(02-25-2026 04:05 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I take it you've never been to East Saint Louis, IL?

I don’t recall if I have or not. I was like 12.

I haven’t been to Hammond, Indiana though.

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

(02-25-2026 06:51 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 04:05 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I take it you've never been to East Saint Louis, IL?

I don’t recall if I have or not. I was like 12.

I haven’t been to Hammond, Indiana though.

East St. Louis makes Hammond look like Malibu.

If there is a list of top 5 places in the US where you don’t want to get a flat tire in the middle of the night, East St. Louis is on that list (and might be #1).

By the way, I can’t even remember what I’ve pointed out in this thread already, but I don’t think the financial ineptitude of the State of Illinois and City of Chicago can be emphasized enough.

They financed over $380 million for the Soldier Field renovations in 2003.

23 years later, the taxpayers owe MORE on the stadium than they did in 2003. They haven’t paid down ANY principal and instead have just been making interest payments the whole time. 23 years and the taxpayers will owe more on an empty stadium than they did when it was first renovated.

So, putting aside all of the Bears fandom stuff, that’s why I scoff so heavily at any other NFL stadium proposal that the State of Illinois or City of Chicago (which has even worse financials than the State) could somehow be done beyond what the Bears have offered. To paraphrase Logan Roy from Succession, “These are not serious people.”

(02-25-2026 10:38 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 08:53 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 03:51 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  FWIW, I think that the State of Illinois legislators don’t think that the Bears will actually move, and we’ll look up in a few years with a Bears Stadium in NW Indiana.

Like in MO; Welcome, Chiefs, to KCKS!

I have a brother who lives on the Kansas side of KC and he’s not happy about what’s going on. He believes the tax payers are going to be fleeced. Kansas City MO’s gain is Kansas City, KS’s loss. These stadium scams are getting out of hand.

Wasn't the legislature's vote unanimous in Kansas? Clearly, a LOT of registered voters disagree with your brother.

(02-25-2026 07:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  By the way, I can’t even remember what I’ve pointed out in this thread already, but I don’t think the financial ineptitude of the State of Illinois and City of Chicago can be emphasized enough.

They financed over $380 million for the Soldier Field renovations in 2003.

23 years later, the taxpayers owe MORE on the stadium than they did in 2003. They haven’t paid down ANY principal and instead have just been making interest payments the whole time. 23 years and the taxpayers will owe more on an empty stadium than they did when it was first renovated.

So, putting aside all of the Bears fandom stuff, that’s why I scoff so heavily at any other NFL stadium proposal that the State of Illinois or City of Chicago (which has even worse financials than the State) could somehow be done beyond what the Bears have offered. To paraphrase Logan Roy from Succession, “These are not serious people.”

I have to admit this has puzzled me as well. I heard the original debt was 400 and some million dollars for the 2002 rebuild, and in 2026 the park district still owes 400 and some million with a lease expiring in 2033. That blows my mind.

If they had treated this like a 30-year loan they would have 7 years left to pay it off. At this point they should have 65% of the original amount paid off. So the remaining debt should only be around 140 million dollars.

(02-25-2026 02:59 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don't see the NFL ever revisiting the St. Louis market again. Outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams were in the bottom third of attendance in the late 1990's, late 2000s and early 2010s, before bottoming out before moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Cardinals football also never hosted an NFL playoff game, and they were restricted attendance wise playing in old Busch.

It is a baseball/hockey city, with no professional basketball or football franchise (which is different reason I remain so high on SLU as a BE candidate, as there are limited competitive alternatives in the winter; and they are getting 9/10k at their home games this year).

I don't think the NFL will expand again anytime soon. I think 32 is the sweet spot for that league. If the NFL does ever expand again, I think 36 is the next number, so they'll need to add four teams.

Where St. Louis does potentially enter the picture, however, is as follows: there are more markets at least arguably capable of supporting a NFL franchise than there are available NFL franchises. So the owner of a NFL franchise looking for a sweetheart stadium deal can shop his team around to prospective NFL markets in the hope of getting the best deal available. We're going back a few years here, but that's how the original Cleveland Browns wound up in Baltimore, and how the old Houston Oilers wound up in Nashville. And this is only my opinion, but I think it's why the Buffalo Bills got a new stadium deal done as quickly and as quietly as they did.

I think 2 teams in London, 1 team in Frankfurt, and one in Paris or perhaps Rome are probably next on the NFL's agenda. Perhaps Mexico City and Toronto, too, though those 2 don't need to happen together or even at all. 4 teams in Europe would allow for long trips every season, if you're playing 2 games there b/c your division plays their division, just play the games back to back and spend 10 days in Europe or whatever. Rio is probably on the list at some point, too.

(02-25-2026 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

You're right. It is circular. If the bluff is called and the Bears move to IN, just look what happened down the line in places like St. Louis (once before), Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, LA etc. Nobody ever said it would happen tomorrow.

If ownership wants to move to another US city, the other owners approve or not. There is no "the NFL makes teams move out of the country." That's not how it works. Sure, maybe in an expansion scenario, but you're conflating the two.

(02-25-2026 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

While I fully agree that Illinois isn't going to fumble away the Bears and then magically attract the Bengals/Jags/etc, there is ample precedent for cities and States fumbling away teams and then paying 5-10x as much for a new team a decade or 2 down the road. The big difference here is that Arlington Heights is already 100% on board, it's just the State of Illinois that has been dragging their feet for literally YEARS, to the point that Warren has finally moved on to Plan C. It wouldn't happen tomorrow, but if enough politicians lose their jobs after fumbling away the Bears, then their replacements would have learned a very valuable (and expensive) lesson, and they'd be more apt to do whatever it took to return the NFL to the State. Most likely, that would just be getting the Bears to move back once their deal in Indiana expired ofc, but other options would likely at least be considered.

(02-25-2026 08:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

While I fully agree that Illinois isn't going to fumble away the Bears and then magically attract the Bengals/Jags/etc, there is ample precedent for cities and States fumbling away teams and then paying 5-10x as much for a new team a decade or 2 down the road. The big difference here is that Arlington Heights is already 100% on board, it's just the State of Illinois that has been dragging their feet for literally YEARS, to the point that Warren has finally moved on to Plan C. It wouldn't happen tomorrow, but if enough politicians lose their jobs after fumbling away the Bears, then their replacements would have learned a very valuable (and expensive) lesson, and they'd be more apt to do whatever it took to return the NFL to the State. Most likely, that would just be getting the Bears to move back once their deal in Indiana expired ofc, but other options would likely at least be considered.

I understand what you’re stating. I think the huge difference here and all of the examples provided by Dawgma (e.g. St. Louis, Baltimore, LA, etc.) is that the Indiana location is IN the Chicago market. The Bears aren’t moving away from the Chicago *market* and that is the relevant geographic area as opposed to a state line. This isn’t like the Colts leaving Baltimore for Indianapolis and then in turn the Browns leaving Cleveland for Baltimore. This is pretty much a carbon copy of the new Chiefs stadium move from Kansas City, MO to Kansas City, KS. I’m not saying that I personally like the Indiana location, but it is 100% clearly within every definition of the Chicago metro area and TV market. I think there’s a lot of psychological belief for a lot of people (even within the Chicago area) that moving to Indiana is some type of massive distance that totally belies the actual geography. I don’t personally feel it because I grew up in the South Suburbs where the Indiana state line was only a few miles away, but it has been interesting to see people nationwide totally not understand that Northwest Indiana is every bit as much of the Chicago area as New Jersey is to the NYC area.

(02-25-2026 09:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 08:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

While I fully agree that Illinois isn't going to fumble away the Bears and then magically attract the Bengals/Jags/etc, there is ample precedent for cities and States fumbling away teams and then paying 5-10x as much for a new team a decade or 2 down the road. The big difference here is that Arlington Heights is already 100% on board, it's just the State of Illinois that has been dragging their feet for literally YEARS, to the point that Warren has finally moved on to Plan C. It wouldn't happen tomorrow, but if enough politicians lose their jobs after fumbling away the Bears, then their replacements would have learned a very valuable (and expensive) lesson, and they'd be more apt to do whatever it took to return the NFL to the State. Most likely, that would just be getting the Bears to move back once their deal in Indiana expired ofc, but other options would likely at least be considered.

I understand what you’re stating. I think the huge difference here and all of the examples provided by Dawgma (e.g. St. Louis, Baltimore, LA, etc.) is that the Indiana location is IN the Chicago market. The Bears aren’t moving away from the Chicago *market* and that is the relevant geographic area as opposed to a state line. This isn’t like the Colts leaving Baltimore for Indianapolis and then in turn the Browns leaving Cleveland for Baltimore. This is pretty much a carbon copy of the new Chiefs stadium move from Kansas City, MO to Kansas City, KS. I’m not saying that I personally like the Indiana location, but it is 100% clearly within every definition of the Chicago metro area and TV market. I think there’s a lot of psychological belief for a lot of people (even within the Chicago area) that moving to Indiana is some type of massive distance that totally belies the actual geography. I don’t personally feel it because I grew up in the South Suburbs where the Indiana state line was only a few miles away, but it has been interesting to see people nationwide totally not understand that Northwest Indiana is every bit as much of the Chicago area as New Jersey is to the NYC area.

I know it's the same market. Just as the Metro East (IL) is St. Louis.

I feel like I've been pretty clear I am speaking about the State of Illinois, and not Chicagoland. Illinois doesn't benefit nearly as much from the Bears if they're in Indiana. This is why Indiana and Kansas are going all out. Taxes, taxes taxes.

So what would be more likely if the Bears move to Indiana, a new stadium district for a potential relocated team in Chicagoland on the IL side, or in the Metro East (O'Fallon/Shiloh)?

Selfishly I'm hoping they move to Arlington Heights. My sister and her husband live in Palatine, a mile and a half (as the crow flies) from the property the Bears own. I could drive down from the Madison area on a Saturday, stay over night at their house and head to the game the next day. It's a no brainer for me. My family grew up in the northwest suburbs (Schaumburg).

It's not just the Bears games. It's everything else. To me it's definitely the best solution. The money is there and in the surrounding areas up north and west suburbs.

Virginia McCaskey (Mama Bear) said she wanted it there before she passed, and I think the Bears are just posturing to get property taxes in line with the other NFL teams.

It's typical Chicago politics. They already bought the land, and that's where they're going. People that buy PSL's don't live in around Hammond. They live where the Cubs fans live.

(02-25-2026 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 02:59 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don't see the NFL ever revisiting the St. Louis market again. Outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams were in the bottom third of attendance in the late 1990's, late 2000s and early 2010s, before bottoming out before moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Cardinals football also never hosted an NFL playoff game, and they were restricted attendance wise playing in old Busch.

It is a baseball/hockey city, with no professional basketball or football franchise (which is different reason I remain so high on SLU as a BE candidate, as there are limited competitive alternatives in the winter; and they are getting 9/10k at their home games this year).

I don't think the NFL will expand again anytime soon. I think 32 is the sweet spot for that league. If the NFL does ever expand again, I think 36 is the next number, so they'll need to add four teams.

Where St. Louis does potentially enter the picture, however, is as follows: there are more markets at least arguably capable of supporting a NFL franchise than there are available NFL franchises. So the owner of a NFL franchise looking for a sweetheart stadium deal can shop his team around to prospective NFL markets in the hope of getting the best deal available. We're going back a few years here, but that's how the original Cleveland Browns wound up in Baltimore, and how the old Houston Oilers wound up in Nashville. And this is only my opinion, but I think it's why the Buffalo Bills got a new stadium deal done as quickly and as quietly as they did.

I think 2 teams in London, 1 team in Frankfurt, and one in Paris or perhaps Rome are probably next on the NFL's agenda. Perhaps Mexico City and Toronto, too, though those 2 don't need to happen together or even at all. 4 teams in Europe would allow for long trips every season, if you're playing 2 games there b/c your division plays their division, just play the games back to back and spend 10 days in Europe or whatever. Rio is probably on the list at some point, too.

I would think anyplace other than London or Germany would be a real risk that nobody would pay attention.

(02-25-2026 09:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 08:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

While I fully agree that Illinois isn't going to fumble away the Bears and then magically attract the Bengals/Jags/etc, there is ample precedent for cities and States fumbling away teams and then paying 5-10x as much for a new team a decade or 2 down the road. The big difference here is that Arlington Heights is already 100% on board, it's just the State of Illinois that has been dragging their feet for literally YEARS, to the point that Warren has finally moved on to Plan C. It wouldn't happen tomorrow, but if enough politicians lose their jobs after fumbling away the Bears, then their replacements would have learned a very valuable (and expensive) lesson, and they'd be more apt to do whatever it took to return the NFL to the State. Most likely, that would just be getting the Bears to move back once their deal in Indiana expired ofc, but other options would likely at least be considered.

I understand what you’re stating. I think the huge difference here and all of the examples provided by Dawgma (e.g. St. Louis, Baltimore, LA, etc.) is that the Indiana location is IN the Chicago market. The Bears aren’t moving away from the Chicago *market* and that is the relevant geographic area as opposed to a state line. This isn’t like the Colts leaving Baltimore for Indianapolis and then in turn the Browns leaving Cleveland for Baltimore. This is pretty much a carbon copy of the new Chiefs stadium move from Kansas City, MO to Kansas City, KS. I’m not saying that I personally like the Indiana location, but it is 100% clearly within every definition of the Chicago metro area and TV market. I think there’s a lot of psychological belief for a lot of people (even within the Chicago area) that moving to Indiana is some type of massive distance that totally belies the actual geography. I don’t personally feel it because I grew up in the South Suburbs where the Indiana state line was only a few miles away, but it has been interesting to see people nationwide totally not understand that Northwest Indiana is every bit as much of the Chicago area as New Jersey is to the NYC area.

They're even in the wrong time zone!

(02-25-2026 04:05 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I take it you've never been to East Saint Louis, IL?

great point. i don't understand why it's anyone's fantasy to have two chicago teams. i personally don't want to see any more duplication in the markets and see few viable options for expansion in general. i would rather see contraction or relocation

(02-25-2026 10:29 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 04:05 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I take it you've never been to East Saint Louis, IL?

great point. i don't understand why it's anyone's fantasy to have two chicago teams. i personally don't want to see any more duplication in the markets and see few viable options for expansion in general. i would rather see contraction or relocation

For the 1000th time I am talking about the State of Illinois losing the massive windfall of an NFL team. You all are so stuck on Chicago it’s like you stop reading.

That's a good point about the PSL's. Sure if Hammond builds a stadium, it will probably still sell out every game, but if the goal is to maximize revenue from PSL's and ticket sales, the money is in the northern suburbs.

Isn’t this pretty much the same thing as what the Giants did 50 years ago when they abandoned NYC and moved across the river to a new stadium financed and built by the State of New Jersey? They were joined 8 years later by the Jets who also left New York City for the Meadowlands.

A few years earlier, the Patriots left Boston and moved to Foxborough, MA 28 miles away. While it was in the same state, they dropped “Boston” from their name and became the “New England” Patriots. They might just as well have moved to Rhode Island. They did in fact enter negotiations to move to Connecticut 20 some years later and only stayed in Mass after they received concessions from Massachusetts for highway access infrastructure.

(02-26-2026 09:35 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  Isn’t this pretty much the same thing as what the Giants did 50 years ago when they abandoned NYC and moved across the river to a new stadium financed and built by the State of New Jersey? They were joined 8 years later by the Jets who also left New York City for the Meadowlands.

A few years earlier, the Patriots left Boston and moved to Foxborough, MA 28 miles away. While it was in the same state, they dropped “Boston” from their name and became the “New England” Patriots. They might just as well have moved to Rhode Island. They did in fact enter negotiations to move to Connecticut 20 some years later and only stayed in Mass after they received concessions from Massachusetts for highway access infrastructure.

Similar, but Mass has the Pats and the Empire State has the Bills. Illinois would be losing an NFL franchise and the financial windfall that comes with it.

We’ll know soon enough how much they care about that. It looks like Iowa has entered the chat.

Some of y’all need to realize this is bigger than marketz

(02-25-2026 09:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 08:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don’t think all of these “If Illinois (or Chicago) loses the Bears, then couldn’t Illinois (or Chicago) build a stadium for another team?” posts are fully understanding that it’s all circular. If neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago can figure out a stadium deal for the team that its residents actually cares *and* that team is even spending $2 billion of its own money towards stadium construction (which is a huge team contribution by NFL standards), then they certainly aren’t figuring out a stadium deal for a hypothetical random team that would almost certainly be asking for a fully publicly-subsidized stadium (as is the case for virtually any team that threatens to move).

It’s like asking whether someone that has failed basic arithmetic can then immediately get an A+ in AP Calculus BC. The economics of the Bears stadium deal are far easier for the politicians to deal with and less expensive to the taxpayers compared to any realistic stadium deal for a hypothetical new team. Even if the NFL cares about the St. Louis market (and I don’t think they do as they’ve set their sights on international markets as the engine for future growth), there is zero reason to believe that the State of Illinois government would somehow get a different stadium deal done with a different team (and that’s not even taking account they couldn’t even afford it even if they wanted to get that deal done).

While I fully agree that Illinois isn't going to fumble away the Bears and then magically attract the Bengals/Jags/etc, there is ample precedent for cities and States fumbling away teams and then paying 5-10x as much for a new team a decade or 2 down the road. The big difference here is that Arlington Heights is already 100% on board, it's just the State of Illinois that has been dragging their feet for literally YEARS, to the point that Warren has finally moved on to Plan C. It wouldn't happen tomorrow, but if enough politicians lose their jobs after fumbling away the Bears, then their replacements would have learned a very valuable (and expensive) lesson, and they'd be more apt to do whatever it took to return the NFL to the State. Most likely, that would just be getting the Bears to move back once their deal in Indiana expired ofc, but other options would likely at least be considered.

I understand what you’re stating. I think the huge difference here and all of the examples provided by Dawgma (e.g. St. Louis, Baltimore, LA, etc.) is that the Indiana location is IN the Chicago market. The Bears aren’t moving away from the Chicago *market* and that is the relevant geographic area as opposed to a state line. This isn’t like the Colts leaving Baltimore for Indianapolis and then in turn the Browns leaving Cleveland for Baltimore. This is pretty much a carbon copy of the new Chiefs stadium move from Kansas City, MO to Kansas City, KS. I’m not saying that I personally like the Indiana location, but it is 100% clearly within every definition of the Chicago metro area and TV market. I think there’s a lot of psychological belief for a lot of people (even within the Chicago area) that moving to Indiana is some type of massive distance that totally belies the actual geography. I don’t personally feel it because I grew up in the South Suburbs where the Indiana state line was only a few miles away, but it has been interesting to see people nationwide totally not understand that Northwest Indiana is every bit as much of the Chicago area as New Jersey is to the NYC area.

I think that it was much easier for people to understand in Kansas City bc, well, most people probably already thought that the KANSAS City Chiefs were a KANSAS football team, anyway. They've even moving from one Kansas City to another. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that it's every bit as frustrating for KC, Missouri fans as the Bears potentially moving to NW Indiana is for Illinois Bears fans, but to outsiders, the Bears thing seems like a much greater thing than it it actually would be in practice. Ultimately, few Bears fans will be impacted if the team plays 25 miles in one direction or 25 miles in the other direction. Both are still "Chicago", just as Irving, Frisco and Arlington are still "Dallas" for Cowboys fans. Your "these are not serious people" quote is quite telling, this would be the first time I'm aware of that a State fumbled away a franchise without it actually making the city lose the team, with all the reputational damage falling squarely on the State's shoulders.