiana Bears?
The Chicago Bears are not exploring Indiana because they want to leave Chicago. They are doing it for the same reason the Chiefs looked across a state line. They are searching for a structure that matches how NFL franchises now create value.
For years, the Bears’ stadium discussions were framed around a single building. Where it should sit. Who should pay for it. How much public funding was acceptable. The Bears’ long-term vision has never been just a stadium. It has been a team-controlled district.
Arlington Heights, and now Indiana, represent opportunities to control land at scale. That control allows for restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues, and year-round programming that extends far beyond game days. In other words, the same district-driven model that Kansas offered the Chiefs.
The friction with Illinois has not been about football or fan support. It has been about uncertainty, property tax treatment, legislative timing, and infrastructure commitments. For a multibillion-dollar mixed-use development, ambiguity is costly, even if public subsidies are limited.
Indiana’s interest changes the leverage dynamic. Like Kansas, it signals a willingness to align policy with modern stadium economics. Even if the Bears never move, the presence of a credible alternative reshapes negotiations.
That is the key parallel. The Bears do not need to threaten relocation to gain leverage. They only need to demonstrate that another state understands the business model better.
Once that option exists, the conversation shifts from emotion to structure. And at that point, the outcome depends less on tradition and more on which jurisdiction is prepared to move decisively.
Why States Are Suddenly Competing This Hard
Zooming out, the pattern is clear. This is not about sports loyalty. It is about states competing for major economic development.
Modern stadium districts generate far more than game-day revenue. Restaurants, hotels, retail, concerts, and tourism create ongoing economic activity, and that activity is what states are trying to capture.
That explains the growing use of targeted tools like STAR bonds. These structures allow states to support development without large upfront taxpayer commitments, tying repayment to performance within the district rather than the broader tax base.
Interstate competition accelerates the process. When one state signals speed and flexibility, neighboring states feel pressure to respond. No administration wants to explain why a high-profile project crossed a state line, even if the team never truly leaves the region.
For teams, this creates leverage. For states, it creates urgency. Negotiations shift away from whether a project should happen and toward who is willing to structure it effectively.
Thank you for reading, and happy holidays!
