In 2025, several state legislatures are considering stadium subsidies, a government subsidy directed toward athletic facilities and events, aiming to boost local economies and attract and retain professional sports franchises. In 2025, state lawmakers in Arizona, Missouri, and Oregon have introduced distinct legislative approaches to financing sports venues, each utilizing varying spending mechanisms to fund stadium upgrades, event incentives, and new facilities. Here, we examine various pieces of state stadium subsidy measures, analyzing their structures, potential economic impacts, and the challenges they present.

---

Arizona: Redirecting Tax Revenues to Fund Chase Field Upgrades

Arizona’s H.B. 2704, pending in the state legislature, proposes redirecting transaction privilege tax (TPT) revenues from city, county, and state sources to the Maricopa County Stadium District Fund to fund improvements to Chase Field, owned by the Maricopa County Stadium District and home of the Arizona Diamondbacks. The bill would cap these diversions at $500 million, adjusted annually for inflation, and includes penalties if the Diamondbacks were to leave before 2055, with higher fines for earlier departures (e.g., $10 million before 2035). Despite bipartisan support, the sports funding legislation has faced hurdles, requiring amendments to address fiscal concerns raised by Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego and lawmakers who estimate costs could exceed $1 billion.

The legislation would mandate that cities transmit 2% of TPT from businesses related to Chase Field events, such as retail and restaurants, while Maricopa County contributes its 0.5% transportation tax and additional funds to match city contributions. The bill would also redirect state TPT revenues from similar activities, with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimating a $15 million annual revenue loss, including $9.2 million from the General Fund, which could potentially impact education and public safety. The Arizona Department of Revenue will track these revenues until 2055, ensuring transparency in this sports funding legislation.

Negotiations led by Governor Katie Hobbs’ office introduced the $500 million cap and reforms to the Maricopa County Stadium District Board, which must report annually on projects and the Diamondbacks’ expected $250 million contribution. While supporters argue that the bill ensures Chase Field remains a viable MLB venue, fostering economic benefits through tourism and job creation, opponents highlight the need for fiscal responsibility. As the Senate vote nears, the outcome of this sports funding legislation will determine Arizona’s approach to balancing sports investment with public priorities.

---

Missouri: Enhancing Tax Credits and Funding Athletic Facilities

Missouri’s SB 3, signed into law on June 16, 2025, modifies taxation policies to subsidize sports through enhanced tax credits and the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. Effective July 1, 2026, the bill increases tax credits for amateur and collegiate sporting events from $5 to $6 per admission ticket and $10 to $12 per registered participant, raising the annual cap from $3 million to $6 million, with $5.5 million for events in Jackson County or St. Louis City. It also reduces donation-based tax credits from $10 million to $500,000 annually, extending both programs until 2032 to promote sports tourism.

The Show-Me Sports Investment Act subsidizes professional athletic facilities, such as stadiums, through annual appropriations up to stadiums’ baseline tax revenues for 30 years, capped at 50% of project costs. Local governments must invest in infrastructure, and the Missouri Development Finance Board can issue tax credits of up to $50 million for contributions to an infrastructure fund. If a professional sports franchise is relocated, it must repay state funds. The act targets retaining teams like those in Kansas City or St. Louis, but critics question the use of public funds for private ventures.

Proponents of SB 3 argue that the sports funding legislation might boost Missouri’s economy by attracting events and retaining franchises, creating jobs and visitor spending. However, the long-term commitment of public funds raises long-term concerns in the state about diverting resources from other under-invested state priorities, such as education or healthcare.

---

Oregon: Funding a Portland MLB Stadium with Player Tax Revenues

Oregon’s SB 110, passed in June 2025 and supported by Governor Tina Kotek, establishes a stadium subsidy framework to subsidize a $2 billion Major League Baseball (MLB) stadium in Portland using personal income taxes from MLB players and personnel earning over $100,000 annually. The bill grants up to $800 million in “incremental baseball tax revenues” over 30 years, deposited into the Major League Stadium Grant Fund for stadium construction and furnishing. It emphasizes inclusivity, mandating participation from minority-owned, woman-owned, veteran-owned, and emerging small businesses.

The Oregon Department of Administrative Services, with the approval of the State Treasurer, manages grant agreements that cap payments at $800 million, allowing the state to retain any excess revenues. The Department of Revenue estimates and tracks actual tax revenues, with overpayments returned to the General Fund. Funding is contingent on Legislative Assembly appropriations, and the agreements avoid pledging the state’s credit, aligning with Oregon’s constitutional debt limits. This sports funding legislation aims to align costs with beneficiaries, though its success hinges on securing an MLB team and consistent legislative support.

SB 110 seeks to maximize economic benefits for Oregon workers by prioritizing local labor and diverse businesses in stadium operations. Supporters view the bill as a strategic move to attract an MLB franchise, fostering community development and tourism, while critics note the uncertainty of appropriations and team acquisition. By leveraging player taxes, Oregon’s sports funding legislation minimizes general fund impacts, but its long-term viability depends on careful implementation and economic outcomes, making it a bold yet cautious investment in Portland’s sports future.

---