The Northwest Indiana Reality: Leverage or Genuine Alternative?

In December 2025, Kevin Warren announced the Bears needed to "critically evaluate opportunities throughout the wider Chicagoland region, including Northwest Indiana."

By Dear Kevin Warren · 2026-01-21

Editor's note, June 2026: We wrote this in January 2026, before Indiana enacted SB 27 and before Hammond's Wolf Lake site was named. The leverage read below held up. For the full, current case against a Hammond move, start with Why It Won't Be Indiana.

In December 2025, Kevin Warren announced the Bears needed to "critically evaluate opportunities throughout the wider Chicagoland region, including Northwest Indiana."

Is this a genuine alternative or pure leverage? Here's what the evidence says.

What we know

Public statements

December 17, 2025 (Warren open letter): > "Our organization must keep every credible pathway open, which includes areas inside and outside of Illinois. When opportunities emerge, we will listen and engage... We need to expand our search and critically evaluate opportunities throughout the wider Chicagoland region, including Northwest Indiana."

Same letter: > "This is not about leverage."

Indiana political response

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb and other officials have expressed interest in pursuing the Bears. However:

- No specific site has been publicly identified - No dollar amount has been publicly stated - No legislative action has occurred - No formal proposal exists in public record

What we don't know

Missing information

| Question | Known? | Notes | |----------|--------|-------| | Specific site location | No | Gary? Hammond? East Chicago? Rural? | | Proposed public contribution | No | No dollar figure released | | Financing mechanism | No | Tax increment? State bonds? Direct appropriation? | | Stadium cost estimate | No | No plans exist publicly | | Legislative approval path | No | Would require Indiana General Assembly action | | Timeline | No | No construction start or shovels-in-ground targets | | NFL approval likelihood | No | Would require league relocation approval |

Potential sites

Mentioned possibilities

Gary, Indiana - Former industrial city, significant vacant land - Population: ~70,000 (declining) - Major economic challenges - Limited infrastructure

Hammond, Indiana - Closer to Chicago (15 miles) - More established economy than Gary - Limited large development sites

Unspecified Greenfield - Rural land between cities - Would require all new infrastructure - Maximum flexibility, maximum cost

Site comparison

| Factor | Gary | Hammond | Greenfield | |--------|------|---------|------------| | Land availability | High | Medium | High | | Existing infrastructure | Low | Medium | Very Low | | Political support | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | | Chicago proximity | 30+ mi | 25 mi | Varies | | Transit connection | None | None | None | | Economic distress | High | Medium | N/A |

The economics of Indiana

What Indiana could offer

Theoretically, Indiana could provide incentives including: - Direct state appropriation - Tax increment financing - Property tax abatement - Infrastructure investment - Land acquisition assistance

Why Indiana might say yes

1. Economic distress — Northwest Indiana has lost manufacturing jobs for decades 2. Political points — Landing the Bears would be major for any governor 3. Tax base — Some spillover employment and sales tax

Why Indiana might say no

1. Massive cost — Building from scratch requires billions 2. Opportunity cost — Money diverted from other priorities 3. Uncertain return — Academic consensus on stadium subsidies is negative 4. Chicago proximity — Fans would still live in Illinois, limiting local benefit 5. Political risk — Public subsidy for Chicago team may not play well statewide

Relocation mechanics

NFL approval process

Moving an NFL team requires: 1. Owner files for relocation with league 2. League examines market viability 3. 24 of 32 team owners must approve 4. Relocation fee paid to league (typically $500M-$1B+)

Would 24 owners approve?

Factors favoring approval: - Owner frustration with current market (stadium, subsidies) - Market size of new location (but Indiana is smaller) - Demonstrated good-faith negotiation with current city

Factors opposing approval: - Leaving a top-3 media market - Precedent for abandoning major cities - Market size differential (Indiana is much smaller) - Unclear fan base transfer

No NFL team has ever left a top-5 market. The Bears leaving Chicago would be unprecedented.

Historical relocation comparison

| Team | Old Market | New Market | Market Rank Change | |------|-----------|-----------|-------------------| | Raiders (2020) | Oakland (6) | Las Vegas (40) | -34 | | Rams (2016) | St. Louis (21) | Los Angeles (2) | +19 | | Chargers (2017) | San Diego (28) | Los Angeles (2) | +26 | | Colts (1984) | Baltimore (24) | Indianapolis (25) | -1 | | Cardinals (1988) | St. Louis (18) | Phoenix (11) | +7 |

Bears hypothetical: Chicago (3) → "Indianapolis" (25) = -22 market ranks

This would be the largest downgrade in NFL history.

The leverage analysis

Signs this is leverage

1. Timing — Indiana mentioned immediately after Illinois funding stalled 2. Vagueness — No specifics on site, cost, or timeline 3. Denial — "This is not about leverage" in the same letter as the threat 4. Pattern — Warren used the same tactic (LA threat) in Minnesota 5. Site ownership — Bears already own Arlington Heights land; Indiana would mean abandoning a $197M investment

Signs this could be real

1. Kansas City precedent — Chiefs stadium recently rejected by voters; team exploring alternatives 2. Political appetite — Indiana leaders have shown interest 3. Desperation — If Illinois firmly refuses subsidies, alternatives become more real 4. Owner control — McCaskeys could be willing to make dramatic moves

Assessment: Leverage with escalation risk

Most likely: Northwest Indiana is leverage designed to extract maximum concessions from Illinois.

However: Unlike pure bluffs, this leverage could become real if Illinois calls it without offering anything. The Kansas City situation shows that teams can pursue surprising moves when leverage fails.

The fan base question

Where Bears fans live

| Region | Estimated % of Season Ticket Base | |--------|----------------------------------| | Chicago proper | 20-25% | | Cook County (not Chicago) | 25-30% | | Collar counties (IL) | 35-40% | | Northwest Indiana | 5-10% | | Other (WI, IA, downstate) | 5-10% |

Source: Estimates based on geographic analysis of fan distribution

Would fans follow?

Factors helping fan retention: - 100 years of brand loyalty - Family traditions - Television viewership continues regardless

Factors hurting fan retention: - Loss of Chicago identity - Longer travel for city fans - Psychological break of leaving Chicago - Generational turnover (kids grow up with "Indiana" Bears?)

The Chargers move to Los Angeles has been a disaster for fan engagement. The team plays in a stadium built for the Rams, draws smaller crowds than some college teams, and lost most of its San Diego fan base without fully winning Los Angeles.

What Chicago should do

If it's leverage (most likely)

1. Demand specifics — What's the actual offer? Site, money, timeline. 2. Call the bluff — "Show us Indiana's proposal. We'll wait." 3. Maintain position — No panic, no rushed concessions. 4. Document contradictions — Warren's statements vs. reality.

If it becomes real

1. Let them go — Chicago survives. Another team will eventually come. 2. Reclaim the leverage — "Indianapolis" loses the Chicago brand, the market, the history. 3. Celebrate the precedent — Calling bluffs discourages future threats. 4. Invest elsewhere — Billions in infrastructure for actual public needs.

The McCaskey factor

Financial reality

The McCaskey family is "asset rich, cash poor." Their wealth is the Bears — estimated at $6+ billion in franchise value.

To build a stadium in Indiana, they would need to: 1. Abandon their $197M Arlington Heights investment 2. Finance a new stadium (private financing or Indiana subsidy) 3. Pay NFL relocation fee ($500M-$1B) 4. Absorb years of construction while playing... where?

Do they have the capital?

Unlike owners like Stan Kroenke ($12B+ personal wealth) who can self-finance stadium construction, the McCaskeys would need: - Massive NFL loans - Major Indiana public subsidy - Private equity partners

Is Indiana really prepared to fund most of a $2-3 billion stadium for a team from Chicago?

Conclusions

1. This is almost certainly leverage. The vagueness, timing, and pattern match Warren's playbook exactly.

2. Real offers have specifics. Until we see a site, a dollar amount, and legislative action, Indiana is a concept, not a proposal.

3. The McCaskeys can't easily leave. Financial constraints, sunk costs at Arlington Heights, and market realities create friction.

4. NFL approval isn't automatic. Leaving a top-3 market would be unprecedented and require supermajority owner approval.

5. Calling the bluff is appropriate. Demand specifics. Don't panic. Let Warren prove Indiana is real.

6. Even if real, Chicago survives. The city existed before the Bears. It will exist after. The leverage only works if we believe losing the team is catastrophic.

Key questions for Warren

1. What is the specific site Indiana is proposing? 2. What dollar amount has Indiana committed? 3. What legislative approvals has Indiana secured? 4. What is the timeline for an Indiana stadium? 5. How will the Bears finance construction? 6. What happens to the $197M Arlington Heights investment? 7. What relocation fee is the NFL requiring? 8. Have you formally filed for relocation with the NFL?

Until these questions have answers, Northwest Indiana is leverage — not an alternative.

Sources

- Kevin Warren open letter, December 17, 2025 - NFL relocation policy documentation - Indiana Governor's Office statements - Historical NFL relocation data - Forbes NFL franchise valuations - Academic research on stadium economics - News coverage: Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Star, NWI Times