Denver’s proposed $70 million public funding for a National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) stadium has ignited intense debate among taxpayers, economists, and civic leaders. As the city weighs this significant investment, critical questions emerge about economic returns, opportunity costs, and community benefits that demand thorough examination.
The project represents both opportunity and risk for Denver, with proponents touting transformational economic benefits while skeptics question whether public funds could be better allocated elsewhere. This comprehensive analysis explores the multifaceted implications of the stadium proposal through economic, financial, and social lenses.
1. Economic impact and ROI: A granular examination
Denver’s Department of Finance projects a substantial economic impact of $2.2 billion over 30 years from the stadium project. However, sports economists and urban development experts remain divided on the accuracy of such projections.
City projections
City officials forecast approximately 1,100 new jobs through direct employment at the stadium, indirect supply chain effects, and induced spending. Additional projections include $500 million in increased tax revenue over three decades and annual GDP increases averaging $81.1 million. These figures contribute to the city’s calculated fiscal benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 and economic benefit ratio of 14.
Skeptical analysis
Critics, including CU Denver expert Geoffrey Propheter, counter that stadium economic projections typically overstate benefits. Most studies indicate stadiums primarily redistribute existing spending rather than generating new economic activity. Employment multipliers of 2.8 may be unrealistic, with research suggesting minimal net job increases, particularly long-term.
2. Public finance: Scrutinizing the $70 million investment
The proposed public funding package requires careful examination to understand both its composition and financing mechanism.
Allocation
The $70 million allocation includes $50 million for land acquisition and $20 million for infrastructure improvements such as park construction, pedestrian pathways, street modifications, and water/sanitation upgrades. Questions have emerged about the land valuation, with some suggesting the city may be overpaying.
Financing mechanism
Denver plans to utilize interest earned on the 2017 Elevate Denver bond program to finance this investment. This approach redirects funds initially intended for city infrastructure to support the stadium development.
Opportunity costs
The $70 million could alternatively fund approximately 350-450 affordable housing units, rehabilitate 35 miles of roadways, or support educational initiatives such as 700 teacher salaries or 3,500 public university scholarships. Each alternative presents different community benefits and economic multipliers.
3. Comparative analysis: Learning from other cities
Examining similar stadium projects across the United States reveals mixed outcomes. Kansas City’s CPKC Stadium, purpose-built for women’s soccer, shows promising early results with sold-out games and mixed-use development. However, Commerce City’s Dick’s Sporting Goods Park offers a cautionary tale where anticipated development failed to materialize.
Sacramento’s Golden 1 Center demonstrated mixed economic results, with concerning impacts on small businesses whose lifetimes were reportedly cut in half after the stadium opened. Louisville’s Lynn Family Stadium boosted tourism but raised gentrification concerns in its neighborhood.
4. Stakeholder perspectives: A symphony of voices
The stadium proposal has galvanized diverse opinions across Denver’s civic landscape, reflecting varying priorities and concerns.
Mayor Mike Johnston
Mayor Johnston champions the stadium as a “transformational opportunity” to revitalize a blighted area and stimulate economic growth, stating: “This is the way that you grow a city in difficult times, as you invest in things that create jobs and create economic activity.”
Councilwoman Sarah Parady
Expressing budget concerns, Councilwoman Parady noted: “We’d be investing in a large parcel that we wouldn’t otherwise be buying just to assist a private ownership group to have a place to build a private stadium.”
Rob Cohen (NWSL team owner)
Cohen has committed to creating a Community Benefits Agreement and emphasizes the team’s commitment to Denver, including paying a historic expansion fee for the NWSL team. His financial projections rely on media rights and additional revenue streams beyond ticket sales.
Ryan Fleming (Local business owner)
Local entrepreneurs like Fleming support the stadium as a catalyst for economic growth along the South Broadway corridor, anticipating increased foot traffic and revenue.
Denver Taxpayers Alliance
The alliance has expressed concerns regarding transparency and potential cost overruns, urging more thorough cost-benefit analysis before committing public funds.
Athmar Park Neighborhood Association
Community sentiment remains mixed, with approximately 40% supporting the project, 30% opposing, and 30% undecided, reflecting gentrification concerns and quality-of-life considerations.
5. Social and community impact: Beyond the numbers
The stadium’s potential social impacts extend beyond economic metrics to include less quantifiable but meaningful community effects.
Community pride and identity
Supporters emphasize how women’s professional sports can foster civic pride and provide powerful role models, similar to the impact seen with the Bay Area Valkyries WNBA expansion and the inspiring Afghan women’s soccer team’s journey to finding a home in America.
Gentrification risks
Studies from other stadium developments suggest potential displacement of existing residents and businesses as property values rise. Mitigation strategies include rent control policies, affordable housing requirements, and community land trusts.
Accessibility
For maximum community benefit, the stadium must ensure affordability and access through strategies like reserved affordable tickets, transportation solutions, and inclusive programming for underserved populations.
6. Financial risks and long-term sustainability
Beyond initial construction, several long-term financial considerations warrant careful attention.
Team viability
NWSL teams have not consistently achieved profitability, creating uncertainty about the franchise’s long-term stability. The city must assess the risk of being left with an underutilized stadium should the team struggle financially.
Operational costs
Ongoing expenses for maintenance, security, utilities, and staffing require comprehensive budgeting and regular review to avoid unexpected financial burdens on taxpayers.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
The stadium’s location in a TIF district means the city won’t collect property or sales tax there until 2043, significantly reducing near-term financial benefits while potentially diverting resources from other priorities.
Conclusion
Denver’s NWSL stadium proposal offers potential economic and social benefits, but realistic assessment suggests more modest returns than official projections indicate. The true value proposition extends beyond economics to include women’s sports advancement, neighborhood revitalization, and civic pride.
Success will require transparent governance, careful financial planning, and meaningful community benefits agreements to ensure this investment serves Denver’s broader interests rather than simply subsidizing private enterprise.
Recommendation
A conditional approval approach represents the most prudent path forward. The city should ensure independent economic assessment, secure legally binding community benefits agreements, implement financial risk mitigation strategies, and establish transparent monitoring frameworks before proceeding.
With appropriate safeguards and realistic expectations, Denver’s NWSL stadium investment could become a valuable civic asset that balances economic development with community needs and fiscal responsibility.
