Oregon’s recent legislative move to fund an $800 million bond through athlete income taxes to lure Major League Baseball (MLB) to Portland strikes me as a fundamentally flawed and overly optimistic endeavor. Governor Tina Kotek’s signing of Senate Bill 110, which dramatically increases the bond amount from the previous $150 million proposal, reveals a serious misreading of how professional sports expansions have historically unfolded. This isn’t just about sports—it’s about risking taxpayer money on a high-stakes, uncertain bet, with potentially little return to the public.
The core of the funding mechanism—taxing players and team employees from both the home and visiting teams—is a novel approach, but it hardly guarantees the financial security proponents claim. Athletes already shoulder hefty tax burdens; adding yet another levy could create pushback or unintended consequences. What’s more, tying bond repayments to such tax revenues presumes not only the arrival of an MLB team but also its long-term success and stability, both of which are notoriously unpredictable in sports franchises.
Stretching Bonds and Promises Too Thin
The plan’s ambition is admirable, but the numbers tell a more sobering story. The jump from $150 million to $800 million in bonds to finance a $1.8 billion stadium at Zidell Yards is concerningly aggressive. Public financing of stadiums often leaves citizens on the hook for years, sometimes decades, with benefits that rarely justify the cost. While local boosters like Craig Cheek of the Portland Diamond Project speak optimistically about the prospect, their perspective glosses over the real costs and risks borne by everyday taxpayers.
Moreover, the bill’s requirement for the incoming franchise to share 1% of its gross revenue with the state is virtually toothless in the grand scheme. The revenue-sharing deal’s enforcement and longevity beyond ownership changes is a positive aspect, yet 1% of gross revenue is unlikely to sufficiently offset the state’s substantial financial exposure. History shows that stadium revenues and associated economic boosts often fail to meet expectations. Thus, the state could end up as a perpetual subsidizer of private sports entity profits.
An Overplayed Expansion Pitch
Senator Mark Meek’s assertion that this could be Oregon’s “last opportunity in decades” to secure a professional franchise is a pressure tactic that oversimplifies MLB’s expansion dynamics. Presently, MLB holds 30 teams, with only incremental expansion under consideration by Commissioner Rob Manfred, who aims to add just two teams by 2029. Portland faces stiff competition from cities like Salt Lake City, Charlotte, and Nashville, all presenting compelling cases with varying degrees of public support and infrastructure.
This isn’t just a question of desire; it’s a matter of strategic fit within the league’s long-term vision. MLB is not inclined to hastily hand over new franchises without proven markets and facilities that justify such investments. Portland’s bond issue and proposed stadium do little to guarantee it will surpass competing cities’ bids.
Political and Economic Implications of Sports Subsidies
From a center-right perspective, this project exemplifies a troubling trend in local politics: governments funneling public funds into private enterprises under the guise of economic development. While the allure of hosting a major league team can rally civic pride, the actual economic impact is often exaggerated. I’m skeptical that the returns on this investment will validate the risks or the burden placed on athletes and local taxpayers.
The prioritization of such expensive stadium projects tends to divert public funds from more essential investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare—areas that truly uplift the broader community. This initiative risks placing a shiny, expensive stadium atop a fragile financial foundation built on speculative hopes of MLB expansion.
In the end, Oregon’s taxpayer-backed quest for MLB feels less like inspired civic progress and more like a politically charged hopeful gamble, with the state’s residents potentially footing the bill for decades without guaranteed benefits. This is not the prudent, economically sound approach to urban development that Oregon’s citizens deserve.
Leave a Reply