The latest stadium news from Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg was that he was standing by his $150 million contribution figure, but that it "could change" if season ticket, sponsorship, and other business partnerships exceeded the team's projections for a new stadium.
Exceeding the team's expectations seems like a longshot at this stage in the game, but it was a call to Tampa to put its money where its mouth is and start coughing up either stadium money or season-long commitments now. But Marc Topkins details:
The $150-million...allows them "to make a contribution, pay off our debt over 25 years – whatever it has to be – and still do what we want to do, which is put a more successful product on the field. … For us to be able to go in and break even again at a $65M payroll, it doesn't make sense. We want to be able to jump the payroll if we're taking that sort of risk."
$150 million, paid over 25 years, with tax-free municipal bonds, is only like $8-10 million a year. The Rays want to pay just $8-10 million a year for a new stadium.
That's what they're paying catcher WILSON RAMOS next year.
It's a good time to turn the clock back 6.5 years
to a Shadow of the Stadium post from 2011, "What Stu Sternberg is Thinking." An excerpt:
A new stadium could represent $200 million in value to the Rays, including tens of millions in revenue in each of the first few years. And while Sternberg would put a portion of that money into his own pocket, the rest would undoubtedly go back into the team, creating a better product for fans. He sees it as a win-win.
But the problem is that a new stadium would cost substantially more than $200 million. So Sternberg needs help.
While private developers may be eager to donate land for a new park, there’s no financial gain to be had from building the actual stadium for a team. That leaves a funding gap for a retractable-roof stadium of approximately $300 million.
The numbers may have grown due to inflation, and we honestly may never know what percentage of new revenues Sternberg will put toward payroll versus toward franchise investors. But one thing's for sure: that funding gap is monstrous and Hillsborough County still has no idea how to make up the difference in Tampa.
I really can't believe how easy some are making it for Stu Sternberg and the Rays to leverage taxpayers.
Days after I warned how the Rays' initial low-ball $150 million offer and inflated $800 million estimate on a stadium was designed to reduce the expectation of how much the team should ultimately contribute...the Tampa Bay Times dedicated its lead editorial to explaining how Tampa Bay should only expect Sternberg to contribute "in the $160-$280 million range," since "recent history shows the typical team paying 20 to 35 percent of the cost of a Major League Baseball stadium."
Except that figure includes incredibly unpopular and lopsided deals where teams screwed taxpayers, like the potentially-illegal, "worst sports stadium deal ever" in Atlanta where the Braves suggested taking on approximately half of their new stadium's cost, only to pile a hundred million dollars on taxpayers later, reducing their load significantly.
Or the Marlins' deal, which the Times' called "one of the most ridiculed deals in recent memory," before suggesting the team's 24% contribution to the stadium was a model to be copied.
By the way, how did the price jump to $800 million? The Oakland Athletics, the Rays' roommate at the bottom of baseball's attendance list, recently announced plans for a $500 million stadium that, get this, THEY WILL PAY FOR!
That's right. A team struggling nearly as much at the ticket counter as the Rays said its new home will be privately financed. That's how it should be.
Unfortunately, that won't be how it goes down in Tampa Bay.
For, as I've written since 2009, the whole Rays Stadium Saga (and almost every other pro team's stadium campaign) has been designed as a showdown between competing communities to see who will offer the team more money.
Except, Tampa doesn't have much to offer. So, expect a few more years of hardball negotiations, leveraging, and posturing - there's no happy ending to the Stadium Saga on the immediate horizon.
Tomorrow morning, Atlanta will blow up a perfectly-good stadium because, mostly, it has a roof that doesn't retract.
The stadium, fit to host Super Bowls and decades worth of SEC championships will be imploded after just 25 short years...once again proving that stadiums have pretty much zero equity (or in the case of Atlanta or Montreal's domes, negative equity) once a team decides its done playing there.
For a long time, stadiums were considered investments that would pay dividends for 40 or more years. That includes buildings such as Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium, and Dodger Stadium. Like a skyscraper, the facilities were simply built to last.
But the pressure on cities to "keep up with the Joneses" has slashed the perceived lifespan of a stadium in half, often eliminating the net benefits to the communities that spend huge amounts of money to build them.
Few pro teams stay in one place for more than a dozen years now without demanding more taxpayer-subsidized upgrades. And by the time a stadium turns 20, it's already time to plan its replacement.
New stadiums are more state-of-the-art than ever...which makes it all-the-more ironic that society feels the need to replace the half-billion-dollar buildings every 20 years.
Before you dismiss this as just crazy Georgians being Georgians...check out this 2010 Shadow of the Stadium post that suggests no city in America is safe from the 20-year-old itch: "Replace the Georgia Dome" Talk Troublesome
But then I realized the news of Stu Sternberg estimating the Rays would put only $150 million toward a new stadium in Tampa Bay was published Wednesday night.
That means the team seems to want to fund a smaller portion of a new stadium than they were in 2008, when they offered up the same $150 million for a less-expensive stadium in St. Pete. Adjusted for inflation, their 2017 opening bid is actually 13% less money than they were willing to spend ten years ago.
Longtime columnist Joe Henderson asked if Sternberg was joking. And one Pinellas County Commissioner reacted this way:
1) The funding gap is ENORMOUS; and maybe bigger than even this blog thought
Commissioner Ken Hagan has repeatedly said there would "never again be a sweatheart deal" like the one the Glazers got at Raymond James Stadium. Except, as this video shows, the Rays' stadium is likely to be WAY more expensive, even when adjusting the Buccaneers' 1998 haul for inflation:
There is no way Hillsborough (or even the deeper-pocketed Pinellas) is coming up with $650 million in public cash for a new stadium, so they two sides had better start hawking peanuts to private donors who may have a sweet spot for baseball.
2) Sternberg knows $650 million isn't happening
So why did he hit everyone with the sticker shock of $650 million this week?
Either because it's the next step in Sternberg's exit plan, finally coming clean that not even a new ballpark means significant new revenue unless someone else pays for it (as this blog has written dozens of times)...
And/or he's setting public expectations high - and his initial offering low - so that coughing up $350-400 million in public money later may seem like a deal. It's a topic this blog covered in 2016:
We should end the conversation about a retractable roof right now. The Marlins' don't use theirs, the region can't afford one, and the technology has come a long way since the Rays' last stadium foray in 2008.
But Sternberg knows there is no appetite to fund major subsidies for a new stadium in Tampa: not on Hillsborough's county commission, where four of seven commissioners have already spoken out against any tax funding for a stadium; not in Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn's office, where he just had to fight for a controversial tax increase to pay for basic city services and wastewater upgrades; and not in the statehouse, where several bills aim at banning all sorts of stadium subsidies and the biggest proponent of stadium investment, State Sen. Jack Latvala, is sitting on the sidelines as allegations of sexual misconduct play out.
So, I guess now in 2017, the team all of a sudden knows what kind of ballpark they want to build and generally what kind of revenues it can expect from it? Does that mean the Rays will finally be a little more forthcoming about financial issues?
Because three years ago...
Prez Auld paused when asked what #Rays will do to prevent a "Miami Marlins situation" in Tampa Bay - said they'll be nothing but transparent
Transparency has not been a priority here, and little has changed since I said this 12 months ago:
We know from the Marlins' new stadium that a new park, even in the wrong place, will increase a franchise's value by hundreds of millions. So c'mon Stu, show us the money.
Ken Hagan basically confirmed my theory Wednesday that he gave the news of the Ybor City proposed stadium site to a few friendly reporters - before his fellow commissioners, who said they were "embarrassed" by his secretive move - in order to screw "a reporter" who he believed had uncovered the news.
Hagan on #Rays announcement last month: "A reporter somehow got wind of it and I wanted to make sure it was properly rolled out."
So that was "properly," commissioner?
Actually, he admitted it wasn't Wednesday, promising he "will try to do a better job communicating," and essentially apologizing to Mayor Bob Buckhorn & Hillsborough commissioners for going all lone wolf on announcing his pet project...but he said it had nothing to do with influencing the St. Pete mayor's race, as some had suggested.
I actually believe him. Hagan wanted to screw me for this story, and make sure I didn't unveil his beautiful baby.
In fact, here's the exact moment when I told him I had public records he was willfully neglecting to turn over to me, in accordance with state law:
That moment when Ken Hagan realizes you have public records related to the #Rays he claimed didn't exist... pic.twitter.com/dF07ZtPg1X
Now granted, Hagan tried to keep his cool and didn't take time examining what exactly I was holding in my hand (it wasn't the land use agreements he feared it was)...but just a week later, he took his victory lap as the architect of the masterful Ybor deal.
Except the masterful deal forgot one thing: financing. And Hillsborough doesn't have any money for roads, let alone a new stadium. Oh, and Stu Sternberg said later on Wednesday the team would only be looking at a $150 million contribution to a stadium.
Good luck with that, commissioner. You now own that problem.
Oh, and a potentially bigger problem he also owns? Proof public documents existed that he seemingly refused to turn over - a possible criminal violation of state statutes.
The MLB owner/GM meetings are this week in Orlando, and for the first time since Ken Hagan announced the preferred Tampa site for a tug-of-war with St. Petersburg possible new Rays stadium, we will hear from Commissioner Rob Manfred.
Which of the following talking points should we expect Manfred to hit?
"We are encouraged by the progress..."
"Time is of the essence..."
"This issue is on our 'front-burner'..."
"Blah blah blah blah Montreal..."
"We look forward to hearing more about the offers on the table ($$$)..."
"We can't do this without the support of the community ($$$$$)..."
UPDATE: Manfred said Thursday,"There needs to be support from the community in order to be successful in completing it."
One thing's for sure - the next step in this process is MLB and the Rays seeing how much money they can extricate from public coffers. So unless Manfred is willing to shed some new light on how much is expected...or how much the league/team will put up...don't expect any real news to come out of this week's press conference.
Ten weeks after a razor-tight primary, two St. Pete mayors duked it out in a run-off for control over city hall for the next four years. And it appears Mayor Rick Kriseman will hold off former mayor, Rick Baker, by a two-to-three-point margin.
Of course, a mayor will leave many footprints on a city's legacy, but one significant influence that Kriseman will continue to have pertains to the future of the Tampa Bay Rays and Tampa Bay Rowdies, both of whom currently play in old St. Pete stadiums.
As I wrote this summer, St. Pete seems to be too small for two top-level teams, and Baker had been a natural ally of the Rowdies after quarterbacking their MLS 2 St. Pete campaign. Meanwhile, Kriseman has been a reliable partner to the Rays and already offered the team significant public dollars that would, at the very least, help them leverage more out of Hillsborough County if they aren't serious about sharing in the redevelopment opportunities at Tropicana Field (also explains why the Rays contributed more than $80,000 to Kriseman's campaign.
Now, with the election in the books, it would seem the next domino to fall in the Stadium Saga would belong to the Rays, who could call a press conference to discuss their next move (seeking money) as soon as this week. But that may not prove to be a pleasant - or brief - chapter in this saga.
Also newsworthy on Election Day in St. Pete - Gina Driscoll, who campaigned on an open approach to supporting and funding a new Rays stadium, beat out Justin Bean, who was a consultant on the Tropicana Field redevelopment project and said "no public funds" should be used for the stadium other than infrastructure and surrounding development.
In D2, Brandi Gabbard, who liked the idea of a Derby Lane stadium in North St. Pete, beat Barclay Harless, who promised "not one dime" for the Rays until the city gets its sewer problems under control. And in D4, incumbent Darden Rice, who has supported Kriseman's path on the Stadium Saga, knocked off 21-year-old challenger Jerick Johnson.
Ken Hagan, Hillsborough County's self-appointed stadium negotiator, has been working behind-the-scenes to get a deal done for the Rays. He even promised to brief everyone on his dealings 18 months ago:
But the same thing is happening in Tampa that happens in cities all over the country. Even though sunshine protects taxpayers, politicians go out of their way to keep their discussions private.
By foolishly thinking they can out-negotiate leagues that squeezes taxpayers for a living, many politicians only succeed in ensuring their legacy as pro sports' "sweethearts."
Hillsborough County's Ken Hagan surprised his fellow commissioners, county staffers, and probably even the Rays today, when he announced he had cobbled together 14 acres of land near Ybor City for a possible Rays stadium in Tampa.
It seemed most media outlets in town were called to his office, except mine, WTSP-TV. Shocker, really.
Here was other immediate reaction and perspective:
Interesting, but some big red flags: 1) only 15 acres, 2) land acquisition cost, 3) still no word on how Hillsborough/#Rays could pay for it https://t.co/3yNfsEnkr2
#Rays President Brian Auld pumps the breaks on proposed Ybor site, says team is continuing to evaluate all options, including in Pinellas. pic.twitter.com/ki9PX1Ganq
If the Rays are going to get a new stadium somewhere in Tampa Bay, it's clear from what local politicians and columnists are saying, it will cost taxpayers a pretty penny. But we've now seen several of them suggest local residents won't have to pay for the public subsidies.
Nonsense.
So here's a handy-dandy guide to how "not your tax dollars" really are your tax dollars, with some educated guesses as to how much each potential funding mechanism might contribute toward a new Rays stadium:
Hotel/bed taxes - $60-75 million: Your first hint that these are taxes? The word "tax" in the title. Yes, tourists tend to pay more of these than locals. And yes, state law restricts how you can use the dollars. But...
Despite what Hillsborough Co. leaders have tried to convince you, bed taxes CAN be used for more than just stadiums. They can be used for pretty much any event or capital expenditure that helps bring tourists to your county - often, more successfully than pro teams.
Earlier this year, I found at least $550,000 a year in items earmarked in the county’s general revenue budget that could be covered by the bed tax, freeing up general revenue tax money for roads, law enforcement, etc.
Land - $15-30+ million: Any public giveaway of land for a stadium is a taxpayer subsidy. Consider the opportunity cost taxpayers could be missing out on through other uses of that land:
If the city/county were to simply sell a developer 15-20 acres of prime real estate near Tampa's downtown, the project should conceivably net the county well north of $1M per acre.
Of course, any fee the county pays to acquire land will cost taxpayers too.
Then, there's the cost of relocating the facilities and/or residents that are currently there. For instance, the Tampa Park Apartments would require relocating hundreds of families. Or Hagan's idea of relocating the sheriff's office would mean tens of millions more for a new HCSO facility.
Future property tax growth/community redevelopment area (CRA) - $?? million: Also known as tax-increment financing (TIF), this method earmarks city and county general revenue property tax dollars within a defined district, to be used on special projects within that same area. The districts are specifically designed to cure blighted areas, and it is also somewhat limited in bonding capacity:
The biggest variable would be how the CRA is drawn. Some of Tampa's existing CRA's produce zero revenue, while others produce more than a million per year. This is why most CRA/TIF districts are pretty limited when it comes to future bonding capacities.
The only CRA currently producing significant revenue is the Downtown district, but the city and county have already committed $100 million from that CRA to Vinikville "Water Street Tampa" and surrounding development near Amalie Arena. So don't count on a new ballpark complex leaning on Vinik's money.
Again, these are REAL PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS that could go to pay for anything else the city or county needed: roads, cops, sewers, etc. And when the TIF district fails to produce the revenue projected, as they sometimes do, general revenue tax dollars typically have to make up the difference.
As Neil deMause recently wrote, incremental tax revenues "are generally pooh-poohed by economists as a subsidy by other means, since all evidence shows that entertainment spending in one part of a metropolitan area just ends up being cannibalized from somewhere else."
Politically speaking, Hillsborough Co. commissioners recently fought over a CRA designed specifically for transportation improvement - they couldn't agree, and the county still desperately needs transportation money. Oh, and the House Speaker is also trying to end CRAs, which could limit how much the county is able to actually bond out. So its far from a guaranteed source of revenue.
Entertainment district tax - $?? million: An additional sales tax could be added to bars, restaurants, and hotels within a special district, giving the Rays a way to capture revenue from private businesses adjacent to their park. But the city and county don't need a new ballpark to institute a new tax if they want new revenue; those funds could pay for important infrastructure or existing commitments like Water Street Tampa. Or any of the city's other pressing needs that require raising taxes. So directing new revenues toward construction bonds does, in fact, comes at the expense of other taxpayer needs. Oh, and ask Cincinnati what happens when you bank on sales taxes funding your stadium and the economy slows down.
Infrastructure considerations - $20-80 million: Hillsborough County has a problem in that it cannot afford the roads and transit it desperately needs. But committing to fund new roads and infrastructure around a Downtown/Ybor stadium would most certainly take away from the infrastructure needs elsewhere in the county.
Future development rights - $?? million: If Hillsborough County is to partner with the Rays, as St. Pete has proposed to do, any concession on future developments rights or revenues on public property is a taxpayer expense, even if it is deemed one with positive ROI.
Naming rights - $40-50 million: Forget about any benefit from naming rights to that public stadium - the teams are quick to insist these are their revenues, contributing to their bottom line; not the public's portion of stadium bills.
Rental car taxes - $?? million: It's been a while since it was suggested rental car taxes could be raised in Tampa to help pay for a new stadium, and the Hillsborough Aviation Authority has since raised the rental taxes twice to pay for airport expansion. So even if this is no longer a likely source of revenue, it's worth repeating that it could most definitely pay for other things around the community.
Terms of a lease - $?? million: Will the Rays pay the county fair market rent, like most private businesses do that work out of a public space? Because anything short of market value is a concession taxpayers are making at the expense of general revenue dollars. Also worth keeping an eye out what kind of concessions taxpayers may have to make when it comes to stadium maintenance - a secret subsidy that adds up if public officials aren't careful in negotiations.
Property tax breaks or "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILOTs) - $50+ million: Most businesses in Florida pay property taxes. When they don't, it comes at taxpayers' expense. And while there are various forms of the PILOT mechanism, they basically allow a team to skip out on paying property taxes, because of silly reasons like, "they're paying their construction bills instead" or "because they're good community stewards." If only we were all that lucky!
Sales tax concessions on construction - $20-30 million: When a developer constructs a building, he or she pays sale tax on the materials. But when pro teams build a stadium, they will often try to skirt paying those taxes by getting the municipality to purchase materials for them as a straw-buyer, tax-free. It's like a 16-year-old giving you money to buy him beer. It's just shouldn't be accepted.
Tax-exempt bonds (federal) - $50-150 million: Just like giving private businesses a free pass on paying sales taxes, governments will often take out tax-free bonds on stadium construction so they can secured at lower rates than private businesses have access to. They're a better deal for pro teams because the taxpayers aren't getting their due revenues on the transaction.
New Markets Tax Credits (federal) - $?? million: These federal subsidies, designed to incentivize private businesses to move to and invest in low-income "distressed" communities, can be tapped into in a creative way to benefit stadium development...without actually benefitting the communities the taxpayer is spending money to support.
Existing general tax revenues - $?? million: Do I even need to spell this one out? I shouldn't, but St. Pete has suggested spending several million dollars a year - on top of bed tax revenues and development rights - to keep the Rays in the 'Burg. Obviously, this money could be spent on police, roads, or sewers.
You may also hear about foreign investment EB-5 funding as a possible mechanism on a new stadium, but the program's capacity is somewhat limited...and it is short-term bonding only, not the 30-year kind of bonding that the county would prefer for such a large project.
All-in-all, there's a good chance taxpayers would have to help pay for much of a new Rays stadium one way or another. So don't believe elected leaders who promise there "won't be another sweetheart deal" like the Bucs got with Raymond James Stadium:
In the meantime, remember the important lesson Neil deMause has written about a million times: this conversation shouldn't be about “How can we get a new sports venue built?” - it should be about “What would make it worth our while to get a new sports venue built?”
Hillsborough Commissioner Ken Hagan is privately negotiating
with the Tampa Bay Rays for a potential new stadium near Ybor City. And even it seems the proposed stadium would include hundreds of millions of public tax dollars, Hagan has yet to reveal how many and how it would be funded. He also is taking campaign contributions from one of the men reportedly involved in selling the county land.
He also refuses to talk about it:
For the full investigation and background, visit WTSP.com.
Lots of interesting nuggets to share on the Rays' Stadium Saga...
Batting leadoff: you saw me tweet about the latest donations to State Senator/gubernatorial hopeful Jack Latvala, including the Tampa Bay Rays & Miami Dolphins.
Why do pro teams love Latvala? In addition to his attempts to provide them stadium subsidies, he's also the biggest thing standing in the way of a House push to ban public land giveaways for new stadiums in Florida. A bill attempting to ban the practice raced through the House committee stage already and will likely get approved by the chamber in January. But approval by the Senate or governor is much less likely.
Remember, the more subsidy-friendly officials that compete over the Rays, the more the team stands to benefit from a tug-of-war. Which may explain why Rick Kriseman's PAC just got another $50k from the Rays, bringing his 2017 campaign haul to over $80k.
Speaking of mayors, the Tampa Bay Business Journal (subscription required) spoke to Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn about his Rays' stadium conversations, with the mayor seemingly distant from his once-aggressive push to bring the team downtown. TBBJ reports six years into his term, the mayor still doesn't know how to pay for a new Rays stadium, other than possibly the county's CIT tax, which could be renewed (via referendum)...but the funds are spoken for through 2026, and an extension may also be needed for Bucs & Lightning stadiums by the time those leases expire in 2027.
And finally, Forbes' Maury Brown reports TV ratings remain strong across MLB, including here in Tampa Bay, where the Rays remained the No. 1 cable program in the market, even though they slipped 5% from last year's viewership numbers. They were only 18th in the league, by ratings points, but they averaged 52,000 viewers per night, according to Neilson. There should still be good money in a new cable deal for the Rays, but it seems they chose to gamble with a short extension with Fox Sports several years ago. If they missed the cable rights bubble, and get screwed because of their timing, it will be because of a failed business risk and not the failure of their fans to tune in.
With the 2017 season now in the books, my annual Tropicana Field attendance debrief may as well be regurgitated from last year...
Once again, the Rays finish in the MLB cellar, drawing an averageof 15,637 fans per game - a drop of 1.5% from last year, but a little better than the 2015 mark of 15,403. That makes six straight years the team finished 30th out of 30 teams.
For once, the Rays had an exciting offense on top of their typical pitching standouts, but even without NHL playoffs to compete with, just couldn't draw.
Rays owner Stu Sternberg told Marc Topkin, "given the performance of the team, I would have anticipated (attendance) to be better. Where we were and how we were playing, it could have only been better. We've heard it before, and I've talked to the players, it clearly affects the performance on the field."
That's kind of a stretch. In fact, I love this response from blogger @TBBaseballMkt:
I have yet to see any stat that shows how lower attendance affects performance. The players were good in the lower attendance Minors, right? https://t.co/VrBBR6BVMq
But have no fear! The end of the baseball season simply means the start of the baseball stadium speculation season! Topkin asked Sternberg about that too:
With the season ending, how soon could there be an announcement of a stadium site selection, given the reported Ybor City option? We're ready. Whenever Hillsborough or Tampa make their pitch, we're ready. We've worked with them a bunch, and we're waiting to hear the pitch. There's nothing more for me to do at this point.
Here are a few more more question/answers for your enjoyment:
What is the status of a new TV contract? If it'll even be a contract - we might end up starting a network at some point. When the time comes and we can negotiate a TV contract there will be a lot of parties to talk to. .. Unfortunately it's not the environment for that given what's gone on with cord-cutting and the value of cable, so I don't expect it or anticipate it to be nirvana. Ideally when and if something gets done it could move the needle. By the same token it might end up being less than where we are now. It's way down the road (and he won't say when).
How much did the hurricane rescheduling and fallout impact the team financially as you had to move three Yankees game to New York and then had lesser than expected crows for the Red Sox and Cubs games?
Those eight games, while they were 10 percent of our schedule, probably made up 20-25 percent of our revenue.
Did you get revenue from the three games moved to Citi Field? We'll get revenue but the games are very expensive to put on, and they were attended, but not like 40,000, 50,000 people showing up, it was a $25 set price. And we had to house and transport people for four extra days on the road in New York. And a lot of other expense like overtime (for staff at the Trop) and buttoning the place up and some damage to the stadium. All in all, it was a minus-minus-minus. However, having said that, we're incredibly fortunate for what could have been.
It's always easy for guys who aren't going to pay for a stadium to suggest someone should buy the Rays a new stadium...which Joe Maddon did this past week, as Chris Archer expressed his displeasure with the home crowd.
It wasn't the first time...but a couple columns the reactions prompted are among the Sunday Night reading list links worth a few minutes of your time:
Twitter: "USF Crowd Shots" account (USF will say a new stadium will fix this, but tough to commit to new stadium without crowds)
Robert Trigaux: Tampa Bay household income tops $50,000 (that's 25th out of 25 major US cities, and it shows how the market gets stretched thin for entertainment dollars)
The latest Forbes NFL valuations have the Bucs worth an estimated $1.98 billion, up 10% from the same time last year. However, that's only good for 28th out of 32 teams.
The Cowboys are once again the league's most-valuable team and the world's most valuable sports franchise, worth an estimated $4.8 billion.
Forbes reports "new and renovated stadiums are adding to team coffers," with the Vikings enjoying $60 million in new revenue annually at their new stadium, and the Falcons' value jumping 19% to $2.48 billion, thanks to over $900 million in sponsorship commitments at their new stadium.
And, "NFL teams are also set for a windfall from the relocations of the Rams and Chargers to Los Angeles, plus the Raiders expected move to Las Vegas in 2019 or 2020. The 29 non-moving teams will divvy up $1.65 billion with the Chargers and Rams on the hook for a $650 million fee and the Raiders at $350 million. The moving teams will make the payments over 10 years starting in 2019."
