The Chicago Bears’ stadium saga has exploded into a three-way bidding war after two new Illinois locations submitted formal proposals to become the team’s future home. The village of McCook delivered the most aggressive offer yet: free land, a $2 billion stadium financed entirely by the village, and a symbolic $1 per year lease. The Southeast Side of Chicago also entered the fray with its own pitch, complicating the Bears’ ongoing push for a publicly funded lakefront dome that would replace Soldier Field.
The competition now pits suburban self-funding against city-backed plans, reshaping the political and financial calculus of landing an NFL flagship franchise. McCook’s proposal is a direct challenge to Chicago’s long-held advantage in stadium negotiations. The village, population under 2,500, would cover all construction costs for a new 60,000-seat facility and hand the Bears control of the land at no charge.
The $1 annual lease—standard in sports venue deals—sends a message: McCook wants the team so badly it’s willing to bet the entire village budget on a long-shot play. The Bears have not publicly endorsed any site, but the sudden appearance of a small-government, all-cash alternative forces Chicago officials to confront whether their lakefront plan can compete without deeper public subsidies. The Southeast Side’s bid, while less eye-catching, adds another layer of uncertainty.
Its proposal focuses on industrial-zoned parcels near the Dan Ryan Expressway, touting highway access and room for expansion. Unlike McCook’s blank-check approach, the Southeast Side leans on existing infrastructure and a narrative of economic revitalization for a historically underserved neighborhood. Still, the Bears’ preference for a lakefront site—despite environmental and political hurdles—remains the default, making both challengers long shots unless the city’s plan stalls.
McCook’s audacious bid also raises questions about the village’s financial sustainability. Committing $2 billion—a figure dwarfing its annual budget—would likely require creative financing, such as private partnerships or revenue-sharing agreements with the Bears. Critics argue this could leave McCook vulnerable if the stadium fails to generate projected returns, while supporters counter that the economic halo effect of an NFL team justifies the risk.
Either way, the move positions McCook as a wildcard in a game traditionally dominated by larger municipalities. The Southeast Side’s proposal, meanwhile, highlights the complexities of urban redevelopment. While its plan avoids McCook’s financial extremes, it faces its own challenges, including environmental cleanup costs and potential community pushback.
The area’s industrial history means soil remediation could add tens of millions to the project’s price tag, a factor Chicago officials must weigh against the bid’s promise of job creation and neighborhood investment. This contrasts sharply with McCook’s pristine, shovel-ready site, underscoring the trade-offs between greenfield and brownfield development. Political reactions are already fracturing along familiar lines.
Aldermen from lakefront wards argue that a publicly funded dome is the only way to preserve the Bears in Chicago, while suburban leaders praise McCook’s “no strings attached” model as a smarter use of taxpayer dollars. The Bears’ front office has stayed silent, but the pressure is on: every day without a decision risks alienating one faction or another in a region where stadium politics have derailed past franchise moves. McCook’s bid also underscores the changing landscape of suburban development.
As smaller municipalities seek to revitalize their economies, they are increasingly turning to large-scale projects like sports stadiums to drive growth and attract new businesses. This trend is particularly evident in the Chicago area, where several suburbs have invested heavily in new infrastructure and amenities in recent years. By leveraging its own resources to secure the Bears, McCook is betting that its unique blend of small-town charm and big-city ambition can pay off in the long run.
The Bears’ decision will also have far-reaching implications for the city’s economic development strategy. If the team chooses to stay in Chicago, the city will likely need to revisit its plans for a publicly funded lakefront dome. This could involve revising the project’s budget, timeline, or scope, or even abandoning the plan altogether in favor of a more modest alternative.
Alternatively, if the Bears opt for a suburban location, the city may need to reassess its priorities and focus on other development initiatives that can drive growth and job creation in the area. What’s next: The Bears’ ownership is expected to narrow the field by late summer, with site visits and financial deep dives likely to follow. A decision could come before the 2024 NFL season opener, but the longer the process drags, the more leverage McCook and the Southeast Side gain—even if their odds remain steep. Read at NewsAPI.org
Why this matters
Where the Bears play next isn’t just about turf and touchdowns; it’s a $2 billion-plus decision that will dictate the team’s revenue for decades, dictate whether Chicago keeps its NFL flagship, and decide whether public money or private ambition shapes the region’s future. The McCook bid proves even a tiny suburb can weaponize balance sheets in a league where billionaires and politicians collide.
Frequently asked
How much land is McCook offering the Bears?
McCook’s proposal includes a specific parcel of land—roughly 300 acres—zoned for sports and entertainment use, offered at no cost to the Bears.
Is the $2 billion stadium figure realistic?
Current NFL stadium costs average $1.5–$2.5 billion for new builds, so McCook’s price tag aligns with industry norms, though financing such a project without public bonds is unprecedented for a village its size.
Why is the Southeast Side’s bid less generous?
The Southeast Side proposal relies on existing city-owned land and infrastructure, avoiding upfront cash outlays but requiring public investment in roads, utilities, and environmental remediation.
Could the Bears actually leave Soldier Field?
Yes. The NFL allows teams to relocate if they secure a new stadium deal elsewhere, though relocation fees and fan backlash can complicate the process.
What’s the timeline for a Bears stadium decision?
The Bears aim to finalize a site by late 2024, with construction likely to start in 2025 and a potential 2027 opening to avoid disrupting the 2026 season.
