They should be.

It is because the NFL and other sports leagues have so much leverage that they can make relocation threats and they can find other cities to fund their stadiums if the home city doesn't.

I trust FieldofSchemes.com when it comes to their reporting on sports stadiums deals but this all I can find for now.

-----

WAMU-FM reports that “a source familiar with [Washington Commanders stadium] talks” says funding “will likely involve the city borrowing against new tax revenues expected to be generated by any new development,” i.e., tax increment financing. The station cites a 2020 study claiming that D.C. has turned a profit on average on TIF districts — on first look it appears that the study’s authors guesstimated that development would still happen in the districts without the TIF but would take longer, which is probably a reasonable assumption but could create huge swings in the revenue numbers depending on what you mean by “longer.” I have emails out to a couple of TIF experts, I’ll update here if they have anything instructive to add.*

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/

Not sure if that means it is good deal for the city or not but they may have more in the coming days.

Funding. As for competitors, I don’t know where MD stands, but Virginia (and the affected communities) rejected Youngkin’s attempt to bribe the team into locating in northern VA. There’s no chance the team will build there.

There is a whole body of research in the sports management literature (and maybe in other fields) that generally shows subsidies do not pay off for the public entities.

My team desperately needs a new stadium. Problem is, we have one of the greediest, nastiest owners in sports and we need to get rid of him first.