Category Archives: Sports

Suburban reasons for the prevalence and expenses of youth sports

Posted on by

Here are some thoughts about how the suburbanization of the United States might be related to two concerns I have read/seen/heard multiple times in recent years: (1) most kids sports activity takes place in structured leagues and programs with a big rise in travel sports and (2) participation in these structured sports is expensive. There are lots of explanations for this but few take into account the setting where a majority of Americans live and how this has shaped these patterns. Are the sports opportunities kids get connected to suburban lifestyles?

Photo by Israel Torres on Pexels.com
  1. Sprawling suburban landscapes can make it hard for kids to get together and just play. On one hand, suburban yards would seem to provide ample opportunities. And there are parks and school grounds scattered across suburbs. But much of suburban life requires driving and until kids have licenses, they need other people to drive them. Put this together with fears for safety in suburbia (see Neighborhood of Fear by historian Kyle Riismandel for how this happened) and kids don’t get together to play sports with each other outside. In how many suburbs today could the baseball team depicted in The Sandlot play regularly and where would those games take place?
  2. Suburbs suggest a certain social class standing and suburban households desire that their kids are successful or get ahead. Instead of playing sports for fun and to develop as a person, sports are a possible pathway to success and fame. Partaking of these sports options provides room to share about kids’ successes. And plenty of suburban households have disposable income to make this happen. Why play around when you can pay for travel sports and lessons and camps and equipment? This reminded me of Richard Reeves’ book Dream Hoarders where the top 20% of American earners look to secure advantages for themselves and their kids.
  3. Local governments and private companies are willing to provide these sports opportunities. They can claim this is what residents and customers want. And there is money to generate or be made from people willing to pay. As the trust Americans have in more traditional institutions have decreased, suburbanites are willing to invest time and money in sports leagues and programs where they might feel they have more control over outcomes. And why not rep a local team or club rather than wade into national polarization?

Another way to put this: could the United States have such a system of youth sports if it was not a suburban country?

Americans divided over 250th celebrations but might unite over soccer?

Posted on by

The US men’s soccer team has started out strong at the World Cup. American flags, sing alongs, celebrations of wins. Might their success bring Americans together in a fractured time? A few thoughts:

Photo by Dar ius on Pexels.com
  1. Americans like sports, both domestic and international.
  2. They may like sports but they really like winning at an international level. The Olympics and World Cup are good examples.
  3. For lots of reasons, the United States is not a world power at soccer – the team is good but not among the best. Do Americans see themselves as an underdog at the World Cup, and, if so, does this help bring people together?
  4. Does the unity while at a game or watching at the same time continue at all past the event or is it a completely in the moment phenomenon?
  5. Which Americans tend to follow soccer? How much does this fandom overlap with enjoying the NFL, MLB, or NBA? How does following soccer fit with political affiliations? Is following soccer seen as a repudiation of “typical” American fandom?
  6. If politics are like sports in certain ways, are sports still more interesting or worthwhile to more Americans (compared to politics)?

What might all these questions lead to? Many may enjoy the World Cup in North America and it could get interesting if the United States makes a deeper run than they have in the past. But conflicts over celebrating July 4th and the leadup to the midterm elections may render any World Cup togetherness a pleasant memory.

No World Cup games in Chicago is a travesty – and a new football stadium could have helped

Posted on by

The World Cup is underway and Chicago is not part of it. Why not?

Former mayor Rahm Emanuel rejected FIFA’s proposal to play games in Chicago.

Chicago was a host city during the last men’s World Cup played in the US, which came back in 1994.

It seemed like an ideal place to host games, not only because of that history, but also due to the fact it boasts an iconic stadium in Soldier Field.

However, Mayor Emanuel rejected FIFA’s proposal for two reasons. One because he did not feel like his city was getting a fair deal, and the other because there was a chance the sport’s governing body could put a roof on Soldier Field.

It sounds like Emanuel thinks he was protecting the city. However, it is a missed opportunity for the nation’s third largest city which is a global city, has a busy airport that can handle all the visitors, great sites and neighborhoods, and plenty of soccer fans. And it has happened before: Soldier Field has home to five games in the 1994 World Cup, including the opening game.

Could a new stadium like the Bears are seeking have made this possible? Soldier Field is smaller in comparison to other American football stadiums hosting World Cup games. A number of the host stadiums have been built more recently. Whether in Arlington Heights or Hammond, wouldn’t a new stadium have been exactly the kind of venue to help fans experience the Chicago area?

Another improbable suburban outdoor basketball court

Posted on by

I recently saw another unique outdoor basketball hoop arrangement. Here is what the court used to look like: a blacktop surface (not quite regulation court size) with a hoop at just one end. It looks like this on Google Maps satellite view:

With this setup, basketball players can play a half-court game. There are even a full set of half-court lines. We could ask why there is not a full-court setup but a decent half-court offers possibilities for those who want to play basketball. .

So imagine the same surface then gets a second hoop. Where would it be best to place to the hoop for basketball purposes? Directly opposite the other hoop, right?

Here is where Google Streetview shows the second hoop existing today:

The second hoop is not opposite the first one. It is at a right angle to the first one. It does not enable a full-court game. It does not enable two half-court games played back to back. It permits two half-court games played at an angle to each other. And the second possible half-court does not have painted lines.

Why position the hoops this way? I first posted about this in 2011 and have occasionally posted about it since (finding a circular court in 2019 or noting the rise of backyard basketball courts in private backyards in 2019). If park districts and schools and other entities make basketball courts for people to use, why make it so difficult for basketball players to play a game?

The Chicago Bears, like numerous pro sports teams, on their way to being a suburban team

Posted on by

As the Chicago Bears plan for a new stadium, it appears one fact is clear: they will end up playing in the suburbs of the city of Chicago. While the current battle for the stadium may appear to be between Illinois and Indiana, the team ends up in the suburbs of the Chicago region either way. And they would not be alone in inhabiting a suburban stadium: twelve NFL teams already play in the suburbs. (For comparison, several MLB teams play in the suburbs, three NHL teams play in the suburbs, and only one NBA team plays in the suburbs.)

Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos on Pexels.com

But you could argue that the Chicago Bears were already a suburban team even though they played in the city at Wrigley Field and then Soldier Field. The team has had its headquarters in suburban Lake Forest for decades. The McCaskey family lives in the Chicago suburbs, with Virginia McCaskey passing away in 2025 after residing in Des Plaines for decades.

And many of the team’s fans are suburbanites. The city of Chicago peaked in population in the 1950 census with over 3.6 million residents. As the city’s population declined, the metropolitan region continued to grow. In the 2020 census, the metropolitan statistical area had over 9.6 million residents, meaning that over two-thirds of the region’s population was in the suburbs. Who is tuning in to the games? Who is buying tickets and merchandise? Who is weighing in with their opinions about where the Bears should play? (And this is true across American metropolitan regions: stadiums may be in big cities but the majority of residents and fans are in the suburbs.)

The Chicago Bears will likely be playing in the suburbs soon enough. This will echo what has already happened numerous times over in the region: residents and businesses moved out of the city to the suburbs, setting up life or operations where the majority of residents live.

What other companies or organizations could benefit from an Illinois megaprojects bill intended to help the Chicago Bears

Posted on by

Illinois state legislators continue to discuss a potential megaprojects bill. The bill is under debate because of what the Chicago Bears might do regarding their desire for a new stadium. But it could also affect other businesses, organizations, or sectors.

Photo by http://www.kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

The article cited above said the incentives in the bill could not be used for data centers. What about a major residential development? A new skyscraper? A planned community? A resort or casino? Intermodal facilities? An airport?

I understand that the Bears are the pressing question right now, particularly as Indiana has moved at the state level to attract the Bears, but the long-term questions are also ones worth asking. States and communities in the United States continue to offer tax breaks to companies and organizations to attract development. It is hard not to play this game if other places or governmental bodies are. Illinois legislators might not be discussing any help for the Bears if Indiana had not moved quickly.

Imagine it is not a sports looking for government help but a big corporation that wants to build a (non data center) facility in Illinois. They are motivated in part because of this bill. Does this standardize tax breaks in Illinois and either attract more businesses and development or limit what local governments can do in response?

The agony of losing a childhood sports team leading to federal legislation

Posted on by

Several lawmakers said their personal experiences contributed to proposing legislation that would make it harder for sports teams to leave a city and go elsewhere:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

He doesn’t even really root for the Chicago Bears, but U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders says he wants to ensure Bears fans — and sports fans of all stripes — are protected from the heartbreak he suffered as a teenager, when his beloved Brooklyn Dodgers left for Los Angeles.

Sanders, the independent Vermont senator and two-time presidential candidate, threw his support behind long-shot legislation Thursday that would give communities a chance to keep their professional sports teams if their owners threatened to leave. Under the proposal, local leaders would have a year to find another buyer for the sports team or to organize a community ownership structure, like that used by the Green Bay Packers, to take over the team instead…

The penalties under the new proposal would apply if team owners relocate their home facility across state lines or out of metropolitan areas.

“Professional football is America’s religion,” Sanders said, when touting the need to promote activities like professional sports that bring people of different backgrounds together…

The impact of those moves can linger for generations, the lawmakers said. Casar talked about the loss he felt when the Houston Oilers left the city for Nashville in 1996.

Three things stick out to me from this overview:

  1. Childhood commitments to teams stick with people. Jerry Reinsdorf has also discussed how the move of the Dodgers to LA affected him. Plenty of Americans have experienced this, including lots of kids.
  2. The moving across state lines strikes me as not the same thing as moving out of metropolitan regions. I know it involves different bodies of government but the metro area is the more important factor here for fans. If the Bears end up in Indiana and the Chiefs are in Missouri, fans have not lost a team.
  3. Sanders suggests football is religion and he is right in certain ways: it prompts vast followings, fans come together across different backgrounds, stadiums are sacred spaces, the Super Bowl is a sacred event, and so on. Sports is a kind of functional religion.

It sounds like the goal of this legislation is to limit the benefits wealthy team owners can derive from playing places against each other regarding stadiums and teams. If an owner threatens to leave in order to get more taxpayer money or a better deal, this legislation gives communities other options. Whether this saves the children of America from sports heartbreak might be a secondary benefit.

Sports teams that are suburban franchises

Posted on by

Many major American sports teams have names referencing cities or states. Some of these teams are located in the suburbs while they refer to cities in their names. But I recently was thinking about teams that are intentionally suburban. Perhaps they never were located in the city (versus teams that started in cities but moved out later). Perhaps their name refers to a suburb or suburban area. These four teams came to mind:

Photo by Esmihel Muhammed on Pexels.com
  1. Anaheim Ducks. They started in a large suburb in southern California and are still there today. Makes sense given that it is in the sprawling Los Angeles area?
  2. New Jersey Devils. Named after a state but this team has been in the suburbs of New York City (in the named state) for a number of years after an earlier homes in Kansas City and then Denver. Newark is also a large suburb but the state is largely caught between the big cities of New York City and Philadelphia.
  3. New York Islanders. Named after the state but located from the beginning in the Long Island suburbs (with a short time in Brooklyn in the 2010s).
  4. Arizona Cardinals. Since moving to this state, they played in Tempe and Glendale. (The team played in St. Louis and Chicago in their previous stops – they were a city team until they moved to a new region.)

On one hand, a few other teams might seem to fit this bill. Take the New England Patriots who play in the suburbs and whose name refers to a larger region. They were initially founded as the Boston Patriots. There might be others.

Two questions emerge from these quick thoughts:

  1. Was there something about hockey teams founded in the last 50 years that some aimed at suburban audiences moreso than other sports?
  2. Does being a major sports franchise in the suburbs or associated with the suburbs make a substantive difference to the team and its results? Given that more Americans live in suburbs than other settings, do these suburban locations tend to make it easier for residents of the region to attend?

Las Vegas quickly on the (sports) map

Posted on by

It is rare for a city to add professional sports teams at the rate at which Las Vegas is going:

Photo by Masood Aslami on Pexels.com

With the potential for a city to add an NBA franchise in time for 2028, Vegas could go from no Big Four teams to become the 13th city with an MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL team in the span of 11 years.

Several things may have happened in a relatively short amount of time:

  1. The city has grown rapidly in recent decades. The city had 125,787 people in 1970 (too small to have 4 sports franchises), 258,295 in 1990 (still on the smaller side), and 583,756 people in 2010 (a big city).
  2. It is a new market. This presents a chance to have new fans.
  3. Gambling is now okay with every major sport because of the revenue generated. That obstacle is gone.
  4. The city and other governments are willing to provide public money for stadiums. Owners and teams really like this.

At some point, Las Vegas will not grow like it has in the past (it already slowed between 2010 to 2020 to 10%). At some point, a team might want to leave Las Vegas for greener pastures. But for now, Las Vegas is a shiny new sports city. If the NBA does indeed start a franchise there in the next few years, the teams in the four major sports help give the city and region a certain status.

NFL teams leave cities for suburbs in search of more revenue and tax dollars

Posted on by

NFL teams keep their city names and go to the suburbs for more money:

Photo by Chris K on Pexels.com

The Arlington Cowboys. East Rutherford Giants and Jets. Inglewood Rams and Chargers. And maybe the Hammond Bears.

Ten NFL teams don’t play in their namesake cities but in their suburbs. If the Chicago Bears go through with one of their proposals for a new stadium — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker acknowledged Friday that the team’s next home is unlikely to rise within Chicago’s city limits — they could wind up in northwest suburban Arlington Heights or just across the Indiana border in Hammond.

But like other NFL teams, they have trademarked their name and would retain their city identity — along with their Chicago “C” and Bears head logos…

The move outside cities, analysts say, is driven largely by the desire for more money from new stadium revenues on larger, cheaper tracts of land, often closer to many season ticket holders, where teams can build surrounding entertainment districts with restaurants, hotels, retail and housing.

This is a classic suburban story: land outside the city is cheaper so a buyer can get more bang for their buck. This is the story often told about single-family homes: take the same home and lot and see the price to build it and buy it drop as you move out from the city through closer suburbs to outer suburbs.

With so much activity in the suburbs already, it is not like a new stadium is isolated. There are plenty of fans and businesses nearby. Americans are used to suburb-to-suburb commutes. The land that is cheaper in the suburbs can then appreciate in value and provide a big return for the football team.

And if suburban communities are willing to offer big tax breaks, this can generate even more revenue for the football teams. There can be a local or national bidding war where suburbs provide extra incentives beyond having cheaper land compared to cities.

Is there a strong counterargument for a football team to stay in a big city? Should they be loyal to the city? Can there land be even more valuable in the long run because of the demand for land in cities? At the moment, the primary thing cities might offer are big tax breaks.

People might get extra interested in these cases as football teams operate in the public eye and can bring together people across a region. But aren’t the teams just acting like all the other businesses that move locations, including going to the suburbs, so they can make more money?