News & Insights
Photo courtesy of: Greg Land
By Bill Mykins
In the early 2010s, the Braves found themselves at an impasse with the city of Atlanta regarding the future of Turner Field, which had been their home since the mid-1990s. Turner Field was aging, and while some argued for basic repairs, the Braves envisioned a modernized stadium that could compete with cutting-edge MLB ballparks emerging around the country. At the heart of their desire was the need to improve the fan experience with amenities like video displays, Wi-Fi, enhanced seating options, and other upgrades that had become standard across professional sports stadiums, along with associated improvements in revenues.
Moreover, the Braves wanted to capitalize on an emerging trend in sports venue design: the development of mixed-use districts surrounding the stadium. These districts often include housing, retail, and entertainment options, which provide for year-round activation and allow fans to enjoy a comprehensive experience beyond the game itself. In many ways, stadiums were no longer just sports venues—they were becoming hubs of entertainment, integrated into the urban fabric of the cities they inhabit.
When the city of Atlanta and the Braves were unable to reach an agreement on who would foot the bill for these upgrades, the team decided to take matters into their own hands, partnering with Cobb County to build Truist Park in the suburbs. This move shocked many, but it also highlighted a broader issue facing many sports teams and cities across the country: when a stadium reaches its mid-life or end-of-life stage, should the venue be renovated, or is it better to start fresh with a new facility?
The Turner Field situation is not unique. During the 1990s and 2000s, there was a boon in stadium construction across the United States, resulting in state-of-the-art venues like Comerica Park and Great American Ballpark. However, many of these stadiums are now nearing the end of their usable lifespans, or at the very least, require significant upgrades to remain competitive and meet fan. This has placed cities and teams in a bind: who should pay for the necessary renovations or the construction of new facilities? Remarkably, very few of the lease agreements created at the time of the development of these facilities sufficiently addressed the need for capital upgrades and replacements.
In most cases, neither cities nor teams are eager to shoulder the financial burden alone. Municipalities often balk at the idea of using taxpayer money to fund stadium projects, especially when the public perceives that the teams themselves—and their wealthy owners—should cover these costs. Conversely, teams argue that the economic benefits they bring to cities, in the form of jobs, tourism, and tax revenue, justify some level of public investment.
One way to navigate this complex and potentially adversarial terrain is with capital planning. Before any decisions are made about who should pay, a thorough capital planning exercise helps both the team and the city understand the full scope of what is needed to extend the life of a facility for another generation of fans. This includes assessing the physical state of the existing venue, determining necessary capital improvements and amenities need to be added or upgraded, and then calculating the total project cost over time.
By laying out the entire project through capital planning, both sides can see not just the immediate costs but also the return on investment (ROI) potential for each party involved. This clarity often leads to smoother negotiations, as cities and teams can align on how to fund the project based on the expected long-term benefits. For example, a renovated or newly built stadium can spur economic development, increase tourism, and boost property values in surrounding areas.
A positive example of this process can be seen with the 2018 lease extension and subsequent improvements to T-Mobile Park in Seattle, home of the Mariners. Leading up to the lease extension, the Mariners partnered with the Washington State Major League Baseball Public Facility District (PFD) to identify the scope and cost of potential improvements required to keep the ballpark in a first-class operating condition. This exercise allowed both the team and the PFD to clearly assess the costs and benefits of a renovated ballpark. The result was a public-private partnership where the PFD, King County, and the Mariners agreed to fund the stadium’s renovation and annual capital improvements through a combination of existing PFD revenue streams, a portion of County lodging tax revenues, and contributions from the Mariners.
Through this collaborative process, T-Mobile Park has in turn received much needed renovations to provide modern amenities that enhance the fan experience, along with necessary annual capital improvements. The Mariners are also in the process of redeveloping the former Pyramid Brewery building across the street to include a restaurant, beer garden, events hall, and community spaces as part of their effort to catalyze revitalization of the area surrounding the ballpark. This success story highlights how capital planning can lead to an outcome that satisfies both the team’s desire for a modern venue and the municipality’s community development and economic interests.
With many venues aging across the country, the need for a clear process to address renovation or construction decisions becomes more urgent. Teams are also continuing to push for more modern, fan-friendly facilities, while cities remain cautious about funding these ventures. Capital planning provides a roadmap that helps all stakeholders—teams, cities, and taxpayers—understand the costs and benefits involved. It makes the decision-making process faster, smoother, and less contentious, leading to better outcomes for everyone involved.
—
For more on this issue, you can refer to the in-depth article from Sports Business Journal.
