Last Thursday, the Chicago Bears gave us another woeful evening national TV performance, losing miserably to the Packers 35-14.
Today, news arrived that Chicago would replace its starting quarterback Michael Glennon with rookie Mitchell Trubisky in the next game.
Swapping one millionaire for another. Earlier this year, Glennon reportedly signed a three-year contract with the Bears paying him $18 million a year guaranteed, and a $3 million signing bonus. Entering the season, Trubisky signed a contract reportedly paying him $29 million over the next four years, on top of a signing bonus of $19 million.
Football teams have lots of other players besides quarterbacks, and they have lots of other expenses, too -- and profits, for their owners.
Who pays for this stuff? Granted, fans and commercials fork over a lot of dough, and very willingly.
But how extensive are taxpayer subsidies – local, state, and federal – in professional sports?
For some perspective, see this Chicago Tribune article from 2002, headlined "Bears Play, Public Pays."
How much do the Chicago Bears cost the City of Chicago? Do the benefits of taxpayer support outweigh the costs?
Looking at the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Chicago, you don’t have a Hail Mary of a chance at trying to answer questions like this.
There are 55 words containing the word “sport” in them. Unfortunately, 54 of them are in some version of the word “transportation.”
There isn’t a single reference to the “Chicago Bears” in the annual financial report, nor to “Soldier Field.”
The one reference to sports (as in bread and circuses, etc.) arrives in this sentence in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis:
In addition, Chicago continues to be a destination for both business and leisure travelers, drawn by the City’s numerous cultural and recreational attractions, professional sports teams, museums, parks, restaurants and more.
That’s it.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that some relevant information lies outside in the “Comprehensive” Annual Financial Report for the City of Chicago, given that Chicago has chosen to leave entities like the Chicago Park District outside of its overall organizational results.
This isn’t just a Chicago Bears thing – questions attach to public support for other professional sports teams in the city, as well as sports teams for universities in the area.
This state of affairs is finally, albeit slowly, changing – in Chicago and elsewhere. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board has issued a new statement requiring greater disclosure of tax revenue losses arising from tax incentives, like those involved in subsidies for professional sports teams.
The new reporting in coming years should provide some help – and more questions – when evaluating the public benefit of public support for “private” sports teams.