What Indiana's Bears Bill Actually Costs: A Taxpayer's Guide
Indiana passed a stadium framework for a team that has not agreed to anything, whose Chicago lease runs through 2033, and whose headquarters are staying in Illinois. Here is what the bill actually costs.
By Dear Kevin Warren · 2026-02-26
On February 24, 2026, the Indiana House passed SB 27 by a vote of 95-4.
The bill creates a subsidy framework for a Chicago Bears stadium in Hammond, Indiana. The Bears have not signed anything. The Bears still have a lease with the Chicago Park District at Soldier Field that runs through 2033. The Bears' corporate headquarters, under any announced plan, are staying in Illinois.
Indiana passed the bill anyway.
Here is what they approved.
The Revenue Streams
SB 27 creates several dedicated funding mechanisms:
TIF District. A Tax Increment Financing district of undetermined size around the stadium site. All new property tax revenue generated within the district — from businesses, hotels, retail, and residential development that would have happened anyway — gets redirected to stadium-related costs for decades. The district boundaries have not been set. Kansas City's Chiefs stadium package included a 293-square-mile TIF district. Indiana's is TBD.
Food and Beverage Surcharge. A 1% tax on food and beverage sales within the district, generating an estimated $12-18 million per year. This tax is paid by consumers at restaurants and bars in the surrounding area.
Hotel Tax. The local hotel tax is doubled from 5% to 10%, generating an estimated $5.4 million or more per year.
Ticket Tax. A 12% tax on game tickets, generating an estimated $12 million per year.
The baseline annual revenue from these streams: roughly $27-30 million per year, before the TIF.
What That Actually Costs Over Time
Thirty million dollars a year does not sound like much.
Over 40 years — the typical life of a stadium subsidy — at a standard 5% discount rate, $27-30 million per year equals roughly $440-500 million in present value. That is just the baseline surcharge and tax revenue, not counting the TIF.
TIF financing is where the real numbers come in. When a city or state creates a TIF district, every dollar of property tax increase within the district — from the day the district is created — gets redirected to stadium costs rather than funding schools, libraries, and local services. The surrounding businesses and residents continue to generate economic activity that would have happened regardless of the stadium. None of that tax revenue goes to public services. It all goes to the stadium.
Size the TIF district large enough and the total cost climbs past $4 billion.
That is the estimate from Geoff Propheter, a public finance economist who analyzed SB 27. Using present-value calculations across all funding mechanisms and a realistically sized TIF district, Propheter estimated Indiana's total public commitment exceeds $4 billion.
How This Compares to Other Stadium Deals
Neil deMause has tracked stadium subsidy deals for over 25 years at Field of Schemes (fieldofschemes.com). His assessment of SB 27: it ranks among the largest stadium subsidy packages in NFL history.
For context:
- US Bank Stadium, Minneapolis (2016): $498 million in public funding — the largest direct public NFL stadium subsidy at the time it was built. Kevin Warren was with the Minnesota Vikings when this deal was struck. - Allegiant Stadium, Las Vegas (2020): $750 million in public funding from Nevada. - Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis (2008): Roughly $1.2 billion in total public commitment including infrastructure. - Arrowhead/Kauffman (proposed) Kansas City: $4.1 billion estimate — a 293-square-mile TIF district, comparable in structure to what Indiana is offering.
Indiana SB 27, in present-value terms, is in the same weight class as the Kansas City plan — the one widely considered the most extreme stadium subsidy proposal in current American politics.
What Indiana Is Actually Getting
The Bears have not signed a deal.
There is no term sheet. No signed letter of intent. The Bears have said they are evaluating both Illinois and Indiana, and they have continued negotiations with Illinois at the same time SB 27 was moving through the Indiana legislature.
The Bears' lease with the Chicago Park District runs through 2033. Moving to Hammond before 2033 would require negotiating an early exit from that lease — and buying out the remaining years. The Park District has not indicated any willingness to do that cheaply.
The Bears' corporate headquarters, under every plan announced, are staying in Illinois. The team would practice in Illinois. Only the games would be in Hammond — 25 miles from downtown Chicago, across the Indiana state line.
What Indiana passed is a framework, not a deal. A framework that commits Indiana taxpayers to potentially $4 billion in public exposure, in exchange for a team that has not agreed to show up.
The Leverage Play
This is not a criticism specific to Indiana. This is how stadium politics works.
Teams create competition between jurisdictions — pit one city against another, one state against another — and collect the best offer. The Bears are doing what the New England Patriots did in the 1990s, what the Oakland Raiders did for thirty years, what every NFL team with stadium leverage does when their lease comes up.
Indiana passed SB 27 because they believed the threat was real enough to act on. Maybe it is. Maybe it is a negotiating posture.
Either way, Indiana taxpayers just passed a $4 billion bill for a team that hasn't promised to come.
Illinois taxpayers are being asked to do the same.
Update — July 14, 2026
On July 14, the Chicago Tribune published the first independent, named-expert analysis of Indiana's stadium financing math. The conclusion: it doesn't add up.
Two academic economists calculate a $5-7 million annual shortfall. Geoffrey Propheter (UC Denver) and Deborah Carroll (UIC) found that even under best-case revenue assumptions, $55M per year from all authorized tax streams, Indiana falls short of the $60-62M annual debt service on a $1 billion bond.
Porter County officials told the Tribune the answer is "hell no." Commissioner Jim Biggs said residents oppose the food-and-beverage tax nearly unanimously. Council President Andy Vásquez blamed his May primary defeat on his stadium tax support. His successor campaigned on "No new taxes for Lake County projects."
The Bears are now scouting a second Hammond site at Wolf Lake Terminals. The 83-acre property holds 21 million gallons of tank storage for petrochemicals, de-icers, and food oils. It sits beside the Dover Chemical Corp. facility and the Federated Metals Superfund site, the same environmental uncertainties this article flagged in February, now with a specific chemical inventory attached.
The question this article asked in February now has independent expert numbers behind it. Indiana's bill costs more than the available revenue can cover. The gap is $5-7 million a year. Taxpayers are being asked to fill it.