Kansas City has just released a report on the revenue and expected economic impact of the new Royals stadium from Hunden Partners, a Chicago-based consultancy whose work I’ve analyzed previously.
In short, the report claims that the stadium will generate $1.4 billion in tax revenue through 2059 to cover the city’s $600 million commitment. That is the top-line claim, but the report is worth looking at past just the summary.
The report predicts that the ballpark itself will only generate $462 million—a third of the total amount. The largest share—$688 million—comes from the 1,726 existing businesses elsewhere in the four-square-mile impact area. That area runs from State Line on the west to Brooklyn Avenue on the east, and I-670 on the north to 31st Street to the south. It includes neighborhoods such as the Crossroads area, the Westside, and Union Hill. Even part of the West Bottoms is in the impact area.
In other words, the Royals will be hoovering up tax revenue that will have little to do with the team’s presence, much like the 300 square mile footprint of the STAR bond district Kansas is anticipating for the Chiefs. If nothing else, it is a concession to the argument that these projects don’t pay for themselves, so legislators need to invent a much larger area from which to redirect taxes.
Hunden’s own numbers show as much. One table in the report tests what happens if fans spend more. Raising their food and drink spending by two thirds, from $18 to $30, adds less than 1% to the impact area’s revenue. Raising the assumed growth of existing sales from 1% to 3% adds $198 million. The money to pay for this deal comes from the ordinary growth of neighborhoods already there. Tax revenue that might otherwise repair roads or pay police will instead pay for the Royals’ stadium.
But there’s more! The largest line in the impact area is not restaurants or shops, but taxes on utility bills. So when Evergy or Spire raise rates, the added tax is considered a result of the stadium—starting in 2027, at least three years before the park is supposed to open.
University of Colorado-Denver professor Geoffrey Propheter told The Kansas City Star: “There’s no way you could draw something this large and with a straight face say, ‘I’m only targeting people who are here because of the stadium.’ Now, if that was true, your TIF would be only the stadium footprint. Even then, that’s not precise.”
And as must be said every time, the spending at the new park is not new spending—it’s just spending in a new place as the Royals already play in Kansas City. The report counts a million new visits to the businesses near the park, yet it does not subtract the number of visitors, or their spending, who will no longer attend games a few miles away at Kauffman Stadium.
Hunden Partners was the same firm that prepared the economic impact claims that Springfield used to convince voters to support an increased hotel tax to build a new convention center. Voters rejected that in November 2025 and again in April 2026 by an even wider margin.
As if it were a sufficient defense, Kansas City leaders point out that the Royals impact area is much smaller than the one Kansas is considering for the Chiefs. That is true. But it’s a weak argument and a low bar. Both plans admit that these facilities do not pay for themselves. That Kansas City is making a slightly less bad financial deal hardly feels like a win.
Unfortunately, this deal is a foregone conclusion. Reports such as those provided by Hunden are not good faith efforts to weigh the cost benefits of such deals. They are generated to give political leaders the cover they need to do as they please. And as we’ve seen for years, elected leaders on both sides of State Line are falling over themselves to give public money to wealthy businesses. The details are a distant consideration.
