30 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

This explains what most of the deal with Indiana will supply. They will become a tenant with the option to buy the stadium at the end of the lease. What makes this attractive is the bulk of the dollars brought in will go to them. Basically they will get a high return on the their money invested in the Stadium and then buy the stadium for 1 dollar at the end of the lease. There is already casinos in the area. That is the attractive part for the State by getting more revenue with the added attention to Hammond.

(No, the Chicago Bears would not own the stadium (at least initially) if they move to Hammond, Indiana.

indianacapitalchronicle.com

Recent developments (as of June 5-6, 2026) show the Bears' Board of Directors voted to advance stadium plans in Hammond after stalled negotiations in Illinois. The project involves a new, enclosed stadium (likely near Wolf Lake) as part of a broader mixed-use development.

chicagobears.com

Key Details on Ownership and Financing

• Public ownership via authority: Indiana's legislation (Senate Bill 27, passed earlier in 2026) created the Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority. This public body would acquire land, issue bonds, finance, construct, own, and lease the stadium.

  indianacapitalchronicle.com

• Bears' role: The team would act as a tenant under a long-term lease (at least 35 years). They have committed ~$2 billion toward the project (construction and related development), while public incentives total up to ~$1 billion. The Bears would keep most game-day and non-football event revenues, handle maintenance/operations, and avoid property taxes during the lease.

  indianacapitalchronicle.com

• Path to potential ownership: At the end of the lease, the Bears could have an option to purchase the stadium—either for any remaining debt or for $1 if bonds are fully paid off (via lease payments and related taxes like admissions, food/beverage, and hotel taxes in

I read somewhere about the Bears not owning the stadium, but the piece I read had them renting the stadium for 40 years. 35 or 40, I don't like the fact that the Bears wouldn't own the stadium from day one. I guarantee you, long before the 35 years pass, this new stadium will be considered outdated and need to be replaced or go through major renovations.

Just now, Pixote said:

I read somewhere about the Bears not owning the stadium, but the piece I read had them renting the stadium for 40 years. 35 or 40, I don't like the fact that the Bears wouldn't own the stadium from day one. I guarantee you, long before the 35 years pass, this new stadium will be considered outdated and need to be replaced or go through major renovations.

I suspect its about getting a high return on their investment compared to how long it will take to pay back their investment if they owned it. If they owned the stadium it would still need to be replaced in 40 years also.

2 hours ago, Pixote said:

I read somewhere about the Bears not owning the stadium, but the piece I read had them renting the stadium for 40 years. 35 or 40, I don't like the fact that the Bears wouldn't own the stadium from day one. I guarantee you, long before the 35 years pass, this new stadium will be considered outdated and need to be replaced or go through major renovations.

It's a tax scenario. It's like they own, but don't. They get the tax benefit from leading and also get the profit benefit as a full owner. They also get year round control and additional moneys that go with concerts etc.

12 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

It's a tax scenario. It's like they own, but don't. They get the tax benefit from leading and also get the profit benefit as a full owner. They also get year round control and additional moneys that go with concerts etc.

Many of us have not shied away from admitting we'd love for the team to be sold. How does this "rent" scenario affect the team's value if sold?

39 minutes ago, Pixote said:

Many of us have not shied away from admitting we'd love for the team to be sold. How does this "rent" scenario affect the team's value if sold?

They rent right now and its worth 9 billion,.

41 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

They rent right now and its worth 9 billion,.

You're right, I was way off in my concern. I decided to use good ole "Ask Gemini" about NFL team ownership and was amazed at the answer (assuming it is correct.) He states:

In fact, out of the 30 active NFL stadiums (serving 32 teams), only 5 are privately owned by the team owners. The remaining 25 stadiums are owned by public entities—usually a city, county, or a state-created sports authority.

1 hour ago, Pixote said:

Many of us have not shied away from admitting we'd love for the team to be sold. How does this "rent" scenario affect the team's value if sold?

The better situation Indiana put them in will only raise value of the team.

More importantly is the increased operating cash enabling signing better FA and paying higher coaching salaries.

Why does some arbitrary line on a map determine fandom? How long have both the Jets and Giants played in East Rutherford, NJ? The Cowboys play in Arlington, 49ers play in Santa Clara, Rams/Chargers play in Inglewood. Do fans really stop rooting for their team if they move outside of city limits?

On the flip side, does that mean if you do not live within city limits, you can't root for your favorite team?

At the end of the day, whatever puts the best team on the field while providing the fans with the best live experience should be all the fans are worried about.

If they get lower taxes and that gives the team more capital for higher guaranteed contracts, then that is a good thing. Remember that teams are required to pay 100% of guaranteed money into an escrow account upon contract signing. That is why guaranteed money is becoming the most important value of a contract to track.