Could Kansas sweeten stadium offer to Chiefs in 11th hour? Why they shouldn’t | Opinion

Thursday’s announcement of a potential delay in the Kansas City Chiefs’ decision on a Kansas-side football stadium won’t surprise anyone.

The Chiefs asked for more time to reach a deal, and Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, a Republican from Andover, all but promised it — despite claims a month ago that the July 1 2025 deadline was firm.

The possible delay was announced in two letters made public Thursday. The choreographed statements of Masterson and Chiefs president Mark Donovan were long on platitudes, but as usual quite mushy on specifics.

That’s just fine with Kansas legislators, who have always preferred doing the public’s business behind closed doors, and the Chiefs.

This obfuscation forces the rest of us to figure out what the Chiefs mean when they say they want to build a “world-class domed stadium.” We still don’t know where in Kansas it would be built, or what it would cost, or what additional infrastructure might be needed.

The Chiefs’ letter

Crucially, we have no idea of the financing, or the potential public risk, if any, for the stadium.

The team’s letter said the project would be the largest economic initiative in Kansas history. Let’s do some math: the Panasonic battery plant, now nearing completion near DeSoto, is a $4 billion project. A domed football stadium by itself is estimated to cost $3 billion. The letter also mentions new team headquarters, a state-of-the-art practice facility, and a vibrant mixed-use and entertainment district.

That means the final Chiefs deal would have to include ancillary construction of at least $1 billion. Under the terms of the Kansas STAR bond law, the team would presumably have to pick up at least 30% of the total $4 billion cost, or $1.2 billion.

We have suggested a renovation of Arrowhead Stadium, in Missouri, as a better and cheaper alternative. But we have also said that there are advantages to having Kansans contribute more fully to supporting professional sports in the region.

If the Chiefs are prepared to spend more than $1.2 billion on a stadium project and entertainment district, and if the team will own the stadium and its costs, Kansas is right to listen.

What Kansas must not do is dramatically change the structure of the state’s development offer. In his letter, Sen. Masterson hinted at a desire to become more fully involved in talks with the team. He and his colleagues must resist the urge, in this 11th hour, to sweeten the deal with more public money for the proposal.

KC mayor’s perspective

Interestingly, in his own statement, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas focused first on the Kansas City Royals, who were mostly silent Thursday on the Chiefs’ Kansas extension request.

“Kansas City has assembled and shared with the Royals a unique, comprehensive, and unmatched offer to secure for the Royals Downtown,” Lucas said. Again, details of where, and when, and how much, and what taxpayers would provide, are not known.

It’s likely, however, that Kansas will be skittish about endorsing STAR bond financing for the Chiefs and the Royals. Putting bond holders on the hook for $5 billion or more would cost a fortune in higher interest and bond insurance.

So the team and the city must keep pursuing an alternative. If the Royals insist on leaving Kauffman, they should be downtown. We think there is still time to work out a deal for baseball in Kansas City, Mo.

To be clear: Both the Royals and Chiefs should stay in Missouri, which has offered its own incentive package in good faith (even though it was, of course, developed in secret.) We think local voters will support projects for both teams that are reasonable and transparent.

At the same time, while moving one team to Kansas and keeping the other in Missouri is less than optimal, it is an alternative that deserves a hearing.

Our observations come with a warning: the public is growing tired of all the dithering, and the secrecy. The Chiefs and Royals are private companies, but they are public assets, which is why some taxpayer help for stadiums is justified.

That support for the teams will further dwindle if this process goes on much longer. Get the best deal for taxpayers and fans, and let’s move forward.

This story was originally published June 27, 2025 at 10:40 AM.