Arrowhead Stadium and Kauffman Stadium at the Truman Sports Complex on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, in Kansas City. Tammy Ljungblad tljungblad@kcstar.com
A political fault line is emerging in Kansas over whether the Kansas City Chiefs or the Royals would be a better fit for the Sunflower State.
Republican and Democratic officials insist they want to lure both teams across the Missouri border, and the massive public subsidy offer that top lawmakers renewed last week could in theory support two stadiums.
But according to Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, landing the Chiefs should be Kansas’ first priority. He’s repeatedly accused Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly of favoring the Royals.
Officials in the Kelly administration flatly deny that they have neglected the Chiefs and suggest that unnamed “special interests” might be trying to hijack negotiations.
“The Kelly-Toland administration will continue to keep the interests of the Kansas economy as its top priority in our negotiations with the teams, and will not be swayed by political pressure to give away hard-earned tax dollars to satisfy certain special interests,” said Lt. Gov. David Toland on July 7.
Toland, who is also Kansas commerce secretary, is tasked with leading stadium negotiations under the state law establishing the incentive package.
Masterson first accused Kelly’s administration of favoring the Royals in a July 2 interview with Kansas City Sports Radio 810 WHB. He doubled down while speaking with reporters after voting to extend the offer to fund up to 70% of new stadium costs through Sales Tax And Revenue, or STAR bonds.
“It is political,” Masterson told reporters. “And I think most Kansans know there’s a little bit of a disconnect. I think the administration tends to favor the Royals over the Chiefs, and I think most everyone else in the conversation would say the inverse. But it would be great to have both of them.”
In response, Kelly’s Chief of Staff, Will Lawrence, said it’s important to let the Department of Commerce lead negotiations.
“This process avoids the special interest giveaways that are so often included in the Legislature’s budget proposals,” Lawrence told The Star.
In response to follow-up questions about what special interest groups are attempting to exert influence over the process, Commerce spokesperson Patrick Lowry said he couldn’t give any specifics.
“Because all major economic development projects require discretion and confidentiality, the department will have no further comment regarding negotiations or future agreements,” Lowry said.
Kansas City Chiefs chairman and CEO Clark Hunt and his family have a track record of donating to conservative causes, including to a political action committee that ran advertisements opposing last year’s Missouri amendment proposal enshrining the right to an abortion.
Would Chiefs or Royals stadium help Kansas?
An agreement to fund a stadium for either or both teams would be by far Kansas’ largest STAR bond project to date.
A domed Chiefs stadium is estimated to cost around $3 billion, not accounting for any practice facilities. Royals team representatives have suggested the price tag on a new ballpark would be $1 billion to $2 billion.
The STAR bond program is designed to pay back bond debt through sales tax generated by new attractions and surrounding development. Until debt is paid back, that new sales revenue doesn’t go towards funding other state and local government priorities.
Asked last week whether a Chiefs or Royals stadium would be more likely to pay back the public subsidy on time, Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes, a Lenexa Democrat, had a clear answer.
“I would think that the Royals would have an advantage there just because of the sheer number of games,” Sykes said.
Major League Baseball teams play 81 home games a year. NFL teams play either eight regular season games and two preseason games or nine regular season games and one preseason game a year.
In his radio interview, Masterson, who is widely expected to run for governor next year, said he still sees more potential for revenue in a Chiefs stadium.
“If you build a dome, you’re talking Super Bowls, Final Fours, major concerts, lots of development around it,” Masterson said. “I actually don’t think it will be that difficult to get to the revenue numbers they need to cover the bond.”
Masterson took credit for persuading Chiefs President Mark Donovan to write a letter requesting that top lawmakers extend the deadline for locking in a Kansas deal. That deadline has now been pushed back to Dec. 31.
“I said, ‘I need something, kind of in writing, right? That says you’re in real conversations and being legitimate,’” Masterson said. “And I’m grateful that he did provide that. He actually provided more than I asked for.”
In his letter, Donovan asserted that the Chiefs had submitted a proposal to the state and received no response for six weeks — a claim Kelly administration officials dispute.
Masterson said he believes Kansas can offer a better deal to both teams than Missouri, which passed legislation during a June special session offering to pay up to 50% of stadium costs. Getting a Missouri deal across the finish line would require a local sales tax vote like the one Jackson County voters rejected in April 2024.
“For those guys, it’s business,” Masterson said of the Chiefs and Royals team owners. “I mean, these guys are billionaires and it’s all about the opportunity.”
Although fans and lawmakers on both sides of the state line have stressed the potential economic windfall of locking in stadium deals, decades of research show stadium projects rarely earn back the amount of public aid that goes into them.
Lawmakers who support using STAR bonds emphasize that taxpayers aren’t on the hook if the projects don’t make enough money to pay back the debt. They note that under state law, Kansas and local governments can’t be forced to raise taxes or make direct payments to pay off the bonds during a default.
Although that’s true, experts say it downplays the risk of borrowing costs rising if a STAR bond project defaults and investors start to see state-issued bonds as unreliable.