Oregon’s recent decision to impose a tax on both home and visiting baseball players to fund an $800 million bond for building a new Major League Baseball (MLB) stadium in Portland raises several red flags. While on the surface it seems like a progressive move to bring a major league team to the city, this policy disproportionately targets professional athletes—many of whom are transient employees with no long-term ties to Oregon. It’s an uncommon and arguably unfair approach to funding what is essentially a municipal luxury project. By zeroing in on taxing players’ incomes directly, Oregon risks alienating potential talent and creating unnecessary hostility within professional sports circles.
Inflating Ambitions: The Cost Explosion from $150 to $800 Million
The scale of the bond issuance has ballooned dramatically from the original 2003 proposal of $150 million to a staggering $800 million. This quintupling in size is cause for serious concern and scrutiny. Large stadium projects have historically been plagued by cost overruns and promises that fail to deliver commensurate economic benefits to local taxpayers. The taxpayers—already burdened by Oregon’s relatively high tax rates—will now face an enormous financial gamble for a stadium that, while architecturally impressive, might not guarantee sustained economic returns. The South Waterfront location at Zidell Yards may add allure, but geography cannot compensate for fiscal recklessness.
MLB Expansion: A Fraught Hope Built on Uncertain Grounds
Legislators and proponents hinge this entire venture on the hope that MLB will expand to 32 teams or relocate an existing one to Portland. Commissioner Rob Manfred’s expressed interest in expansion by 2029 is the linchpin argument, yet the reality is far more complicated. Major League Baseball’s expansion is procedurally slow, politically fraught, and subject to market viability studies that may well sideline Portland in favor of cities with stronger financial incentives or established fan bases. The political excitement around bringing a franchise feels premature, heavily reliant on optimism rather than pragmatic analysis of MLB’s long-term strategic plans.
Revenue Sharing and Oversight: Symbolic Measures with Limited Impact
The bill’s addition of a revenue-sharing clause, requiring the new franchise to pay 1% of gross revenue back to Oregon, suggests an attempt at accountability. Yet, 1% of gross revenue is a modest figure when weighed against the vast taxpayer investment. Moreover, the stipulation for yearly audits and revenue payments surviving even ownership changes or relocation is more political theater than a fail-safe safeguard. If the team relocates or ownership shifts, legal battles and renegotiations often dilute any intended protections. This clause reads more like appeasement to critics than a robust financial strategy.
A Missed Opportunity for Responsible Civic Investment
While bringing an MLB team might seem glamorous and city-defining, Oregon’s approach neglects the broader fiscal responsibility expected of public officials. Subjecting professional athletes to new taxes to fund a speculative stadium project represents a misalignment of priorities. It shifts risk onto individuals with limited connection to the state’s long-term economic health rather than exploring diversified funding mechanisms that do not rely heavily on uncertain sports franchises. Portland deserves thoughtful, measured development—not a gamble on an expansion that may never materialize and at too high a cost to both players and taxpayers alike. The state’s leadership should have placed stronger emphasis on sustainable economic planning over boosterish sports dreams.