Chicago Bears expected to build tiny stadium because of costs

Rumors are floating around that the Bears intend to build a stadium with 65-70,000 seats. In comparison, Soldier Field has a capacity of 62,500 butt holders, which feels low for third-largest city in the country.

MetLife Stadium (New York Jets/Giants) has a capacity of 82,500, Lambeau Field (Green Bay Packers) has a capacity of 81,441, and AT&T Stadium (Dallas Cowboys) can host 80,000. Thirteen NFL teams have home stadiums with a seat capacity of more than 70,000.

The Bears’ decision to go under that has nothing to do with not wanting the Detroit Lions to have a larger advantage at Soldier Field than last season (much to chairman George McCaskey’s dismay).

Higher capacity stadiums cost more to build, with lower returns

Per Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune, the Bears want to keep building costs down because the extra seats don’t earn as much return in revenue.

Biggs reports that he’s heard the stadium will seat anywhere from the mid-to-high 60,000s. He quoted Marc Gianis, the president of Sportscorp, about the logistical issues of adding more seats to a stadium.

“I would think high 60s would be the right number,” Ganis said. “There’s an odd cost factor associated with the geometry of the stadium. The most expensive seats to construct are the seats that are furthest away from the field as you expand the building. As you increase the capacity, you have to increase the size of the entire building.

So you add five rows at the top of the stadium to add another few thousand seats. Those are the most expensive seats to build while being the seats that generate the lowest revenue. Is it 66,000? 69,000? Do they have the ability to have standing room to get it to 72,000? That is the general range.”

The Bears fans who were hoping for extra seats so they could afford to go to games will be sorely disappointed after the build. Chicago’s front office wants to keep ticket prices artificially high by creating a low supply in a market of high demand.

It’s another reason taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize the building costs.