Chase Field opened in 1998, the year of the Diamondbacks’ inception, and has long drawn praise from the baseball community. But if the D-backs have it their way, it may not be their home for much longer, as Craig Harris of the Arizona Republic reports.
In a letter to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, President and CEO Derrick Hall argued that there is no reasonable recourse for the club but to “pursue other stadium options.” The problem, from the club’s perspective, is that the Maricopa County Stadium District — the board-controlled entity that owns the park — has failed to honor its alleged obligation to account for upwards of $187MM in maintenance and repair costs through 2027.
Hall puts it in even more dramatic terms in a statement released by the club today. “This spiral is insurmountable,” he said, apparently referring to the lack of funding for capital improvements, “and will result in a Chase Field that will no longer be a state-of-the-art facility as our agreement requires and may, in fact, become unsuitable for continued use. We cannot risk being put in that position.”
Even if that funding was available, however, the D-Backs say it wouldn’t make sense to use it towards the current, 18-year-old ballpark. Therefore, the team concludes in its letter, a new facility is necessary. While the organization says it strongly prefers to build in Phoenix, it also warns that it willing to “go elsewhere” to find an arrangement to its liking.
Of course, the contract at issue does not permit the team to pursue alternative stadium sites until 2024. While contending that the stadium district has ceded that right by breaching the contract, the club also requests authorization to explore alternatives — a request that has already been denied — under threat of pursuing court action.
Clearly, these maneuvers have set up a political and legal battle over the future home of the franchise. As Harris notes, the city’s hockey and basketball teams are also angling for new public commitments relating to their facilities, so there’s a broader picture at play here.
The Diamondbacks recently locked up a big new TV contract, ultimately dedicating over $200MM of that expected revenue flow to Zack Greinke. But new taxpayer-funded stadiums have long been another popular — yet highly controversial — means of boosting teams’ bottom lines yet further. The Braves’ shocking move out of downtown Atlanta provides a recent model, as Turner Field opened two years before Chase; the D-Backs’ letter calls that decision “economically efficient and responsible.”
Connor Byrne co-authored this post.
This is probably my only issue with MLB. Owners demanding taxpayers fork over money to give them a ballpark. It’s welfare for the rich.
Or, the owners could move the team and take all the sales tax dollars and the property taxes on the land and all the taxes for all the jobs that are created by the ball park.
Political suicide for lawmakers to not make it happen to help keep the team in town.
That’s just not true. Its been proven time and again that sports franchises do not bring money to a city.
You’re looking at it logically. Fans don’t care if they bring money. They care about teams. I consider myself to be a logical person, but if the Tigers moved out of Detroit, I’d never forgive those responsible, and therefore wouldn’t give them my vote.
You’re a good case as a fan. Not that the Tigers are leaving Detroit proper..not with that gorgeous park or such intense fans. But it’s conceivable they’d want to move out someplace north. I mean, if the city of Detroit hasn’t given a business reason to relocate, no other city can complain.
You are 100% correct. People have a budget for entertainment spending. If they don’t go to the ballgame, they will go to a movie, go out to eat, shopping, golf, etc. Pay for your own freaking stadium.
I cannot believe they are already asking for a new park. Disgraceful.
I’d say that most families don’t actually even have a financially sound entertainment budget….VISA is paying for a ridiculous amount of items. Consumer debt load is a big issue…and it’ll be very big for many of these young people in the parks now downing $9 beer. The student loans come due at some point…families start…something has to go…and it could be baseball.
This is so true. If a law were passed where sports tickets cannot be purchased via credit cards – sports teams would fold.
In this day and age with professional teams, no sport deserves any taxpayer funded assistance.
The city of Tampa and the deal they gave to the Glazers for Raymond James stadium should sit as the litmus test for wealthy owner theft to a community..
Our economy over the past 30 years has been expanded on consumer debt. Ask yourself how people have more and are being paid commensurately less than 30-40 years ago.
Sure…teams in 1950 might draw a million fans…but those coffers had bills in them.
What’s your evidence of this? The only comprehensive study I’ve seen concluded that new ballparks have a neutral, if not negative effect on the local economy. The money spent on sporting events would be substituted and spent elsewhere without a team thus having a limited effect on taxes and would create jobs in other industries. Which would likely have a more positive impact on a local economy because it would transfer wealth across a broader spectrum then a sports franchise. Not to mention, most jobs created by a ball park are mostly seasonal, low paying jobs. Also, most often the city or state owns the stadium so there’s no property tax gained and the taxpayers actually have to spend money for maintenance as is the case in this situation.
Agree.. It all depends on how ‘point to point’ the study wants to be. The real local tax revenues go far beyond the ‘ballpark’ itself and tax revenues from ‘games’ themselves. The real value also extends beyond the ‘hotel’, restaurant, car rental, airport taxes for ‘game days’.
professional team’s do define and extend a city’s public and professional ‘brand’ which ties back to its ability to attract the large and small conferences (and all the hotel, restaurant, car rental, airport, taxi, tourism, etc revenues), create venues for concerts/public events/monster trucks/etc (and all the direct/indirect revenues associated), create spring/summer/winter tourism dollars (and all the revenues associated), enable which is typically undesirable property (stadiums are rarely built on farmland) into beautiful, multi functional, revenue generating operation.
The construction, post construction (maintenance and operations), community jobs are massive. Funny how studies anise always try and build ‘up’ the value to a community. Studies don’t the other way around and evaluate what happens when teams leave a medium size market or what is left behind when a team leaves one community (eg city) for another suburban community.
Anyway… This is a more complex conversation that people portray it. The decision/’economic value’ of tearing down old Yankee stadium or Boston garden and building ‘next door’, is a very different financial model than the New Jersey nets leaving behind one community for Brooklyn … Than if the Warriors would move from Sacramento to Santa Clara …
As long as the design, operation (of the business of running a venue) and the degree of infrastructure designed to support the stadium are done ‘with a business mindset’ the city wins in spades. If you want to treat the stadium as a ‘stadium’ ‘construction’ project you can, you just wind up with what the Brewers have: a great (and yes expensive) ‘destination’ stadium that leverages nothing that it could have (this is a great example of ‘not’ thinking about how to make the stadium (justified for the Brewers) self sufficient ‘without’ the primary purpose ..
Look at the leverage the cardinals get from their stadium before games, after games, the role the stadium (and all the restaurants, hotels etc) plays to enhance ‘outsiders’ perception of St. Louis… Same for Indianapolis and Lucas stadium… What the Ricketts are doing with wrigleyville … Etc.
There is absolutely a right and a wrong way to ‘leverage’ the concept of a new stadium and for a city to ‘give away’ (pay for) the stadium with tax breaks/bonds, but also to ‘think business’ at the same time and make sure they maximize the structure into the centerpiece of a business …
I have seen that study. And while is otherwise pretty good, it makes a huge assumption that people would continue to spend the money locally. Sports fans want to spend money on sports. Some, but not all of them might still go to the restaurant or the movies in the area. But others use their money to travel to see the sporting events they want. It has a huge impact on the area the stadium is located.
Phoenix and the area around the stadium will lose income if the D-backs move to Gilbert, Glendale, or other suburb. The area overall will experience a neutral impact. IF the D-backs moved to Mexico City, there would be a mild drop off initially, then it would stabilize, though the area around Chase Field will likely see significant negative effect.
I hardly think that a single study proves anything. I believe the study was done by a liberal economist who doesn’t think any business has much of an impact on a city’s economy. No one business is going to make or break a large city’s economy, whether it’s a sports team or other corporation. That doesn’t mean there’s no impact.
I believe San Francisco had the best model for park construction. Publicly gifted land with private stadium construction. If the parks are worth building economically, then let the owner build them. Most, if their honest, would like that control.
As far as tax revenue is dispersed. I’d say that the St. Louis example is solid. That might be one city/county that would miss quite a bit of revenue if the park were not downtown. Quite a bit of tourist and largely suburban upper middle class income is dropped in the county proper that would actually be spent elsewhere. How the park changes the view of St. Louis? I’m not sure…because the Cardinals themselves are so linked to the city. St. Louis just has so much else working against it right now on a larger tourist scale. Detroit is maybe more extreme. It’s an eastern Michigan regional team. Kansas City much the same….I’d venture a guess that the majority of their top tier spenders are coming from Johnson County KS….
Wrigley is just amazing…its a circus…the community is a circus around there. It’s a national park for all intents and purposes.
I think the real question is in a capitalist society do we allow corporations to pay their own way, without sacrificing public funds. A baseball park is miniscule to what we have with Wal-Mart.
Fellas, I just wanted to stop in say……..Kudos!
I enjoyed reading all of your opinions. They were all intelligent, on point, and well written. Even with a disagreement here and there, you all kept moving forward and not once did any of you come close to let it slipping into a typical message board debate.
As for myself, I believe there is no universal model that fits all. Teams and cities must find a scenario that benefits both. What disgusts me is the attitude owners of “at best mediocre franchises” have these days. Being from St. Louis and dealing with the Rams might have left me jaded, but I really feel for the fans in Arizona right now. They are set to begin a very long process that will test the limits of their love for their team. After 4 years of going through this exact situation with the Rams, I was just glad it ended. No matter the result. I find it interesting though that these sorts of issues with teams, cities, and stadiums don’t seem to happen as often with successful franchises.
Brian, take heart knowing you’re in one or the few absolute baseball cities and regions. For all the backlash toward their self proclaimed “best fans in baseball”…they truly are very good. I’ve had good experience there. I saw Reggie Sanders cheered for by simply hustling after a pop foul. Very similar to KC fans, actually. I haven’t been in Busch since late in the last decade. I was there the day Mark Reynolds set the single season strike out record for the dbacks.
You being connected to St. Louis will understand this, but in the Midwest and near west…we really are dealing with regional teams. It’s the reason KC had the turf for all those years. People would load up in central kansas and drive 4 hours to a game and then have to turn around and drive back after a rain out. Some regions people couldn’t grasp the travel distance involved. It’s be like people in NY loading up and going to a Red Sox game and returning the same night after the game. This happens all summer for teams like the Royals or Cardinals.
No doubt. That whole BFIB thing is ridiculous. Someone in the media spawned it, and it spiraled from there. Real Birds fans here HATE that saying. It’s the complete opposite of what we stand for. I was at Busch on Father’s Day for Griffen Jr.’s 500th Hr. He took Morris to the warning track his first 2 AB’s, leaving us foaming at the mouth. He crushed the 3rd one and the place went crazy. So much so that when they asked Morris about it, he said “Well, I guess I’m the 500th pitcher to make that mistake, but I’m glad the fans enjoyed it.” He was not pleased. We love the Royals too. I was thrilled to see them close it out. They’ve played great baseball the last few seasons.
It’s just reading about this makes me really feel for the fans there. They will get lost in this. The lies, the false reports of what’s going to happen, and so on. This will be on a daily basis for years. It’s a stress test gone horribly wrong. The worst part is knowing that as a fan there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That and the feeling of being forgotten about.
Red_Line_9, I’m guessing you’re from Kansas City? If you’ve heard of that proposed state bill by Allen Curtis about making the Cardinals the official team of Missouri, please know that’s some idiot state senator thinking that will get him votes. Absolutely nothing to do with the Birds or the fans. It’s embarrassing. This twit sits on 5 different committees and his district is North County. This is the area that has made us a national topic the last few years and needs serious politicians representing it in the state legislature. If this bill is what’s most important to this guy, he should be impeached.
Brian, I’m not actually from KC but I grew up in Kansas…I can’t even really claim to be a KC fan…even though their tradition runs deep in my family…all the way back to the KC A’s. It’s family basically.
I wouldn’t know anything about a house bill due to being on the other side of KC. I lived in Iowa for 8 years and recently relocated back to KS.
Actually, I did lose the horrific 7 team black out in Iowa on mlbtv…but now KC is the only team I can’t watch. I spent years in baseball, and am a general fan of the game. I do enjoy watching the Mariners late and interacting on their game thread..so yeah, I’m a Mariners fan.
When I was growing up KC didn’t even have a.broadcasting deal. If you wanted to see George Brett…you had to go to KC. I was a Cubs fan due to WGN…but I’ve always had so many Cards as my all time favorites….from Pepper Martin and the gas house gang down to Darrell Porter and Willie Mcgee. My parents were there at Busch on Opening day 83 when they got their rings. My oldest sons first game was at the old Busch.
Brian, I speculate the Dbacks aren’t trying to relocate anywhere but elsewhere in the Phoenix area. The market for relocation is fairly saturated.
I know they do have fans, even though that’s been a.struggle as so many new people that have moved in have kept their old allegiances. Dbacks have been notoriously the team with the least Facebook “likes” for whatever that matters.
Study after study has shown that what you wrote just isn’t true. Taxpayer-funded stadiums are massive losers for the community at large.
If everybody refuses to give corporate welfare, then there would be little to no political incentive to move elsewhere.
No political incentive, but I could see owners having economic incentive. Phoenix might not be the actual best location in the area for the stadium.
This is what happened to the sonics
So the Dbacks……who don’t sell out games (25k/game) want a new “state of the art” stadium. The board still has 11 years to spend less than $187M in improvements. But yeah….give them a new stadium because they extremely overpaid for Greinke and depleted the farm for Shelby Miller. Chase Field is a really nice stadium.
You’re very wrong on both of those evaluations
Don’t just comment that someone is wrong. State your reasoning.
Call their bluff. That franchise isn’t moving anywhere.
Agreed. They’re not going anywhere and Chase Field is still young and beautiful.
Two of the best stadiums in MLB are Fenway Park and Wrigley Field (before the upgrades last year anyway which I do not like at all) and they are both over 100 years old. Now teams are wanting new stadiums after less than 20 years. A stadium should last a team a minimum of 40-50 years. No it won’t necessarily be state of the art, but nostalgic sells just as well as modern, better in some cases. It’s a lot harder for fathers and sons to enjoy the game the same as earlier generations because the stadium that the dad spent time as a kid is not the same that the son is spending time in now in many cases. But I guess greed is what this sport is all about now and my opinion will just seem like that of an old foagie so I’ll just stop.
I disagree. Angel Stadium has been open since the 60s and there’s nothing nostalgic about it. If a team is not making as much money or providing the experience they think they’re capable of, they should look for a new stadium. Now, receiving large portions of public funding for these stadiums is a whole other issue…
Not to you, but some people might have a nostalgic feeling about it. My old elementary school that closed down just looks like an old decrepit building to most people, but to me there is a lot of memories in that old run down building. I’m sure there are some dads that watched an ALCS game in 1982 with their dad that are enjoying sharing a similar experience in the same place with their sons now.
But either way, Angel Stadium is not the problem anyway because it is old enough that replacing it would not be crazy. I’m not completely unreasonable with regards to new stadiums and I do agree that not every stadium is going to as good as others with the passage of time, but replacing a stadium after 18 years is just flat out greedy.
The only real case right now that I could jump behind for a new stadium….without knowing all the capital expenditures discussion….is US Cellular. The White Sox could see a seismic shift in popularity and revenue with a well planned and located city ballpark. Comiskey was old and worn, but they lost some soul after it was demolished.
I’ve lived in Illinois my whole life, and have been to more Cubs games than I can count. Wrigley was a huge pile of crap for the longest time. I’m only now interested in going back after the renovations to see if anythings really changed. Fenway keeps up with it’s upkeep. Wrigley sure didn’t seem to until just recently. You wanna see a nice park? Go check out Busch Stadium. It’s beautiful.
Just my 2c and opinion from nearly 40y ago regarding Fenway…
Beautiful ballpark, horrible seating with regards to both RF and LF box seating. Cramped and terribly hard foldout wooden seats. Not been back since ’77 (there from ’72-78 on yearly trips) so no idea since.. Rest of park was charming and nostaligic. Pressbox seating for journalists was fine, unless Yanks were in town and then not enough for them.
OK, if I ever decide to go to a ball game to admire the stadium, but I go to see ONLY the game. It makes no difference to me if it’s a well-mowed and manicured cow pasture with a hand-operated scoreboard or a stature of the art stadium. I want to see the game and only the game.
Only 18 years old and they already want a new park, just goes to show you what a timeless wonder Fenway Park is.
Don’t be too proud. While I agree Fenway is a great ballpark, if there were any space to build a new stadium in Boston, Fenway would’ve been gone years ago.
Yeah, like there is absolutely no space at all in Boston to build a new ball park.
Fenway will get wrecking balled at some point, don’t you worry 🙂
Pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
Red Sox fans love Fenway because of the history and nostalgia. I’ve been to all 30 ballparks and put Fenway in at 19th. I have Chase at 25th. They build the new stadiums with things people want. Red Sox fans will pass up all the amenities because of their fondness for the ballpark but it’s not that way for fans of most other teams.
You should make us a list! Or at least your Top 5 ballparks please. 🙂
(And Bottom 5)
My top 6 were Petco, AT&T, Turner, Citizens Bank, PNC, and Citi. They were pretty close. My bottom 4 were Wrigley, Globe Life, Dodger, and Tropicana. O.co was just above that because they had pretty good food and beer.
I’m sure people will dispute this, but it’s just my opinion.
It’s your list..doesn’t matter what people think. I’ve been in most, and I’ll say that AT&T is the overall package. Wrigley is overated, and some not nearly as charming as it was in the 80s-90s.
Hard for me to discount KC…its what I grew up with. Nothing fake retro about it, built during the bowl movement…just a pure baseball park.
I can’t even rate Tropicana. They are stuck out of time there…but it oddly had some charm…and the Rays draw the youngest crowd I’ve seen…maybe because the park is keeping the destination yuppies away. Same would apply to Oakland…which was a fun park back before the Raiders moved back in.
deciate?
Whoops, fixed.
Is there a franchise more delusional than the Dbacks?
Chase Field is a giant warehouse. Maybe they wouldn’t have these problems if they just built a baseball park and not a mall.
Exactly. The nicest thing I can say about Chase is that it’s not Tropicana Field.
It’s really a matter of personal preference; I’ve been to 15 stadiums throughout the country and I would not call Wrigley one of the best. Don’t get me wrong it’s a neat experience, but not a park I’d contemplate visiting again. Been to Chase too, it’s rather modern. The D’Backs have lost their minds.
$187 million to invest over the next twelve years isn’t reasonable…but paying 3-4 times that much for a new state-of-the-art stadium is…well, the public (rather, the automatons they elected to “represent” them) will cough up the money.
In my state, we watched the governer throw 8+ million dollars into a new stadium for the Rams, and the owner left for LA anyway.
I guess everything, even baseball, gets tainted with politics eventually.
I will be going for the 1st time in a few weeks and will be interested to compare it to Safeco. From what I have seen looks like a nice place.
Can we please pass a federal law banning cities from giving any money or resources of any kind, including special consideration favors, or anything else, to sports franchises, owners of sports franchises, or anyone who works or operates for a sports franchise past or present?
It is ridiculous to allow this nonsense to continue. We all know it is a scam, and it is hurting the tax payers.
Exactly. Billionaires shouldn’t be receiving welfare from taxpayers.
I don’t think you’ll find many cities who want the Federal government to tell them what to do with their tax dollars, but assuming they did want to give up self-government, would you limit it to sports franchises? Boston gave General Electric $145 million incentives to move their corporate offices there.
Ah, billionaires trying to fleece taxpayers in order to line their own pockets.
Totally ridiculous. If the San Francisco Giants can privately construct a stadium so can every other sports team in the United States.
EXACTLY!!!
Heres me issue with this whole thing. First off after some decent research looking into Ken Kendricks Net worth I have come with a conservative estimate of close to 1 billion dollars. The dbacks alone are worth close to 500 million. He owns a large tech company, has one of the worlds largest and most valuable card collections. What I really hear is this (we just spent 206 mil on Grenkie I want to try to recoup my losses/investment anyway I can) this wasn’t an issue that the public was aware of till right now. The timing is pretty convenient. Don’t get me wrong if the contract states that Maricopa county is supposed to pay it then they should, but this is pretty lame to go public now trying to enrage us Maricopa county citziens and Dback fans about the whole issue.. I love the Dbacks but if they leave Downtown I wont be going to any more games and wont renew my season tickets..
And if they move they’ll replace you with TWO paying season ticket holders. Owners do not care about the fans, and largely never have. In the day when ticket sales were the prime source of income…they were forced to cater to fans. Now with tv…they WANT most to stay home and watch the game and the advertising. The park has become a corporate perk or a place for the wealthy. Most families can’t even afford a day in the nosebleed seats.
So it’s not just the players, like Greinke, that are greedy prima donnas. Who would’ve thought.? The poor (both figuratively and literally) are always the ones who get it up the ass. Not just via taxes but also through the inevitable ticket price increases that will happen in their new state of the art stadium. Man, the rich really do keep getting richer. Gotta keep ’em happy.
For quite some time now, I have made an effort to not let ridiculous 10yr/$200+ million contracts, $75 tickets, and $9 beers affect my love of the best sport mankind has to offer. This becomes more difficult every year. An 18 year old stadium is out of date? I wish I could unread this article.
Baseball truly has a bleak future, because so few get to experience it.
At least you can watch all the games on TV now, and not bother going to the stadium.
18 years and looking for a new stadium ? What a joke! How can 18 years have passed and a stadium now be needed? What is state of the art at this point really mean? Is the scoreboard outdated? The sushi stand that Safeco has isn’t included? If I were a tax payer I’d tell them to go. Then hope a franchise moves in in the future? It’s not like the Diamondbacks have a rich history there? Grabbing someone by the private parts and threatening to move really doesn’t work on a team that started up in 1998. Move away,,, what city will offer them a stadium ? Portland? The grass is always greener.
Don’t think it would be Portland. I believe they voted down building a stadium a few years ago. It would need to be a growing metro area of at least two million and enough affluent people to be excited about it. Think San Antonio, somewhere in NC, maybe Vegas, baby!
I honestly think they are talking about relocating within the area, much like the Braves did.
Snakes (an apt nickname) should just sue to get the county to spend any agreed-upon money in the contract.
So sick and tired of team owners demanding taxpayer money to build ballparks. If the want public money they should give the public a share in team ownership. Of course that won’t happen because then the wouldn’t be able to extort money in the future.
MLB won’t allow it, but we could use more Green Bay model ownership. I honestly feel that we’re heading for a player owned league before it’s all said and done…might be 2050…but it’s coming.
18 year old stadium. Absolute waste of resources if this is not worked out and the D-Backs move. These stadiums should last 50 years minimum. Nothing more than a money grab.
Are they constructed for that? If they are built anything like modern housing, we’ll be lucky to see 30.
What I think is happening now is we’re seeing owners flushed with cash trying to build their own smaller stadiums that further cater to their upscale clients. It’s essentially the NFL model…where the majority of fans don’t actually attend games. It’s a mistake longterm, but they get their money while it’s there. Better just hope that the sons and daughters of business execs at the game on corporate perk become fans in the future…cause the vast majority of children aren’t becoming baseball fans…not even on a recreational sense. They’ll spend their free cash elsewhere.
Note the large catchers mitt, palm upward, ready to receive the taxpayer subsidies it so richly deserves. By all means, create a pleasure palace to replace the slum that is 1998 construction. Raise taxes, cut cops, sanitation, libraries, schools to pay for it. It’s the owners right to demand this. You can’t ask them to abide by their leases or pay for it by themselves. That would be so…..capitalist.
the people of AZ should tell them to stick it up their a$$
Baseball is a $9b industry. I think it’s time MLB and the team owners fund their own money factories.
Can the A’s move into Chase Field?
This is getting ridiculous! First the Braves, now the D’Backs (as well as the NFL’s Rams). These ballparks should be lasting around 40 years, not 20! Just sue them for the money they owe you and use it to properly maintain your still relatively young ballpark.
Most reasonable people should understand the desire of the Braves for a new stadium, even though Turner Field is only 20 years old. It was originally built for the 1996 Olympics, so it was not designed from the ground up to be a baseball stadium. Therefore, it is not as good as a baseball stadium as most of the other parks built during its time. By building a new stadium that is designed and built from the ground up as a baseball facility, they can obtain a truly ideal facility.
Also, the population of the Atlanta metropolitan area has grown substantially in the past 51 years, since the Braves moved to Georgia in 1966. The Braves, through the use of geospatial mapping and data analysis, determined where the largest percentage of their fans were living, and decided to build their new stadium in that area.
A physical building may be built to remain physically standing 20, 50, 100 years or longer, but technological changes occur at far faster rates. For example, in 1996 homes and businesses were just starting to use the Internet, few people had cellphones, and smartphones and WiFi weren’t even in existence. Thus, a 20=year-old facility, unless it is extensively renovated, will not have all of the technological innovations that are found in a brand-new facility.
I smell a bully named LaRussa