A new year brings Ohio lawmakers back to work, and once again public funding for sports venues sits near the top of the agenda. State politicians now face renewed pressure to help pay for another major project, this time in Columbus. The owners of the National Hockey League’s Columbus Blue Jackets, along with Franklin County officials, want money to renovate the city’s downtown arena, which first opened in September 2000.
The venue falls under the control of the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority, a government entity that also oversees the Greater Columbus Convention Center, a downtown hotel, and several parking garages. Authority officials say the 25-year-old arena needs roughly $400 million in upgrades. To help cover that cost, they want $100 million from Ohio legislators who represent the Columbus area.
How the Renovation Would Be Funded
The proposed funding plan relies on multiple public sources. Beyond the $100 million request from the state, additional money would come from the City of Columbus and Franklin County. Project backers also expect to use another familiar financing tool: a special entertainment or tax district surrounding the arena. Under that model, revenue generated near the building would flow back into paying off renovation debt rather than into general public funds.
Supporters argue the plan protects the arena’s long-term viability and keeps Columbus competitive with newer NHL facilities. Critics point out that these financing structures often shift public tax revenue away from basic services while offering limited economic return.
Political Pressure at the Statehouse
The push for arena money has only just begun, but lawmakers will find it difficult to ignore. Columbus serves as Ohio’s capital city, and history shows the legislature rarely turns down venue requests from major markets. Recent precedent strengthens the case for the Blue Jackets and county officials.
In 2025, Governor Mike DeWine signed a budget that included $600 million in public funding for Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam. That money helped support a proposed football stadium-village in Brook Park. In Cincinnati, Bengals ownership secured public funds from the city, Hamilton County, and the state to renovate Paycor Stadium. Ohio taxpayers also continue to help pay down debt tied to Columbus’ Major League Soccer stadium.
A Growing List of Requests
The Columbus arena proposal does not stand alone. Plans for a new arena in Cincinnati continue to circulate, and project supporters there may soon seek state assistance as well. Taken together, the requests raise questions about how much public money Ohio should commit to sports facilities in a relatively short period of time.
For now, Columbus remains firmly on the clock. Arena backers will lobby lawmakers in the coming months, while state officials weigh another high-dollar commitment to professional sports infrastructure. The decision will test whether Ohio’s long-standing willingness to fund venues has reached its limit.
Pickleball has transformed from a backyard pastime into the fastest‑growing sport in the United States, and no place embodies that surge more than Florida. Across the Sunshine State, courts are filling before sunrise, recreation centers are expanding their schedules, and private clubs are racing to build new facilities to meet overwhelming demand. National participation has skyrocketed into the millions, with growth rates that outpace nearly every other recreational activity in the country.
Fueling this momentum is the rapid expansion of professional pickleball leagues. Major League Pickleball (MLP) and the PPA Tour have attracted a wave of high‑profile investors who see the sport’s potential as both a business and cultural phenomenon. LeBron James helped ignite mainstream attention when he invested in an MLP team, and he’s far from alone. Kevin Durant, Tom Brady, Naomi Osaka, Patrick Mahomes, and Drew Brees have all joined the ownership ranks, signaling that pickleball is no longer a niche hobby — it’s a legitimate sports industry with star‑powered backing.
The Noise Factor: Cities From Florida to California Push Back
But with explosive growth comes friction. As courts multiply in parks, neighborhoods, and converted tennis facilities, the distinct pop‑pop‑pop of pickleball has sparked a wave of noise complaints across the country. In Florida, where courts are often built close to residential communities, some cities have enacted restrictions or paused new construction altogether. Homeowners argue that the repetitive sound — amplified by hard paddles and plastic balls — disrupts daily life.
This tension isn’t limited to the East Coast. From Naples to Newport Beach, from Miami to Marin County, municipalities have debated decibel limits, restricted hours of play, and in some cases shut down courts entirely. What began as a joyful recreational boom has evolved into a complex civic issue, forcing local governments to balance community enthusiasm with neighborhood tranquility.
Finding Balance: Innovation Aims to Quiet the Courts and Calm the Debate
Despite the noise controversies, the pickleball community is pushing toward solutions that allow the sport to grow without overwhelming nearby residents. Manufacturers are developing sound‑reducing paddles, quieter balls, and acoustic‑friendly court materials. Some clubs are installing specialized fencing and sound‑dampening walls, while architects are designing facilities that naturally absorb impact noise.
These innovations reflect a broader effort to strike harmony between passionate players and those who simply want peace and quiet. As technology improves and communities collaborate, pickleball’s future looks bright — not just as a booming sport, but as a model for how recreational growth and neighborhood quality of life can coexist.
The Tampa Bay Rays’ new ownership group has made one thing unmistakably clear: securing a new stadium in the Tampa Bay region is their top priority. Rays CEO Ken Babby emphasized that the organization is “working quickly” and spending “days, nights and late evenings” evaluating potential stadium sites and feasibility studies. Managing partner Patrick Zalupski has stated the goal is a fixed‑roof, mixed‑use ballpark ready by Opening Day 2029, though the team believes 2028 remains possible if partnerships fall into place quickly.
The Rays currently have a lease to play at Tropicana Field through the 2028 season, extended after repairs were required due to Hurricane Milton’s damage in 2024. Babby has expressed confidence that if the team finalizes a public‑private partnership soon, construction could begin in time to meet the 2029 target. The urgency is real, but so is the optimism.
The Two Most Talked‑About Stadium Sites: Ybor City and Dale Mabry/HCC
While the Rays have not publicly confirmed their shortlist, local reporting and regional speculation continue to center on two leading candidates: Ybor City and the Dale Mabry/Hillsborough Community College corridor. Babby acknowledged the team is evaluating “a handful” of sites that meet their criteria, though he declined to name them. Still, these two locations have dominated public discussion due to their size, accessibility, and development potential.
Ybor City has long been floated as a prime destination for a downtown‑adjacent ballpark, while the Dale Mabry/HCC area offers central access, major roadways, and proximity to Raymond James Stadium. Both sites align with the Rays’ stated desire for at least 100 acres to support a “world‑class live/work/play experience” surrounding the stadium.
Making the Case for Each Site
Why Ybor City Works
Ybor City offers a historic, urban setting with built‑in cultural appeal. Its proximity to downtown Tampa, walkability, and nightlife make it ideal for the Rays’ vision of a vibrant mixed‑use district. A stadium here could anchor redevelopment, attract tourists, and energize local businesses. The area’s character and density also align with MLB’s preference for urban ballparks that drive year‑round activity.
Why Dale Mabry/HCC Works
The Dale Mabry/HCC site provides unmatched accessibility. Located near major highways and adjacent to existing sports infrastructure, it offers ample space for parking, development, and transportation upgrades. Its central location within Hillsborough County could draw fans from across the region more easily than Ybor. For a team seeking a “forever home” with room to grow, the acreage and logistics of Dale Mabry may be the most practical option.
Strong Tampa–Rays Relations and Why Time May Be on Their Side
Despite years of stadium uncertainty, the Rays and the City of Tampa maintain a strong working relationship. Local leaders and the new ownership group have repeatedly emphasized collaboration and shared goals for keeping the team in the region long‑term. With MLB facing potential labor turbulence—including a possible 2027 lockout that some analysts fear could last an entire season—the Rays may ultimately have more time than expected to finalize plans and begin construction.
A prolonged league shutdown would be damaging for baseball, but it could inadvertently ease the Rays’ timeline pressure. With Tropicana Field secured through 2028 and both sides committed to finding a solution, Tampa and the Rays appear aligned, patient, and determined to get the next ballpark right.
Across the country, a wave of new stadiums is rising for United Soccer League Tier Two and Tier Three franchises. These are not massive arenas, but smaller venues designed to seat a few thousand fans. While they may look modest, their price tags are not. Taxpayers often cover a significant portion of the construction costs. These stadiums usually anchor larger “stadium-village” developments that include retail, restaurants, offices, and housing.
Local leaders often promote these projects as economic engines. They argue that stadium-villages will create jobs, generate new tax revenue, and revitalize struggling districts. In reality, the results rarely match the promises.
The Economic Reality Behind Stadium-Villages
Most of the jobs created inside these districts are part-time, per diem, or minimum-wage positions. Concessions, retail shops, and event staffing do not produce stable, long-term employment. Meanwhile, the way cities finance these projects creates another major issue.
Municipalities often establish special stadium tax districts. Under these arrangements, sales tax revenue that would normally flow into a city’s general fund gets redirected to the stadium-village developer. Instead of supporting schools, public safety, or infrastructure citywide, that money goes toward paying off construction costs for a privately controlled project.
Sports ownership has increasingly become a real estate business. At both the major league and minor league levels, owners now seek profits not just from ticket sales, but from the surrounding development. The stadium becomes a tool to unlock public subsidies for private real estate ventures.
Omaha’s Proposed USL Stadium Plan
Omaha, Nebraska may soon become the next example. The owners of Union Omaha plan to partner with the city to build a 7,000-seat soccer stadium. The venue would anchor a 20-acre development that includes retail space, shopping, and housing.
Team ownership estimates the stadium alone could cost $114 million. That figure does not include infrastructure upgrades such as roads, utilities, or public transit improvements. Those additional costs would fall on taxpayers through a municipal taxing mechanism designed to support the project.
Familiar Promises, Familiar Risks
Omaha Mayor John Ewing echoed the language used by many city leaders who back stadium-villages. He said the project would give people another reason to live, work, and play downtown while strengthening the urban core. He also described the development as an engine for jobs, housing, entertainment, and urban living.
History suggests caution. Similar projects in other cities have failed to deliver broad economic benefits. Instead, they often shift public resources toward private interests, while cities assume long-term financial risk. Stadium-villages sound attractive, but the economic math rarely works out in favor of taxpayers.