nfl – Duane Morris Sports Law

By Michael R. Barz

The Chicago Bears’ search for a new stadium has become one of the most complex sports development stories in recent memory. In September 2021, the Bears entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Churchill Downs for the 326-acre site of the former Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights, completing the $197.2 million purchase in February of 2023. When subsequent property tax negotiations with Arlington Heights stalled, Chicago and the State of Illinois entered the picture with their own competing proposal near Soldier Field. Then Indiana raised the stakes: Governor Mike Braun signed Senate Bill 27 in February 2026, establishing the Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority to help finance a potential Bears stadium in Hammond, Indiana, about 25 miles from downtown Chicago. As of early June 2026, Illinois lawmakers adjourned their spring session without passing a stadium bill, and the franchise stated it would “finalize its evaluation of both Arlington Heights and Hammond” on a late spring/early summer timeline.

The competing offers highlight how differently states can structure sports infrastructure deals. Indiana assembled a streamlined regional stadium authority empowered to issue state-backed bonds and leverage up to $1 billion in public financing, while establishing a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to funnel hotel, restaurant, and retail tax revenues back into stadium debt service. Additional financing mechanisms under SB 27 include a 12% ticket tax on all stadium events, a potential countywide 1% food and beverage tax in Lake and Porter Counties, and a doubling of Lake County’s innkeeper’s tax. Illinois, by contrast, struggled to coalesce around any framework: its Senate bill would have enabled Cook County municipalities to create local stadium authorities empowered to issue revenue bonds, with surrounding mixed-use development eligible for tax increment financing designation—but the House adjourned without voting on it.

Any move—whether to Arlington Heights, Hammond, or back to a Chicago site—must account for the team’s existing Soldier Field lease, under which the Bears could owe approximately $90 million if they depart before 2033—meaningful, but manageable relative to the scale of the overall project. The more consequential legal takeaway from the Illinois legislative failure is structural: Governor Pritzker recently noted that 38 states already have PILOT megaproject laws, characterizing Illinois as “literally behind the curve” with a “disorganized, dysfunctional” approach to property tax negotiation for large developments. Indiana’s ability to quickly assemble a credible, multi-layered financing package reflects years of enabling legislation that Illinois simply does not yet have. Counsel advising teams, municipalities, or lenders in these transactions must understand not only the deal structure itself, but whether the underlying statutory framework in a given jurisdiction can actually support it.

In order to meet the Bears’ stated timeline, Illinois would need to call a special legislative session this summer as its lawmakers are not scheduled to reconvene until November; noting, however, that any bill passed after the May 31 deadline established by the Illinois Constitution would require a three-fifths supermajority to take immediate effect. A move to Indiana would add the Bears to the long list of NFL franchises that have crossed city or state lines in search of better stadium terms and would offer a meaningful new template for how layered public finance tools can be used to attract a franchise to a jurisdiction without an existing NFL presence.

Ultimately, the broader lesson to be learned here may be that it becomes increasingly difficult for a team to complete its financing objectives when trying to structure a deal built on hastily assembled or legally untested enabling legislation. The saga of Oakland and the relocation of its legendary franchises offers a cautionary tale: the multi-year failure to produce a workable public financing framework contributed to the loss of both the Raiders and the Athletics to Las Vegas, each time ceding ground to a jurisdiction that had done the legislative groundwork in advance.

The battle between former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden and the NFL took a significant turn this week when the Nevada Supreme Court refused to force Gruden’s claims into arbitration. Gruden’s lawsuit alleges that the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell intentionally leaked private emails, triggering his resignation and damaging his reputation. The court’s ruling not only revives Gruden’s case in open court, as opposed to private and confidential arbitration, but also raises broader questions about the limits of arbitration clauses in professional sports contracts, particularly when the party seeking to compel arbitration is dealing with a former employee.

Arbitration Clauses, Unconscionability, and Former-Employee Status

In its August 11, 2025, decision, the Nevada Supreme Court, by a 5–2 vote, reversed a May 2024 panel ruling that favored arbitration. The majority found that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision was unconscionable as applied to Gruden. The court rejected the NFL’s attempt to invoke equitable estoppel to bind him to arbitration, holding that such doctrines do not apply to former employees in these circumstances. As a result, the trial court’s earlier refusal to compel arbitration stands, allowing Gruden’s case to proceed in a public forum.

Impact on the Litigation and the NFL’s Next Moves

The decision is a clear victory for Gruden, whose legal team framed it as an important win for employees challenging arbitration provisions they never expressly agreed to, or that no longer apply due to a change in status. For the NFL, the ruling is a setback but not necessarily the end of the road. The league has indicated it will explore further appeals, potentially including a rehearing before the Nevada Supreme Court or even review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Broader Implications for Sports Law

Beyond the immediate parties, the case underscores an emerging tension in sports law: the balance between enforcing arbitration clauses, which leagues often rely upon to resolve disputes privately, and ensuring that such clauses remain fair and enforceable under state law. For practitioners, this ruling is a reminder to closely examine the scope, applicability, and procedural fairness of arbitration provisions, and particularly where a dispute involves former employees or matters that extend beyond the employment relationship.