The Illinois governor’s office said it was blindsided after the Chicago Bears and Indiana officials released statements this morning suggesting progress toward a stadium deal in Hammond, Indiana. Illinois spokesman Matt Hill said the Bears had told state officials as recently as yesterday that negotiations were headed toward a bill in the Illinois General Assembly that would keep the team in Illinois. After a three-hour meeting, Hill said Bears leaders asked the ILGA to pause a hearing to revise the proposal; Illinois officials say they were then surprised by a public statement praising Indiana. The development underscores a fast-moving, interstate competition over taxpayer-supported stadium assistance.
Key takeaways
- The Bears and the Indiana governor’s office issued statements today indicating they were “making progress” on a stadium agreement in Hammond, Indiana, about 20 miles from downtown Chicago.
- Illinois officials, represented by spokesman Matt Hill, said the team had told them as recently as yesterday that a bill to keep the Bears in Illinois was moving forward in the Illinois General Assembly (ILGA).
- Hill said a three-hour meeting with Bears leaders occurred yesterday, after which the team asked the ILGA to pause a hearing so the bill could be further revised.
- Potential Illinois stadium options discussed by the team include renovating at the Soldier Field site in Chicago or building in Arlington Heights, a suburb roughly 30 miles from downtown Chicago.
- Hammond, Indiana — the site referenced in the statements — lies about 20 miles from downtown Chicago, creating an interstate contest for public support and economic benefits.
- The timing and dual statements by the team and Indiana officials suggest the Bears may be negotiating with multiple states simultaneously for public financing.
Background
For months the Chicago Bears have explored options for a new stadium and public financing to replace or significantly renovate their current home at Soldier Field. Two primary Illinois options have been under discussion: a rebuilt or reimagined stadium at Soldier Field, and a new complex in Arlington Heights, about 30 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. At the same time, a proposal centered on Hammond, Indiana — roughly 20 miles from downtown — emerged as an alternative that would move the team across state lines if pursued.
Stadium negotiations of this scale typically involve complex bargains between franchise owners, state and local governments, and private developers. Public subsidies for professional sports venues are politically sensitive: they can promise jobs and infrastructure investment while drawing scrutiny over long-term taxpayer costs. Illinois and Indiana officials both have incentives to secure the economic benefits a relocated or retained franchise could bring, which can prompt aggressive outreach and competing offers.
Main event
Today the Bears and the Indiana governor’s office released statements indicating progress toward an agreement to build a stadium in Hammond. The text of those releases framed talks as moving forward, prompting immediate reactions from Illinois officials who said the news was unexpected. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s spokesman, Matt Hill, posted on social media that Illinois had been preparing to advance legislation to keep the team in-state and that the Bears had asked the ILGA to pause a hearing to refine the bill.
According to Illinois officials, a three-hour meeting with team leaders took place yesterday and was characterized as productive; after that meeting, the team reportedly sought a temporary pause in ILGA proceedings. Illinois officials say they were then surprised to see the team and Indiana laud progress toward a separate deal. The Bears have not publicly detailed final terms, and neither state has confirmed a signed agreement as of this morning.
The competing public statements illustrate a charged negotiation environment, with the franchise pursuing leverage in separate capitals. That posture — engaging multiple jurisdictions — is not unusual in high-stakes stadium talks, where teams often use proposals in one location to extract better terms from another. For Illinois lawmakers, the apparent divergence in messaging raises questions about trust and timing as a legislative vehicle sat ready to be advanced.
Analysis & implications
The immediate implication is political: Illinois lawmakers who prepared to consider a stadium bill may face criticism for appearing reactive if the Bears ultimately choose Indiana. For Governor Pritzker, a publicly visible negotiation with the Bears involves reputational risk and potential fiscal scrutiny. If the Bears shift toward Indiana, Illinois could lose projected tax revenue from events, ancillary business growth, and other economic activity tied to a stadium precinct.
Economically, a move to Hammond would reallocate potential construction jobs, permanent stadium employment, and visitor spending across state lines. Indiana would gain the direct economic activity and may offer incentives structured to make their package more attractive. However, academic studies of sports subsidies show that promised long-term fiscal windfalls often fall short of initial projections, so any benefits would depend on the final agreement’s structure and enforcement.
Legally and procedurally, the ILGA pause requested by the team could indicate ongoing negotiations over tax credits, infrastructure funding, or land use approvals. If Illinois lawmakers attempt to rework a bill to address the team’s concerns, timing becomes crucial: legislative calendars and budget priorities may limit how quickly a revised proposal can be advanced. Conversely, a formal or de facto commitment from Indiana could accelerate negotiations there and make Illinois’ options more constrained.
Comparison & data
| Location | Approximate distance to downtown Chicago |
|---|---|
| Soldier Field (current site, Chicago, IL) | 0 miles (on lakefront) |
| Arlington Heights (Illinois proposal) | ~30 miles northwest |
| Hammond (Indiana proposal) | ~20 miles southeast |
The table above shows relative distances from downtown Chicago to each proposed site. Those distances shape commute patterns for fans, regional tax implications, and the geographic distribution of ancillary businesses like hotels and restaurants. A site 20 miles from downtown may draw different audiences and regional partners than one 30 miles away or in the city’s lakefront neighborhood.
Reactions & quotes
“Illinois was ready to move this bill forward. After a productive three hour meeting yesterday, the Bears leaders requested the ILGA pause the hearing to make further tweaks to the bill. This morning, we were surprised to see a statement lauding Indiana and ignoring Illinois.”
Matt Hill, spokesman for Illinois Governor JB Pritzker (social media statement)
“We are making progress on an agreement to build a stadium in Hammond.”
Statement by Indiana governor’s office / Chicago Bears (official statements today)
Both blockquoted statements were issued publicly today; Illinois officials framed their comments as a response to the team’s simultaneous outreach to Indiana. Independent analysts note that teams and governments often release carefully timed public language to strengthen negotiating positions.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the Bears have executed or will execute any binding agreement with Indiana remains unconfirmed; no signed contract has been publicly released as of this morning.
- The precise terms being discussed with either state — including subsidy amounts, tax arrangements, or infrastructure commitments — have not been disclosed publicly.
- It is not confirmed that an Illinois General Assembly vote would have approved a final deal absent the Bears’ pause request; legislative outcome remains speculative.
Bottom line
The episode exposes a fast-moving, high-stakes negotiation in which the Bears appear to be engaging multiple jurisdictions to secure public support for a new stadium. Illinois officials say they were ready to advance legislation and were surprised by contemporaneous statements signaling progress with Indiana. That dynamic raises questions about the team’s negotiating strategy and how each state values short-term economic gains against long-term fiscal obligations.
For residents, lawmakers and businesses, the next steps to watch are whether either side produces a signed agreement, the detailed terms of any public subsidy, and how quickly legislatures or local boards act. Until specific agreements are published, much about financial commitments and projected community impacts will remain uncertain.
Sources
- NBC Sports — media report summarizing statements and timeline
- Chicago Bears — official team site / official statements (official)
- Office of the Governor of Indiana — state government press office (official)
- Office of the Governor of Illinois — state government press office (official)