With the lack of a plan for a new Tampa Bay Rays ballpark, the interest from those in multiple markets to host MLB and the likelihood of expansion, the initial moves toward a public subsidy of a new Portland MLB ballpark are noteworthy.
Portland Diamond Project and political leaders in the city and Oregon have focused on a $2-billion, 32,000-capacity new ballpark at the 30.8-acre Zidell Yards waterfront site, south of the Tilikum Crossing bridge and on the city’s South Waterfront. Right now the physical plans are conceptual—the renderings we include here (courtesy Portland Diamond Project) don’t reflect a final determination on location or other specific physical features, such as a retractable roof—but they’re enough for Portland Diamond Project and crew to move forward with a funding plan’s public component.
The component came up the last time a serious discussion of a new Portland MLB ballpark was entertained: the use of a so-called “jock tax,” diverting income taxes levied on players and team employees toward repaying $800 million in 30-year bonding. (Yes, that includes visiting players.) The last time this came up, the state anticipated raising $150 million via a jock tax.
While the idea of a jock tax sounds nice—no general funds will be used to back the new Portland MLB ballpark, and any shortfalls will be covered by the team—the concept is still largely unproven and unstudied in Oregon. And we all know how much investors love uncertainty, as Portland Diamond Project will likely need at least $2.75 billion, between ballpark construction costs, expansion fees and startup funds, to make a new Portland MLB ballpark happen. And some local financial experts wonder if a jock tax will indeed yield the revenues backers expect. From The Oregonian:
The ballpark’s supporters say they’re confident in their financial projections but acknowledge considerable uncertainty around interest rates and salaries. If there are shortfalls, they say it would be up to the baseball team to make up the difference.
Portland’s bid faces many other obstacles. The soil on the ballpark site — the former Zidell shipyard — may be polluted, and the riverfront property would be vulnerable to earthquakes. Local backers have yet to name an ownership group to lead their bid. Nike’s Phil Knight and Columbia Sportswear’s Tim Boyle both say they are not involved.
That could leave the plan hundreds of millions of dollars short, [Jim] Scherzinger estimates. He’s concerned, too, that baseball’s economics might change considerably over the life a 30-year bond, reducing both salaries and the associated tax revenue.
There is one other big issue facing Portland Diamond Project: the reemergence of the Miller family and Miller Sports + Entertainment as a player in major league sports. The Miller companies have been behind a drive to bring MLB to Salt Lake City, identifying a ballpark site and creating a viability plan for an MLB expansion team. The Millers are certainly known in MLB circles as longtime owners of the Triple-A Salt Lake Bees, opening a new ballpark this season, The Ballpark at America First Square. And they are certainly known in major-league money circles: The late Larry Miller brought the NBA to Salt Lake City when he purchased what would become the Utah Jazz and later opening Delta Center, before his family sold the Jazz and the arena to Ryan Smith and other investors.
The Miller family also made a big impact in the sports world with the recent purchase of a controlling interest in MLS’s Real Salt Lake, NWSL’s Utah Royals, Real Monarchs of MLS NEXT Pro, and the RSL Academy, as well as America First Field, Zions Bank Stadium and Zions Bank Training Center, for $600 million. David Blitzer, the previous owner, will retain a minority share. Not surprisingly, Miller Sports + Entertainment is considering adding a sports and entertainment district to the America First Field site—something baked into the planning for a Salt Lake City MLB ballpark.
(We’re not going to address another potential competitor for a new Portland MLB ballpark in expansion: Sacramento. Time will tell if the Athletics’ stint in Sacramento will lead investors and MLB to determine whether Sacramento is a viable expansion market.)
Now, it’s true that MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has set a goal of 2029—when he’s announced his retirement—for MLB expansion, with teams in the West and the East. And that seems to be achievable: after all, that’s four years in the future! But Manfred and other MLB owners have a boatload of issues to address before expansion is even a viable topic.
First: The more important task is settling the ballpark situations for Tampa Bay and the Athletics. Despite the marked negativity of Baseball Twitter about a new Las Vegas ballpark, work continues on the project, with a groundbreaking set for June. Tampa Bay is the greater challenge: with a new Rays ballpark deal collapsing, baseball doesn’t know if owner Stu Sternberg will seek a better deal with Tampa and/or Hillsborough County, sell the team or engineer a move to a different city. MLB considers Tampa a good market marred with a terrible facility; what Sternberg does will directly impact expansion by either claiming an attractive market—i.e., Nashville—or staying in Tampa Bay. A move to Nashville would indeed open the Tampa Bay market to expansion; perhaps a different owner and the impending loss of MLB would lead to a more viable ballpark solution. (Just ask Kansas City and Seattle how that works out.) The current Tropicana Field lease ends in 2028.
Then there are some ownership issues to be considered. Whether or not Arte Moreno sells the Los Angeles Angels or makes another run at an Angel Stadium replacement remains to be seen: that’s a market pretty important to MLB, and although a recent lease extension committed the Halos to Orange County through 2032, we’re still looking at a decision needed on a new ballpark in the next four years. The Washington Nationals are off the market; we will see how long that lasts. A deal to sell the Minnesota Twins collapsed before the season started; we’ve been told an offer valued the team far below the market valuation sought by the Pohlads. One of the big reasons for this gap: the lack of uncertainty about the team’s media rights, both locally and nationally.
But the status of these three teams likely won’t affect contraction; none are expected to be moved after a sale. One final factor in expansion is ESPN’s decision to walk away from its annual $550-million broadcast deal last February. ESPN had the right to terminate the seven-year 2021 deal early and informed MLB that it would do so after the 2025 season. This year ESPN will broadcast 30 regular-season games and the Home Run Derby, as well as 10 spring-training games.
Now, this doesn’t mean MLB and ESPN are done—many in the industry expect the pair to work out some sort of broadcast deal for 2026 and beyond—but it certainly not cost ESPN $550 million annually. MLB’s more recent broadcast deals have been more modest: The AppleTV Friday-night deal pays MLB $85 million per season, while the Roku Sunday-afternoon deal pays MLB just $10 million a year.
And if ESPN reaches a much more modest broadcast deal with MLB, look for Turner Sports and Fox to do the same. Both the Fox ($729 million) and Turner Sports ($470 million) end after the 2028 season. Those deals, however, do include postseason broadcast rights, generating higher ratings than regular-season games.
And we’re not even to the point of discussing a potential labor shutdown in 2027, after the current CBA ends at the conclusion of the 2026 season.
So, to say that the current state of MLB—and really, baseball in general—is a little unsettled is an understatement. Expansion decisions made under Manfred will reverberate throughout baseball: expansion in the past has meant MiLB expansion as well, but with the current MiLB licensing structure set to end in 2030, this could mean MLB could restructure the minors and roster sizes—something to consider another day.
This story ran in the free weekly Ballpark Digest newsletter. Are you a subscriber? Sign up here!