Amended Chase Field Deal Still Favors Team, Raises Long-Term Taxpayer Burden
We’re covering this story for taxpayer transparency.
Arizona lawmakers advanced a heavily amended version of HB2704 late last night, significantly reshaping the stadium financing bill but retaining many of the same concerns raised in earlier versions. While the new amendment adds clearer oversight and more guardrails, it ultimately extends and inflates public funding for Chase Field upgrades — offering the Diamondbacks flexibility while placing a larger long-term burden on Arizona taxpayers. The Senate didn’t vote until very late, but approved it with bipartisan support 19-11. The bill now awaits a House vote — which won’t happen until at least Monday, as lawmakers adjourned without taking action on the $17.6 billion budget package.
What The Amendment Does:
Caps public funding at $500 million, plus 3% annual increases through 2055. This means the cap grows each year, reaching nearly $1.2 billion by the end of the period. But that money isn’t delivered in a lump sum — it accrues gradually from transaction privilege taxes (TPT) and income taxes generated at and around Chase Field.
Limits annual city and town TPT contributions to a base of $3.5 million, increasing 3% per year through 2055.
Redirects 82% of state income taxes from Chase Field employee salaries — including players — into the stadium fund. That’s a drop from the earlier proposed 100% but still includes money that would otherwise go to the state’s general fund. The remaining 18% stays with the state. This diversion includes all team and stadium employees.
Narrows the use of stadium funds. Public money can now only be used for capital repairs and improvements, not luxury upgrades like pool suites or club seating. The bill does not clearly define what exactly “adjacent buildings” means in this context.
Creates financial safeguards. If the Diamondbacks leave Chase Field before 2056 or fail to meet their obligations, they become legally responsible for any outstanding district debts.
Restructures the stadium district board to include representatives from the Phoenix mayor, Maricopa County Board chair, the governor, the Legislature, and business owners within three miles of the stadium. The board must have financial expertise, cannot use eminent domain, and needs a two-thirds vote for any MLB-specific infrastructure use.
Sets a clear end date. The bill repeals all TPT diversions on April 1, 2056, officially ending the funding mechanism.
It also notes that the Legislature could end the deal earlier if the Diamondbacks fail to meet their obligations. But there’s no enforcement mechanism — and no requirement that lawmakers act even if the team doesn’t follow through. That makes the repeal clause more of a political talking point than a meaningful check on public spending. The likelihood of there being a repeal will be slim anyway especially with the public presence the team has.
Previous stories on this issue:
What Taxpayers Should Know
While the amendment adds some transparency guardrails and governance reforms, it does not resolve the fundamental issue: public dollars are still being used to pay for upgrades the Diamondbacks agreed to cover under a 2018 settlement. That deal gave the team full control over maintenance and improvements — obligations they now want subsidized.
The financial burden hasn’t disappeared — it’s grown. With the 3% annual increases, the total public commitment could swell far beyond the original $500 million cap. While lawmakers tout the cap as a safeguard, there’s no requirement for the team to spend the money all at once or in regular intervals. At current tax revenue levels, it could take decades to reach the cap. But because the Diamondbacks don’t publicly disclose how much revenue they make from special events like concerts or playoff games, there’s no way to verify how quickly the money is piling up — or whether it’s being used as intended.
And despite language saying the team is expected to contribute at least $250 million, there’s no binding clause requiring it. That amount is an “intent” — not a legal mandate. Meanwhile, the public’s contribution is automatic.
In contrast to places like Las Vegas — where stadiums are typically funded through hotel and tourism taxes that tap into visitor spending — Arizona’s deal uses local sales and income taxes. That means everyday Arizonans are footing the bill, not out-of-state tourists. It’s a fundamental difference in who bears the cost of stadium subsidies.
Bottom line: This is a sweetheart deal for the Diamondbacks. They get to upgrade their stadium with taxpayer support, face no meaningful penalties for early relocation, and keep their own books closed to the public. Arizona taxpayers, meanwhile, continue to fund a private sports franchise — without independent audits or clear public oversight.
This is the kind of fact finding journalism I was looking for on this site, nicely done.
In the early America, governments subsidized commerce like railroads, ports, interstates and canals. These were considered public goods which benefited the public as a whole. As the US became more and more affluent the politicians decided that professional sports teams were also a "public good" and deserved taxpayer money!
Two forces were at work; Very wealthy owners who contributed to the campaigns of the same politicians and the fan (fanatics) base who demanded that support.
Amazingly, died in wool conservatives who despise government intervention\spending of nearly any kind lose their minds when it comes to the Vikings, or Cardinals et al. and eagerly vote to give money to plutocrats for extravagant sandboxes. Insane.