The Steelers and the City-County Sports and Exhibition Authority (SEA) are locked in a dispute over who is required to pay for a planned expansion of Heinz Field. The team is adamant that the SEA is on the hook for a 3,000 seat expansion in the south end zone complete with scoreboard and control room. The Common Pleas Court Judge hearing the motion threw a flag on the Steelers’ demand.
As we had written about in a previous Policy Brief (Volume 12, Number 57), the Steelers are invoking a clause in their lease with the SEA that requires the agency to pay for two-thirds of this expansion calling it a "capital improvement." The estimated cost is $39 million of which the SEA would be responsible for $26 million–money they don’t have lying around the office. The judge rejected the team’s contention that the expansion is a capital improvement. He told them that the plan falls short of the requirements that have to be met for the clause in the contract to kick in–specifically that more than half of the other stadiums used by NFL teams with at least 25 percent of the cost borne by federal, state, or local government. In his opinion the team failed to prove its case.
It’s likely the team will continue on this legal path.
As we said before, this is more of a moral issue than a legal one. The team stands to profit handsomely from any stadium expansion. With the team’s value soaring since the stadium was constructed they can certainly afford the new seats and scoreboard. And if the expansion cannot pay for itself through the expanded revenues, it should not be built. Basic economics dictates that if costs exceed benefits, the venture should not be undertaken. But the team’s version of economics states that when in doubt pick the pockets of the taxpayer.
