Part 2: Economic Impact: A Look Behind the Curtain

Jamie Sabbach, President & Principal, 110% Inc.

February 2026

When Public Risk Grows and Private Control Remains

This article is the second part of an ongoing examination of how economic impact narratives shape public investment decisions and what they often leave unsaid. Part 1 can be accessed here.

Image Credit: Colorado Eagles

For years, economic impact has been used to justify large public investments—first in recreation and tourism, and increasingly in projects positioned as regional catalysts. The logic is familiar: activity equals prosperity; visibility equals value. 

That framing is now being applied to far larger and more consequential investments: professional and semi-professional sports facilities. 

Across the country, stadium proposals are being presented as engines of growth, sources of civic pride, and signals that a community is “moving forward.” The numbers are large. The renderings are polished. The urgency is real. 

But the financial structure beneath these proposals has not meaningfully changed. 

In Greeley, CO, voters are being asked to support publicly funded infrastructure tied to a minor-league hockey arena and adjacent mixed-use development, framed as an economic catalyst. In the Chicago region, the Chicago Bears are advancing plans for a multi-billion-dollar stadium complex that depends on significant public financial participation, including taxpayer-funded infrastructure, site preparation, and long-term public obligations to make the project viable. 

The scale differs. The framework does not. 

Local governments are being asked to finance roads, utilities, parking, and site development, and to absorb long-term infrastructure and capital replacement costs—while teams and private partners retain control over revenues, scheduling, branding, and future negotiations. 

This imbalance is not incidental. It is structural. 

The Policy Contradiction We Keep Ignoring

What makes this moment particularly difficult to reconcile is timing. 

Many of these proposals are advancing while states and local governments are: 

• Capping tax rates 

• Reducing operating budgets 

• Freezing hiring 

• Deferring maintenance on existing infrastructure 

• Narrowing service levels in parks, public works, and other quality-of-life systems 

  
  

In Indiana, constraints such as Senate Enrolled Act 1 (SEA 1) style tax caps, which restrict how much local governments can collect from property taxes even as costs continue to rise, are forcing communities to confront hard limits. Similar pressures exist nationwide.

Communities are being told, often explicitly, that there is not enough fiscal capacity to sustain what already exists. Yet those same communities are being asked to assume new, permanent public financial obligations tied to assets they do not fully control. 

This is not a debate about whether sports matter. It is, however, a debate about who assumes the risk and who is rewarded. 

Kansas City: When the Public Said No

There is a recent example that complicates the assumption that communities will always accept these terms. 

In 2024, voters in Kansas City overwhelmingly rejected a public funding package that would have extended a sales tax to finance a new stadium and major renovations for the Kansas City Chiefs. This was not a narrow outcome. Despite deep civic loyalty and sustained success on the field, residents declined to take on additional long-term public financial obligations. 

The vote was notable not because the project lacked excitement, but because voters weighed competing priorities—aging infrastructure, public services, affordability—and chose fiscal clarity over emotional attachment. 

What followed was equally instructive. 

Rather than restructuring the deal to assume greater private financial risk, the Chiefs began exploring relocation options across the state line in Kansas, where public incentives appeared more favorable. 

Kansas City’s decision revealed a truth often left unstated in stadium debates: when communities are unwilling or unable to absorb long-term public exposure, teams retain mobility. Public entities are permanent; franchises are not. 

Kansas City did not reject sports, pride, or identity. It rejected the idea that economic impact alone justified the obligation being proposed. 

Economic Impact vs. Fiscal Exposure 

Economic impact studies attached to stadium projects tend to emphasize: 

• Visitor spending 

• Hotel stays 

• Construction activity 

• Regional visibility 

  
  

What they rarely quantify with equal clarity is: 

• Net public revenue after exemptions, rebates, and revenue sharing 

• Lifecycle capital replacement costs 

• Ongoing operating subsidies 

• Opportunity cost—what those public dollars could have been used for instead 

  
  

As with recreation facilities, only a fraction of total spending returns to public budgets. The remainder must be absorbed year after year, often by the same taxpayers already experiencing service reductions in other areas. 

This is prioritization—whether acknowledged or not. 

The Question Communities Must Ask 

The most responsible question is not whether a stadium is popular, symbolic, or exciting. 

It is this: Why are communities being asked to permanently subsidize projects they do not control and from which they receive only limited direct benefit? 

If the answer is visibility, prestige, or fear of losing a team, then those motivations should be stated plainly along with their trade-offs. 

Jamie Sabbach is President & Principal with 110% Inc., a consulting firm which focuses on ethical decision making, adaptive leadership, and the financial sustainability of public parks and recreation. She can be reached at jsabbach@110percent.net.