Every aging stadium eventually forces a costly decision: renovate or replace. The choice carries major implications for cities, teams, and fans, as a hasty call can leave a community with an outdated venue or a departed team. Andrea Austin, a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig who represents public owners and professional teams, says the decision typically hinges on three questions: Can the public afford its share of a new venue? Is the current location so iconic or practical it’s irreplaceable? And can the existing structure be updated to meet modern expectations?
Before comparing costs, Austin recommends defining what a modern venue must deliver. Upgraded escalators, mechanical systems, security systems, and worn concrete are unglamorous but essential for efficient operations. For fans, fast Wi-Fi and quick food and beverage service are basic expectations, not extras. New gathering spaces—from exclusive clubs to open terraces—allow groups to mingle and circulate, creating a more interactive game-day experience. Teams also have priorities: updated facilities can grow revenues through suites, sponsorships, and non-game events, and help recruit top players and build fan loyalty. The real test is whether an existing building can be reshaped to deliver those things at the right price.
Renovation likely makes the most sense in three situations. First, when cost or political headwinds make a new build unattainable. Second, when the venue is an iconic community fixture, such as Wrigley Field in Chicago or Lambeau Field in Green Bay—venues with such rich history and roots that they cannot be transplanted. Third, when the core structure is sound enough to be modernized. Most renovations happen in phases so the team can keep playing, but Austin notes that phasing is a trade-off between finishing quickly and losing revenue from hosting fewer events during construction. NFL stadiums typically have an easier time because they host relatively fewer games, while arenas and ballparks with full calendars have less room to maneuver. Where possible, Austin advises consolidating the construction schedule to keep escalation costs down and lower the risk that a renovation will already feel outdated when completed.
Some venues can’t be fixed because the problem is the design. If a building’s core layout can’t be sufficiently retrofitted to meet modern fan and team needs, renovation money only goes so far. Austin points to Soldier Field in Chicago as an example of a renovation that ran into those limits. Lease terms can also force the issue: some leases include a facilities clause requiring the venue to meet first-class standards, and the lease can be voided if it falls short. Austin points to the St. Louis Rams’ relocation as an example of how these clauses can play out when sight lines can’t keep pace with comparable first-class facilities. Teams and cities that sign such leases need to understand what it will cost to keep meeting benchmark standards year after year, and which side is responsible for improvements. Politics, fan loyalty, and changes in the local market can also push a team toward a new building, even when the existing one still works.
Many stadiums are publicly owned, putting a city or stadium authority at the negotiating table. For public owners of sports facilities, Austin recommends three steps before talks start. First, hire an independent third party to assess what the facility actually needs—a team’s wish list and a building’s needs are not always the same. Second, ensure the investment is balanced, funding critical items like escalators, back-of-house systems, and building infrastructure, not only the suites and premium seating that generate revenue for the team. Third, know the numbers: public owners should define available reserves and confirm funding sources before discussions begin, so they negotiate from a clear position. Whether the answer is renovation or a new building, the goal is the same: a venue that meets today’s standards under an agreement that works for the team and the community over the long term.
