Rays Owners Press Hillsborough for $467 Million Toward a Tampa Ballpark

The Tampa Bay Rays' ownership group is seeking roughly $467 million in sales tax money from Hillsborough County toward a proposed stadium in Tampa, a request that puts the region's long-running ballpark question before county commissioners with a firm deadline attached.

The team's lease at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg runs through the 2028 season. Ownership has stated a goal of having a new ballpark ready for Opening Day 2029, a timeline that leaves limited room for extended negotiation given typical stadium design and construction schedules.

The Rays came under new ownership when a $1.7 billion sale closed in September 2025, transferring control from Stuart Sternberg, who had held the team for nearly two decades, to a group led by Jacksonville home developer Patrick Zalupski. That group includes Ken Babby, owner of the Triple-A Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp and the Double-A Akron RubberDucks.

What is being asked for

The $467 million request is structured around sales tax revenue, a common financing mechanism for public participation in stadium projects. In Florida, tourist development taxes on short-term lodging and general sales tax collections are the two most frequently discussed sources for these arrangements.

Public stadium financing in Florida operates under statutory constraints. State law governs how tourist development tax revenue may be spent, and use for professional sports facilities is among the permitted categories, subject to specific requirements. Any county contribution would also require commission approval.

The team's side of the arrangement typically involves a private contribution toward construction, a long-term lease commitment, and provisions governing revenue sharing on non-baseball events. The specific terms under discussion have been the subject of negotiation rather than public agreement.

How the region got here

The Rays have played at Tropicana Field since their inaugural 1998 season. The domed stadium in St. Petersburg has consistently ranked at or near the bottom of Major League Baseball in attendance, a fact both the team and civic leaders have attributed in part to its location relative to the region's population centers.

Efforts to replace or relocate the stadium have run for well over a decade. A previous agreement centered on a new ballpark in St. Petersburg's Historic Gas Plant District collapsed, and the team's outlook shifted again following hurricane damage to the Tropicana Field roof.

Following that damage, the team played a season away from the venue before returning. New ownership has committed to substantial upgrades at Tropicana Field for the remaining lease years, including a new roof, video board and sound system.

The economics of stadium subsidies

Academic research on publicly financed sports facilities has been consistent across decades and across sports: economists studying the question have generally found that stadium subsidies do not generate net new regional economic activity sufficient to justify the public investment.

The central finding is substitution. Household entertainment spending is largely fixed, so dollars spent at a ballpark are frequently dollars that would otherwise have been spent at restaurants, movie theaters or other local venues. The regional total changes less than gross spending at the facility suggests.

Proponents of public participation typically argue on different grounds, including civic identity, regional profile, ancillary development around the site and the cost of losing a franchise. Those arguments turn on values and priorities that economic impact studies do not settle.

What it means for Tampa Bay

For Hillsborough County residents, the question is whether county revenue that could fund other priorities should go toward a ballpark. County budgets in the region face demands including transportation, stormwater infrastructure, affordable housing and public safety.

For Pinellas County and St. Petersburg, a Tampa stadium would mean losing a franchise that has anchored the city's downtown sports profile since 1998, along with whatever economic activity Tropicana Field generates. Redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site has been an ongoing subject of St. Petersburg planning.

For fans, a Tampa location would change the commute calculus. The region is split by Tampa Bay itself, and travel between Pinellas and Hillsborough counties depends on a small number of bridges that carry heavy traffic.

Local impact across the state

Florida hosts two Major League Baseball franchises, the Rays and the Miami Marlins, and both have navigated stadium questions with substantial public involvement. The Marlins' ballpark in Miami, financed largely through public bonds, remains a reference point in Florida stadium debates.

The state also hosts the Grapefruit League, with 13 clubs conducting spring training across Florida each February and March at facilities that themselves involved public investment. Those facilities are governed by agreements with host counties and cities.

The new Rays ownership group's Jacksonville ties are notable in a state where franchise geography matters. Zalupski's development business and Babby's minor league holdings both center on Northeast Florida, though ownership has stated the team will remain in Tampa Bay.

Why Tropicana Field became a problem

Tropicana Field opened in 1990, eight years before the Rays played their first game, built speculatively by St. Petersburg in hopes of attracting a franchise. That sequence explains several of the building's characteristics, including a fixed dome design that was already dated when baseball arrived.

The location has been the more consequential issue. The stadium sits in St. Petersburg, on the Pinellas County side of Tampa Bay, while a large share of the region's population and corporate base is in Hillsborough County. Crossing the bay during weekday evening traffic is a substantial commute.

Attendance has reflected that geography. The Rays have finished at or near the bottom of Major League Baseball attendance rankings in most seasons, including years when the team reached the postseason. Team officials and civic leaders have consistently attributed a large share of that to location rather than to fan interest.

Hurricane damage to the venue's roof added a new dimension, forcing the team to play a season elsewhere before returning. That episode sharpened the urgency around a long-term venue decision.

What a stadium deal typically contains

Modern stadium agreements involve more than a construction contribution. They typically specify a lease term, which is the commitment the team makes to remain in the market, along with provisions on who bears maintenance and capital repair costs over the life of the building.

Revenue allocation is negotiated in detail. Naming rights, concessions, parking, premium seating and non-baseball events all generate income, and the split of those streams between the team and the public entity is where much of the value in a deal resides.

Ancillary development frequently accompanies stadium projects. Teams often seek development rights on adjacent land, arguing that mixed-use development around a ballpark generates activity year-round rather than only on game days. Those rights carry significant value.

Non-relocation agreements are the enforcement mechanism on the public side. They bind the team to remain for the lease term and typically specify remedies if the team attempts to leave early. The strength of those provisions varies considerably across deals.

The regional politics

Hillsborough and Pinellas counties have a complicated relationship on regional projects. The two sit across a bay from one another, share a media market and an airport service area, but maintain separate governments with separate budgets and separate constituencies.

A Tampa stadium funded partly by Hillsborough County revenue would represent a shift of a regional asset across the bay, and Pinellas officials have interests that run the other direction. St. Petersburg has its own plans for the Tropicana Field site, which occupies a large tract adjacent to downtown.

The Historic Gas Plant District, where Tropicana Field sits, carries additional significance. The area was a Black neighborhood displaced during mid-century development, and commitments regarding community benefits from any redevelopment have been part of the discussion around the site for years.

County commissioners in Hillsborough face the ordinary political calculus of a large public expenditure. Stadium subsidies have historically drawn organized opposition alongside organized support, and commissioners must weigh both against competing budget priorities.

What the research says about stadium subsidies

The economics literature on publicly financed sports facilities is unusually consistent for a field where disagreement is the norm. Surveys of economists have repeatedly found near-consensus that stadium subsidies do not generate returns to the public sufficient to justify the expenditure.

The substitution effect is the central mechanism. Household entertainment budgets are largely fixed, so spending at a ballpark displaces spending elsewhere in the same region rather than adding to the regional total. Only spending by visitors from outside the region represents genuinely new money.

Employment effects are similarly limited. Stadium jobs are heavily part-time and seasonal, concentrated on roughly 81 home dates for a baseball franchise, and the construction employment is temporary by definition.

Proponents generally argue on grounds the economic literature does not address, including civic identity, regional profile and quality of life. Those are legitimate considerations, but they are value judgments rather than economic findings, and framing them as economic returns has been the recurring point of dispute.

Florida's other stadium experiences

The Miami Marlins ballpark, financed largely through public bonds issued by Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami, became one of the most frequently cited examples in national debates over stadium financing. The debt structure drew substantial criticism, and the arrangement produced litigation and political consequences.

Football stadium arrangements in Florida have followed different models. Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens has been financed substantially through private investment by the franchise's ownership, while EverBank Stadium in Jacksonville is city-owned and has been the subject of renovation agreements involving public participation.

Spring training facilities across Florida were built with substantial public contributions from host counties and cities, competing against Arizona's Cactus League for teams. Several Florida communities lost clubs to Arizona during periods when they declined to fund new facilities.

That competitive dynamic, in which communities bid against one another for franchises, is the structural reason stadium subsidies persist despite the economic literature. A community acting alone faces the prospect of losing the team to one that pays.

What's next

Hillsborough County commissioners will have to act on any financing request through a public process, including agenda items, public comment and recorded votes. Those proceedings are the venue where the terms become fully public.

The 2028 lease expiration establishes the timeline. Construction of a modern ballpark typically requires roughly three years from groundbreaking, which means decisions made over the next several months determine whether a 2029 opening remains achievable.

Major League Baseball's role also matters, since franchise relocation and stadium arrangements require league approval. The league approved the ownership sale in September 2025, and its posture on the stadium question will shape what options remain available.