Reg piece via GP
The NFL’s Leverage: How They Can Actually Threaten McCaskeys
- Relocation Vote — The Nuclear Option
Under the NFL’s relocation policy (last formalized after the Raiders/Rams/Chargers moves), a team cannot relocate without a 3/4 owner vote — 24 of 32 owners must approve. The league could simply tell the Bears: “We will whip the votes against you.” The McCaskeys know how this played out when Oakland and San Diego tried to block the Raiders and Chargers — owners are notoriously unsympathetic to teams that didn’t “exhaust local options.” The NFL could credibly argue the Bears haven’t done that, given Illinois keeps putting offers on the table.
- The Relocation Fee
When the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers moved, they paid relocation fees in the range of $550M–$650M each. The NFL could signal they intend to impose a maximum fee — potentially north of a billion dollars given the Bears’ market size. Chicago is the #3 market in the country. Losing the Bears to Indiana (technically still the Chicagoland area, but still) would set a wildly destabilizing precedent. The fee alone could crater the financial math of the Hammond deal.
- Stripping Marquee Events
The NFL controls Super Bowl bids, Pro Bowls, and Draft locations. A new Bears stadium is essentially being built around hosting Super Bowls and Final Fours — it’s core to Kevin Warren’s whole pitch. The league could quietly signal that a Hammond stadium, built partly as leverage against Illinois rather than through good-faith negotiation, won’t be in the Super Bowl rotation for years. That wrecks the revenue projections in the financing model.
- “Chicago Bears” Name/Brand — The Soft Threat
This one is rarely discussed but has teeth: the NFL could raise the question of whether a team that moves to Hammond, Indiana can still be called the “Chicago Bears.” Technically the NFL controls the franchise, and while it’s never been fully litigated, the league pressured the Raiders to eventually return to Oakland branding history and the Chargers faced enormous blowback keeping “Los Angeles.” It’s unlikely to be a hard block, but the league could make the Bears’ identity in Indiana murky and uncomfortable — and the McCaskeys know the “Chicago Bears” brand is worth enormous amounts.
- Scheduling Disadvantages / Primetime Leverage
Less formal but real — the NFL controls primetime slots. A team that just burned its #3 market on a controversial state-line hop could find itself getting far fewer Sunday/Monday night games. That’s TV revenue. It’s petty but it’s real.
- “Exhaust Local Options” Requirement
The NFL’s relocation guidelines explicitly require teams to demonstrate they’ve made a good-faith effort to reach a stadium solution in their current market before the league will approve a move. The NFL could argue the Bears short-circuited the Illinois process — Illinois was reportedly close to a deal and the Bears themselves asked Springfield to pause the hearing on the megaproject bill to “tweak” it. If the Bears killed their own deal, the NFL has cover to say the good-faith standard wasn’t met.
OT: Stadium Update
State representative Kam Buckner, who has been spearheading negotiations on the stadium issues, joined 104.3 The Score’s Mully & Haugh on Friday to discuss the stadium bill, and he believes a resolution is going to come quickly. “As the old church folks used to say, ‘Soon and very soon,’” Buckner said when asked about a possible deadline. “I don’t know exactly when we’re going to get this done, but listen, when I say we’re on the punch list stuff, we are there. We got another day here in Springfield where we’re going to hammer some other things out. Next week is a big week for us…I think we’ll have some good news in short order.”