In recent months, a tug of war over professional sports unleashed untold sturm und/or drang upon our nation’s capital. But the end result of all that sound and fury?
Personal Finance
A sports stadium boom is coming to America. Is that a good thing?
Published
2 years agoon
After all that noise, Washington’s Capitals and Wizards will stay put in Capital One Arena in downtown D.C. Owner Ted Leonsis will not move to a spanking new facility in Northern Virginia.
That got us thinking: Is it just us, or are fewer stadiums and arenas getting built these days?
We ran the numbers. Only six major sports facilities opened in North America from 2020 to 2024 (including the $1.15 billion renovation of Seattle Kraken’s Climate Pledge Arena, the one case of an overhaul so complete we counted it as a new facility). It’s perhaps the steepest stadium slump we’ve seen since the baby boom.
Construction of stadiums and
arenas hit lull after 2005
Sports facilities built in five-year periods
Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
Stadium and arena construction hit lull after 2005
Sports facilities built in five-year periods
Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
Construction of stadiums and arenas
hit lull after 2005
Sports facilities built in five-year periods
Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
What gives? Do sports teams already have all the space they need? Have taxpayers grown reluctant to finance these monuments to the vanity of billionaire owners?
We called economist J.C. Bradbury, who helped build a database of all 220 major sports facilities constructed in North America since 1909, updating the data that Judith Grant Long gathered for her 2014 book. Billionaire owners aren’t always forthcoming, so they often base their work on “ballpark” estimates from press accounts and other public sources.
“It’s purposefully, in my opinion, obfuscated from taxpayers,” especially in more controversial cases, said Long, a professor of sports management and urban planning at the University of Michigan who first assembled the data for her PhD dissertation in the early 2000s.
Bradbury, who updated Long’s data from his perch at Kennesaw State University, outlined two great waves of sports construction. The first hit in the 1960s as television brought sports to the masses, revenue rose and newly expansionist leagues sprawled across the country.
Those first “super stadiums” were cavernous concrete buckets meant be filled with multiple sports and events — think Houston’s Astrodome or RFK Stadium in the District. Many were built with public funds and envisioned as public resources.
The second wave hit in the late 1990s: An incredible 56 facilities rose from 1995 to 2004 as owners realized they could tap into fresh fire hydrants of money by swapping their generic sports buckets — most still perfectly functional — for venues tailored to specific sports and larded with restaurants, clubs and luxury suites.
The cost to build those sports spaces more than doubled during that second surge of construction even after adjusting for inflation, from a median of $190 million in the 1980s to around $480 million in the 2000s.
Sports facility costs grew
faster than public subsidies
Median cost for stadiums opening each
decade, in 2020 dollars
Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST
Sports facility costs grew faster than public subsidies
Median cost for stadiums opening each decade, in 2020 dollars
Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST
Sports facility costs grew faster than
public subsidies
Median cost for stadiums opening each decade,
in 2020 dollars
Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST
Costs have tripled since the 2010s as facilities become more opulent. Much of that increase has fallen on team owners. But the median public subsidy for an arena or stadium has also grown steadily, from $122 million in the 1980s to $500 million since 2020.
What is the public actually paying for? For the answer, we turned to Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado Denver economist who dredged up more than 100 lease agreements for his book, “Major League Sports and the Property Tax.” Propheter said today’s sports team leases are “complex legal artifacts” with hundreds of pages detailing byzantine financial arrangements that somehow always manage to lower owners’ operating costs and/or their tax burdens.
If you were working on one of these deals, your first move might be to take a chunk out of your property tax bill by giving the dirt under the stadium to the local government, making it — voilà! — untaxed public land. In some places, you would still owe property taxes on the building above the land and on the value of your temporary possession of the land over the term of your lease. But maybe not! Lawmakers might exempt you entirely or count your property tax payments as credit toward rent.
You might even give the building to the local government as soon as the lease is up, when its most profitable days are behind it, leaving taxpayers with “a giant paperweight,” Propheter told us. “Now they’ve got to do something with this pile of concrete and steel,” especially if the lease includes a noncompete clause with a new arena or stadium — and that something might be demolition.
Propheter’s data shows sports team leases, like bell-bottom pants and confused cicadas, are on a roughly 30-year cycle with nearly three-quarters lasting between 25 and 40 years. Since the last sports building boom started around 1995, we could be staring down the barrel of another construction wave: The leases of about 44 teams across four different leagues will expire in the next decade.
More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years
Sports facility leases for active major league teams in the U.S.
NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years
Lease ends
between
‘25 and ’34
Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities
or privately-owned facilities on public land
Source: Geoffrey Propheter
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
More than half of NFL leases ending
over next 10 years
Sports facility leases for U.S. major league teams
NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years
Lease ends
between
‘25 and ’34
Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or
privately-owned facilities on public land
Source: Geoffrey Propheter
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years
Sports facility leases for active U.S. major league teams
NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years
Leases ending
between 2025
and 2034
Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or privately-owned facilities on public land
Source: Geoffrey Propheter
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years
Sports facility leases for active U.S. major league teams
NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years
Leases ending between
2025 and 2034
Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or privately-owned facilities on public land
Source: Geoffrey Propheter
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
If the majority of those team owners get new facilities, it could produce one of the greatest stadium-construction frenzies in modern history, easily surpassing the Y2K era in sheer dollar terms. Even renovations can have a stunning price tag: The overhaul of Capital One Arena — built for $200 million in 1997 (about $385 million in today’s dollars) — is set to receive a $515 million infusion from D.C. on top of the more than $200 million Leonsis has paid to upgrade the arena since 2014.
You might wonder: Do we need new stadiums? Is something wrong with today’s ballparks?
Not really, unless you consider not raking in as much money as humanly possible to be a defect.
A new stadium ignites what economists call the novelty effect, as interest in the new digs enables owners to crank up ticket prices. Revenue soars in the first few years and remains higher than normal for a decade. A new stadium also lets you copy all the profit-making mechanisms your competitors invented in the decades since you last built a facility, such as spendy dining options and luxury suites with wall-consuming televisions.
The latest trend seems to be sprawling mixed-use developments that promise to create urban entertainment hubs, such as the Battery Atlanta around Georgia’s Truist Park. According to Long, owners are using venue construction “as a Trojan horse … to control larger swaths of land.” By unlocking powerful real estate development tools, a new stadium allows a team owner to create a broader development that captures even more revenue — which, in this case, once went to ordinary barkeeps and restaurant owners hoping to serve the game-day crowds.
“This is often pitched as additional economic development impact,” said Nathan Jensen, a University of Texas at Austin subsidy expert and technically an NFL owner: He grew up in Wisconsin and owns a single share of the Green Bay Packers. But as a result, “people going out for a beer before a game are captured by the developer and are subsidized.”
We may be seeing basic economics at work. New stadiums typically enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives from local governments. And when you subsidize something, you get more of it, whether you want it or not. Propheter has found that subsidized facilities also tend to be more opulent than their private peers.
Are those subsidies a wise economic investment? Reams of research show that new sports venues don’t generally create promised economic booms. A massive analysis of 42 years of professional sports teams and facilities found that the overall sports environment had an impact on wages — but, uh, not always a positive one. Data on employment and sales found similar results. For example, restaurants and bars near Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City benefited from their new neighbor, but others — including nearby entertainment businesses — suffered.
The reality is that money spent on sports doesn’t come out of thin air. It is money that fans might have spent elsewhere. Arenas and stadiums can revitalize a neighborhood by pulling spending from other parts of town, but that’s different from creating new economic activity. While every ownership group argues that their new facility will rejuvenate half the city and make a profit for taxpayers, research shows that sports subsidies simply do not generate the kind of economic benefits they promise to the public.
According to Long, predictions about job creation and sales tax revenue tend to come from the same handful of consultants reusing the same methods that have been inaccurate in the past. On top of that, teams often lowball their estimates of construction costs by covering only part of the true public price tag, leaving out unsexy essentials like sanitation services or transportation infrastructure.
Operating expenses add another wrinkle. Consider Barclays Center in Brooklyn, whose financials our new hero Propheter went through with a fine-toothed comb. Its developer, Forest City Ratner, predicted the arena would make a profit of about $35 million annually. In its first three years, revenue actually beat expectations. But Forest City Ratner’s forecasts dramatically underestimated the arena’s operating and debt-servicing costs, which were about twice as high as expected, driving profits down from $35 million to a maximum of $6 million per year.
Expenses exceeded forecasts
at Barclays Center
Expenses include operating expenses and
debt servicing
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
Expenses far exceeded forecasts at Barclays Center
Expenses include operating expenses and debt servicing
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
Expenses exceeded forecasts at Barclays Center
Expenses include operating expenses and debt servicing
DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST
So why do local officials keep shoveling out money for new stadiums and arenas? It’s partly that sports owners threaten to leave, as Leonsis did late last year, but it’s not just that. Teams have been known to get new facilities without another suitor waiting in the wings.
Data can’t really help here, but according to Bradbury, powerful people may just like sports.
“Politicians love two things: jocks and movie stars,” he told us. And it’s bipartisan: “Democrat and Republican can both agree, ‘We’ve got to have a stadium.’”
Hello there, Data Hive! The Department of Data craves questions. What are you curious about: How have major cities skylines changed over the decades? What are Wall Street’s biggest investors? How did our spending change after the coronavirus pandemic? Just ask!
If your question inspires a column, we’ll send you an official Department of Data button and ID card. This week’s button goes to Nathan Cutler in San Salvador, who asked about the economic impact of stadiums on neighborhoods.
You may like

The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady at the conclusion of its policy meeting on Wednesday.
In what could be Jerome Powell’s last as chair before President Donald Trump’s yet-to-be-confirmed nominee Kevin Warsh takes the helm, central bankers maintained the federal funds rate in a target range of 3.5% to 3.75%.
Inflation has surged since the war with Iran began, leaving policymakers with limited room to act, according to Sean Snaith, the director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Economic Forecasting. “We’re in a kind of suspended animation — between Iran and the Fed transition,” Snaith said.
Read more CNBC personal finance coverage
Before the oil shock, inflation was holding above the Fed’s 2% target but not worsening. Now the jump in energy costs could have longer-term inflationary effects, economists say.
For Americans struggling in the face of higher gas prices and overall affordability challenges, the central bank’s decision to keep interest rates unchanged does little to ease budgetary pressures. “The cavalry isn’t coming anytime soon,” Snaith said.
How the Fed decision impacts you
The Fed’s benchmark sets what banks charge each other for overnight lending, but also has a trickle-down effect on many consumer borrowing and savings rates.
Short-term rates are more closely pegged to the prime rate, which is typically 3 percentage points above the federal funds rate. Longer-term rates, such as home loans, are more influenced by inflation and other economic factors.
Credit cards
Most credit cards have a short-term rate, so they track the Fed’s benchmark.
After the Fed cut rates three times in the second half of 2025, the average annual percentage rate has stayed just under 20%, according to Bankrate.
“Without Fed rate cuts, there’s not much reason to expect meaningful declines anytime soon, so carrying a balance will remain very expensive,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.
Mortgage rates
Fixed mortgage rates, on the other hand, don’t directly track the Fed but typically follow the lead of long-term Treasury rates.
Concerns about how the Iran war will impact the U.S. economy have already pushed the average rate for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage up to 6.38% as of Tuesday, from 5.99% at the end of February, according to Mortgage News Daily.
That leaves homeowners with existing low mortgage rates “feeling stuck,” said Michele Raneri, vice president and head of U.S. research and consulting at TransUnion. “Mortgages, more than any other credit type, work on a churn,” she said, referring to how a dip in rates can boost borrowing activity.
Student loans
Federal student loan rates are also fixed and based in part on the 10-year Treasury note, so most borrowers are somewhat shielded from Fed moves and recent economic uncertainty.
Current interest rates on undergraduate federal student loans made through June 30 are 6.39%, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Interest rates for the upcoming school year will be based in part on the May auction of the 10-year note.
Car loans
Auto loan rates are tied to several factors, including the Fed’s benchmark. Because financing costs remain elevated, new car buyers are taking on longer loans to keep their monthly payments manageable, according to the latest data from Edmunds.
Even so, with the rate on a five-year new car loan near 7%, the average monthly payment on a new car rose to $773 in the first quarter of 2026, an all-time high.
“Car buyers are in a tough spot right now because they’re getting squeezed from both ends: high sticker prices and high interest rates, with neither showing any signs of letting up,” said Joseph Yoon, consumer insights analyst at Edmunds.
“Until the rate picture shifts, buyers will keep stretching loan terms to make payments work, which only adds to the total cost of ownership down the road,” Yoon said.
Savings rates
While the Fed has no direct influence on deposit rates, the yields tend to be correlated with changes in the target federal funds rate. So, although rates on certificates of deposit and high-yield savings accounts have fallen from recent highs, they are holding above the annual rate of inflation.
For now, top-yielding online savings accounts and one-year CD rates pay around 4%, according to Bankrate.
“Yields on high-yield savings accounts and certificates of deposit are down from their peaks of a few years ago, but they’re still strong compared to what we’ve seen for most of the past decade,” Schulz said.
Personal Finance
Average tax refund is 11.2% higher, latest IRS filing data shows
Published
2 weeks agoon
April 18, 2026
Milan Markovic | E+ | Getty Images
The average tax refund is 11.2% higher this season, compared with about the same period in 2025, according to the latest IRS filing data.
As of April 10, the average refund amount for individual filers was $3,397, up from $3,055 about one year ago, the IRS reported on Friday.
The IRS data reflects about 114 million individual returns received, out of about 164 million expected through Tax Day. Next week’s filing update is expected to include data through the April 15 deadline.
Read more CNBC personal finance coverage
President Donald Trump‘s 2025 legislation, rebranded to the “working families tax cuts,” was a key talking point for Republicans on Tax Day.
With the November midterm elections approaching and Republicans defending slim majorities in Congress, many GOP lawmakers have highlighted Trump’s tax breaks and higher average refunds.
Meanwhile, affordability has been top of mind for many Americans amid rising costs of gas, electricity, food and other living expenses.
For filers who expected a refund this season, nearly one-quarter, or 23%, planned to use the funds to pay down credit card debt, and the same share said they would save the payment, according to the CNBC and SurveyMonkey Quarterly Money Survey, released in April. It polled 3,494 U.S. adults at the end of March.
Who benefited from Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’
“It’s been a great tax season for the American people,” many of whom have benefited from Trump’s tax breaks, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said during a White House press briefing on Wednesday.
More than 53 million filers claimed at least one of Trump’s “signature new tax cuts” — the deductions for tip income, overtime earnings, seniors and auto loan interest — the Department of the Treasury also announced on Wednesday.
Those filers, who claimed the deductions on Schedule 1-A, have seen an average tax cut of over $800, according to the Treasury. Tax cuts can trigger a higher refund or reduce taxes owed, depending on the filer’s situation.

Some filers who itemize tax breaks have also seen benefits from the bigger federal deduction limit for state and local taxes, known as SALT. Trump’s legislation raised that cap to $40,000, up from $10,000, for 2025.
The latest SALT deduction limit change is expected to primarily benefit higher earners, according to a May 2025 analysis of various proposals from the Tax Foundation.
The Treasury has not released data on how many filers have claimed the SALT deduction during the 2026 filing season.
Personal Finance
Stocks have touched record highs despite Iran war. Here’s why
Published
2 weeks agoon
April 17, 2026
Traders work at the New York Stock Exchange on April 16, 2026.
NYSE
U.S. stocks climbed to record highs on Thursday against a backdrop of war, an oil supply shock and economic forecasts warning of stunted growth amid a protracted conflict.
Many investors may be thinking: Why?
Largely, it’s because the stock market is a barometer of what investors think will happen in the future, rather than an assessment of the present day, according to economists and market analysts.
Investors are essentially shrugging off the Middle East conflict as a blip that will be resolved relatively quickly, they said.
“The stock market isn’t trying to price what’s happening today,” said Joe Seydl, a senior markets economist at J.P. Morgan Private Bank. “The stock market is always trying to price what the world is going to look like six to 12 months from now.”
Why stocks have been ‘resilient’
The S&P 500, a U.S. stock index, fell about 8% in the initial weeks of the Iran war, from the start of the conflict on Feb. 28 to a recent low on March 30.
But stocks have rebounded since then, erasing all losses since the beginning of the war. The S&P 500 closed at an all-time high on Thursday — about 11% higher than its nadir at the end of March. That followed a record close on Wednesday.
“The market has remained very resilient in the face of the war and has rallied strongly on the prospect that it will be resolved,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.

A ship waits to pass through the Strait of Hormuz following the two-week temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran, which is conditional on the opening of the strait, in Oman on April 8, 2026.
Shady Alassar | Anadolu | Getty Images
And while investors cheered the possibility of a diplomatic off-ramp to the conflict, the temporary ceasefire has appeared tenuous, with the U.S. and Iran each accusing the other of breaking the agreement.
Nations haven’t been able to reach a peace deal ahead of the ceasefire’s end. Vice President JD Vance said U.S. officials left peace talks in Pakistan over the weekend after the Iranian delegation refused to agree to American demands not to develop a nuclear weapon.
The markets ‘have memory’
Ultimately, the stock market is signaling a collective belief that tensions will ratchet down, the war will end in the near term and oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz will normalize, economists said.
That’s largely because investors have been conditioned to believe that President Donald Trump will back off if the economic pain becomes too intense, economists said — the so-called “TACO” trade, shorthand for “Trump always chickens out.”
“Investors strongly believe — and have been conditioned to believe — he’s going to stand down, find a way to pivot, declare victory and move on,” Zandi said.
Trump has pushed back on the notion of backing down, framing his brinkmanship as a savvy negotiating tactic.
Read more CNBC personal finance coverage
Economists pointed to a recent example of this dynamic: in April 2025 during so-called liberation day, when the Trump administration levied a host of tariffs on U.S. trading partners.
Within days — after the stock market had cratered more than 12% — Trump announced a 90-day pause on those tariffs. Stocks then saw one of their biggest daily rallies in history following Trump’s reversal.
Investors remember that Trump often de-escalates geopolitical shocks — which is why they’ve seized on positive headlines that hint at progress in peace talks, for example, Seydl said.
“The markets have memory,” Seydl said.
AI stocks and the ‘tech boom’
Traders celebrating at the New York Stock Exchange on April 15, 2026, as the S&P 500 closed above the 7,000 level for the first time.
NYSE
There are other factors underpinning market resilience during wartime, economists said.
One is the investors’ enthusiasm for artificial intelligence and technology stocks, which account for almost half of the S&P 500’s market capitalization, Zandi said.
“Those stocks run on their own dynamic independent of anything, including the war in Iran,” Zandi said. “I think we would have been down a lot more and it would have been harder for us to recover had it not been for the very, very optimistic perspectives on AI.”
We’re in the middle of a “tech boom” — and investors are likely to remain optimistic until they think the tech cycle has run its course, Seydl said.

More broadly, stock investors are essentially making a bet on the future earnings growth of a company — and the earnings backdrop has been “pretty solid,” Seydl said.
Consumer spending appears to be stable, for example, economists said. And companies are getting a boost to their after-tax earnings from the GOP’s so-called “big beautiful bill,” which, among other things, made it easier to write off investments upfront and therefore reduce their tax liability, Zandi said.
Going forward
Experts said there will be an economic hit from the Iran war, though.
“Despite the recent news of a temporary ceasefire, some damage is already done, and the downside risks remain elevated,” Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, director of research at the International Monetary Fund, wrote Tuesday.
A protracted conflict risks deep and global economic pain, he wrote.
Even if the conflict is short-lived — as the broad market expects — stocks are unlikely to march much higher until it’s clear the U.S. is on the other side of the war and its economic fallout, Zandi said.
If investors are incorrect, and President Trump doesn’t back down or quickly extricate the U.S. from the war, the stock market may see a “full-blown correction” or worse, Zandi said. A stock market correction is a decline of at least 10% from recent highs.
“Everyone thinks they know what the script is,” Zandi said. “Now they just need to follow the script. If they don’t, the market will have some real problems.”
The uncertainty provides yet another example of why the average investor with a long time horizon should stick to their investment plan and ignore the noise, experts said.
“Trying to time the market is very difficult if not impossible for the average investor,” Seydl said. “It’s better to take a long-term perspective and ride out bouts of volatility.”
What that means for consumer loans
Checks and Balance newsletter: Of God and MAGA
Why software stocks, 2026’s market dogs, have joined the rally
Armanino adds Strategic Accounting Outsourced Solutions
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
