Kansas Pursues Super Bowl Champs and Royals with Stadium Financing Plan
Kansas has taken bold steps towards becoming the new home for the reigning Super Bowl champions, the Chiefs, and Major League Baseball’s Royals. On Tuesday, bipartisan legislative supermajorities greenlit a measure to issue state bonds aimed at funding new stadiums and practice facilities for both teams on the Kansas side of the 2.3 million-resident metropolitan area, which straddles the Missouri border. The Chiefs, having secured three Super Bowl wins in five years and enjoying star player Travis Kelce’s high-profile relationship with pop sensation Taylor Swift, are central to the region’s pride and identity.
The legislation, spearheaded by the Republican-controlled Legislature, now awaits approval from Democratic Governor Laura Kelly. While Governor Kelly has not committed to signing the bill, she emphasized that Kansas could significantly enhance its status as a hub for professional sports.
Both the Chiefs and the Royals have expressed openness to exploring opportunities in Kansas. Although their lease at the Missouri complex, featuring adjacent stadiums, runs until January 2031, both franchises acknowledge the necessity of planning for their future.
“This development is a game-changer,” remarked Korb Maxwell, an attorney for the Chiefs and a Kansas resident, following the bill’s passage at the Statehouse. “The potential is immense.”
The legislative push in Kansas follows Missouri voters’ rejection in April of a local sales tax crucial for maintaining the current stadiums. Despite economic research suggesting minimal return on investment for public subsidies toward sports facilities, proponents of the plan moved forward swiftly, brushing off concerns about the pace and economic viability.
Missouri Governor Mike Parson’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment, while Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas pledged to present compelling alternatives to retain both teams in Missouri.
“Today’s decision was about leveraging our strengths,” Lucas remarked. “The teams hold a significant bargaining position.”
Some Kansas lawmakers, however, remain cautious about the deal’s terms and implications.
“I believe the Chiefs and Royals are using our state,” remarked State Representative Susan Ruiz, a Democrat from the Kansas City area.
The legislative vote in favor of the stadium financing plan was decisive, with 84-38 in the House and 27-8 in the Senate, drawing support from across the state, including regions far from the proposed stadium sites.
The plan allows state bonds to cover up to 70% of each new stadium’s cost, with funding to be repaid over 30 years through revenues generated from sports betting, lottery sales, and new taxes from shopping and entertainment districts around the stadiums.
Republican House Commerce Committee Chair Sean Tarwater emphasized that the Chiefs are expected to contribute between $500 million to $700 million in private funds towards their new stadium.
“There are clear financial boundaries,” Tarwater assured his colleagues.
The stadium proposal emerged during a special legislative session convened by Governor Kelly, initially called to address tax reduction measures after she vetoed three tax-cutting bills in May. Republican leaders had linked consideration of the stadium plan to approval of tax cuts totaling $1.23 billion over three years, believing it would appease taxpayers who might oppose public funding for stadiums without tax relief.
Despite debates over the plan’s fairness and economic impact, legislators who supported the measure argued that failure to act could drive the teams away from the Kansas City area.
State Representative Jason Probst, a Democrat, reflected on the urgency of the decision, despite reservations about its implications.
“We are navigating within a system that prioritizes business and wealth,” Probst noted. “However, this is the framework we operate in, and opting out would likely result in losses.”
Critics, including economists specializing in sports economics, caution that new stadiums and associated developments often redistribute existing economic activity without generating significant new revenue for communities.
“Ultimately, the impact could benefit Kansas while potentially harming Missouri to an equal extent,” observed Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College with expertise in sports economics.
State Senator Molly Baumgardner, a Republican representing the Kansas City area, used a holiday metaphor to express her skepticism about the plan’s perceived benefits before voting against it.
“In many ways, today’s excitement feels like dreaming of sugar plums,” Baumgardner remarked.