Aussie Needs Forum Help

Well, nearly all MLS clubs are the primary tenant in and have full control over the stadiums they play in. Not all of them “own” those stadiums, even if they built them and their ownership paid for them out of pocket.

My club - in Columbus, Ohio - opened a roughly $300 million stadium in 2022, paid for by its owner. But for property tax reasons the stadium is actually owned by a public entity, with the club having a very low, long term lease. I think such arrangements are fairly common. Though other clubs do own their stadiums outright.

One point of clarity: MLS, the league, does not own any stadiums.

If you want to do a bit of research, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums

Then follow the link to each individual stadium to see what its ownership status is. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower.com_Field

It’s Wikipedia, so perhaps not 100% accurate, but should be pretty close.

 

Well, the teams don't create these entities, as far as I know. It's not uncommon that cities have organizations that serve in this role. The Confluence Community Authority that owns Lower.com Field was set up by the City of Columbus and is a government agency.

I can't speak for other cities, but in Columbus, ownership paid 100% of the cost of the stadium, something like $275 million. But about $50 million in additional funds were needed in infrastructure, utilities, greenscaping improvements in an area that was basically an undeveloped, post-industrial site that was going to serve as an extension of an existing sports and entertainment district downtown. Furthermore, the stadium is just one part of a larger development (called Astor Park) that will eventually include several new residential and mixed used buildings, a new parking garage, a new city park, pedestrian and bike bridge. That $50 million in public money wasn't only for improvements necessary for the the stadium project, and was necessary to leverage nearly $300 million in private investment in a part of the downtown area that had stood undeveloped for decades.

The creation of a new government entity that would actually own the stadium is obviously a perk that was part of the deal. In other cities, the team may continue to own the stadium, but then negotiate tax abatements of some sort to avoid or mitigate the amount of property tax they need to pay.

Not everyone favors this kind of set up or believes it's necessary. I tend to think these are okay, as long as team ownership is kicking in real money for the stadium itself.

 

We have a similar arrangement here in Houston. The City and County created a Sport Authority to build, own, and manage the stadiums built for the Major League Baseball, NFL, and NBA teams. The NFL stadium was also driven by use for the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, an annual month-long event that draws millions to the complex. Those stadiums were primarily funded with public money.

When the Dynamo came long the soccer stadium was built by the team but the purchase of the land and infrastructure around the stadium were paid for the City and County. Most of that public money came from taxes already being collected in a redevelopment zone in the neighborhood. Once construction was done the stadium was turned over to the Sport Authority that already existed. The Dynamo are the primary tenant and operator of the stadium but part of the deal with the City/County required that a local historically black university be allowed to play football games in it every fall for a minimal charge.

 

I think the best way to answer this is that it is complicated. The others pretty much answered why "owning" the stadium is different than "operate", but it might be helpful to say that all of the stadiums MLS team play in are operated by the owner of the MLS team except for Seattle, Vancouver, NYCFC (although they are on the verge of building a new stadium), Chicago, Charlotte, and San Diego.

So that is 24 out of 30 teams whose owners operate the stadiums and within the next decade or so, that'll increase to 25 out of 30 when NYCFC's stadium is completed. Of the remaining 5 clubs, I don't think any of them have a prospect of building a stadium in the near future.

 

Charlotte shouldn't be on this list--it's the same situation as New England and Atlanta; NFL stadium with the MLS team owned by the NFL owner.

 

Ah crap, okay. I was actually going to create a carve out for the three teams due to the owner operating the stadium, but the MLS team not being the primary tenant due to the NFL team getting priority.

Thanks for catching that error!

 

And supposedly New England are going to build their own stadium in Everett, across the river not far from Boston. The site is next door to a casino that was built in the last few years, and the land needs to be cleaned up due to the heavy industrial use from years past. They also need to re-zone the area as an "entertainment" district. So it will probably be 5 years at least before it gets built. Not to mention paying off all those guys who go by the first name of "Reputed."

 

I am in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp on the Revs building their own stadium. They have been claiming for so long that they are on the verge of building a stadium that I'm struggling with believing them now despite the evidence that they are progressing.

 

Definitely the boy crying wolf, but this is the furthest they have ever gotten.

The running joke was that they had been so diligently looking for a stadium site, driving around in a car since 2004 that they never had any time to make any off-season signings.

 

The situation in New England does feel more legit this time. NYCFC's and Miami's stadiums sound like just about done deals.

Chicago, on the other hand...

 

Actually, the San Jose Earthquakes owner John Fisher bought the land , built , paid for and owns 18k seat PayPal Park.

The stadium boasts the world’s largest outdoor bar and was constructed privately out of Fisher’s own pocket with no public money provided by the city of San Jose.

The stadium's cost ten years ago came to $100 million.

With increased land values in Silicon Valley as well as appreciation and the entire refacing of the adjacent business park, I believe the stadium could now be worth at least $300 million.

World Cup 2026 is around the corner and I’m betting national teams will no doubt utilize the park for training.

I believe that $300 million figure will go up even further in the next 2-3 years.

 

One thing your friend needs to understand is that here in the US, very few sports teams own their own stadium, including the big NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL teams. This is mostly due to tax purposes, (can't pay real estate taxes if the government owns the building) there are other reasons, such as the local government wanting to keep the revenue from other events such as concerts, other sports teams using the stadium, etc. Instead you'll hear about a master lease or primary tenant, which is who essentially has the right of first refusal to use the stadium and who everyone else builds their schedule around.

As others have said, it's not as if no teams own their stadiums, but the above is a more common arrangement. That's why they're often referred to as soccer specific stadiums, not soccer exclusive.

 

And, at least in Columbus' case, the "stadium" project was actually a lot more complicated, as it also included building the team's new training facility on the site of the old stadium (on land leased from the State of Ohio) and the promise of a community sports park.

In the end, the public entities involved included the State of Ohio, Franklin County and the City of Columbus. The overall effort probably wouldn't have happened without the coordination of a guy named Alex Fisher, who was then President and CEO of The Columbus Partnership, a highly influential and respected organization that includes representatives from virtually all of the private businesses in the region plus government, higher ed, etc.