The Braves, Cobb County and Public Stadium Funding

Timeline

1. Nov 11, 2013The Braves announce a move to Cobb County.
2. Nov 26, 2013Cobb commissioners vote 4–1 to approve an agreement, two weeks after the announcement.
3. May 27, 2014Commissioners vote 5–0 on the operating agreement, committing up to $397 million in bonds.
4. Jun 29, 2015Georgia's Supreme Court upholds the bond authorization.
5. Jul 2016The commission chairman loses his re-election bid.
6. 2017The ballpark opens.
7. Mar 2022A Kennesaw State economist's study finds a net cost to taxpayers.

The ethical issues

• Transparency: secret negotiations on public spending.
• Democratic process: voting without a referendum.
• Economic claims: projected versus actual benefits.
• Distribution: who benefits and who pays.
• Mobility: teams leaving central cities.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Cobb County taxpayers	Public money and services.
The Braves	A new ballpark and development revenue.
County officials	Economic development and accountability.
City of Atlanta	Loss of a team and a stadium site.
Fans	Access and transportation.
Local businesses	Spending and competition.

The case

Turner Field, built for the 1996 Olympics and converted for baseball, had been the Braves’ home since 1997.^[1] The team said the stadium needed $350 million in renovations and complained about traffic, parking and its lack of control over development nearby. Talks with Atlanta’s stadium authority on a lease extension broke down; Atlanta’s mayor said the city could not afford the renovations the team wanted while it was also funding a new stadium for the Falcons.^[1]

Background

Turner Field was not old. It was younger than 13 of the other 29 major league stadiums.^[1] It had been built as Centennial Olympic Stadium for the 1996 Summer Olympics and designed from the start to be converted into a baseball-only park afterward. That conversion ruled out other uses such as track and field.^[1] The stadium was owned by the Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority and leased to the Braves for twenty years, with the team controlling its operations.^[1]

The team’s case for leaving was financial and logistical. Vice chairman John Schuerholz said Turner Field needed $350 million in renovations: $150 million for structural upkeep and $200 million to improve the fan experience. Executive vice president Mike Plant said capital maintenance would be much lower in a new park.^[1] The Braves described the Cobb site, at the interchange of Interstates 75 and 285, as “near the geographic center of the Braves’ fan base.”^[1] The move took the team out of the city of Atlanta and into a suburban county, so the relocation was also a choice about which communities a franchise serves.

The rules and governance

The financing ran through public bodies rather than a voter referendum. The Cobb-Marietta Coliseum & Exhibit Hall Authority issued up to $397 million in bonds.^[1] The county raised an additional $14 million from transportation taxes, and businesses in the Cumberland Community Improvement District contributed $10 million in cash. The Braves covered the remainder of the ballpark’s cost and paid for The Battery Atlanta.^[1] A March 2015 securities filing by the team’s owner, Liberty Media, put the cost at $672 million for the ballpark and $452 million for The Battery, more than $1.1 billion in total.^[1]

The governance questions were about process as much as price. The commission approved the memorandum of understanding two weeks after the plan became public. The county committed to the bonds without a public vote. Residents’ only formal remedy turned out to be a court challenge, which Georgia’s Supreme Court rejected in 2015.^[1]

A fast deal

In 2013, the Braves worked with Cobb County Commission Chairman Tim Lee on possible sites.^[1] On November 11, 2013, the team announced it would move to Cobb County after the 2016 season.^[1][3] The plan became public only two weeks before the commission voted. Residents organized campaigns for and against, and many asked for the vote to be delayed, but Lee and another commissioner said a delay would threaten the timeline.^[1] A poll found that 59% of Cobb voters favored a new stadium but only 30% supported funding it with county tax dollars.^[1]

On November 26, the commission voted 4–1 to approve a memorandum of understanding. On May 27, 2014, it voted 5–0 on an operating agreement committing the county to borrow up to $397 million.^[1] Residents challenged the bonds in court; Georgia’s Supreme Court unanimously upheld them in June 2015.^[1] In July 2016, Lee lost his re-election bid to a challenger who called the election a delayed referendum on the stadium deal.^[1]

The team’s promises

When the commission approved the memorandum, the Braves put the cost of the stadium, parking and infrastructure at about $672 million. They said the team would invest about $372 million “in both upfront costs and yearly payments.” The team would manage construction, cover any cost overruns, and pay all operating expenses. The Braves and the county would share capital maintenance.^[5] The team promised to fund 100 percent of a surrounding mixed-use development. It projected more than 5,227 construction jobs and more than 3,000 jobs at the new park.^[5] “This is a significant day in the history of this franchise,” team president John Schuerholz said.^[5]

The court challenge

The deal’s legal structure came out in the bond case. Five agreements were signed on May 27, 2014. Under them, the coliseum authority would own the stadium, and the Braves would hold an exclusive license to use it through 2046, with an option to extend to 2051.^[4] The team would keep all stadium revenue, including parking, advertising and naming rights. It would pay license fees of $3 million a year, plus another $3.1 million a year for 30 years.^[4] The county agreed to cover whatever bond payments the fees did not. Annual principal and interest were capped at $25 million.^[4] When the license ends, the Braves can buy the stadium for half its market value.^[4]

Sixteen residents sought to intervene at the July 2014 validation hearing, and nine took part. The trial court refused to hear evidence about the negotiations, ruling it irrelevant to whether the bonds were valid.^[4] Three residents appealed. They argued that the deal broke the Georgia Constitution’s limits on debt and gifts of public money, and that the county was taking on new debt without the referendum the constitution requires. On June 29, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Revenue bonds payable only from the project did not count as county debt, it held, and the county received real services in return for its payments.^[4] The court added: “we do not discount the concerns Appellants have raised about the wisdom of the stadium project.” Those concerns, it said, belonged to “the realm of public policy entrusted to the County’s elected officials.” It warned: “If the stadium deal does not fulfill the high expectations that have been set for it, there may be a significant political price to pay for those who negotiated and signed onto it.”^[4]

The ballpark

The ballpark opened in 2017 with a budget of $622 million. The county also contributed transportation tax funds, and the Braves agreed to pay $181 million over 30 years toward the county’s bonds.^[1] The team built The Battery Atlanta, a mixed-use development, around the stadium.^[1]

The evidence

In March 2022, Kennesaw State University economist J.C. Bradbury published a retrospective study. He found that sales tax revenue increased after the stadium opened, but much of the spending appeared to come at the expense of existing Cobb businesses. Property values grew at typical regional rates. He estimated that the stadium cost taxpayers nearly $15 million per year to service debt and fund operations, about $50 per Cobb household.^[2] A peer-reviewed study by Bradbury the same year compared Cobb with other metro-Atlanta counties. It found that Cobb’s property assessments did not rise relative to theirs after the stadium was announced or opened. He wrote that this was “inconsistent with the stadium having a positive fiscal impact.” Bradbury disclosed that he serves, unpaid, on the Development Authority of Cobb County.^[6] Supporters point to The Battery’s growth and the team’s success; the ballpark hosted World Series games in 2021.^[1]

Aftermath

The team built the project quickly. Site clearing began in June 2014, after the May 27 vote, and a formal groundbreaking followed on September 16. Three natural gas lines under the property had to be moved at a cost of $14 million; that expense was one reason the land had not been developed before.^[1] The Braves unveiled plans for The Battery on November 20, 2013, nine days after announcing the move, and it opened in stages from 2017.^[1] To address traffic concerns, the team announced more than 11,000 game-day parking spaces, 2,500 more than at Turner Field, a private shuttle service, and 7:30 p.m. starts for Monday-to-Thursday games instead of Turner Field’s 7 p.m.^[1]

The ballpark opened for a preseason game against the New York Yankees on March 31, 2017. Originally named SunTrust Park, it was renamed Truist Park in 2020 after a bank merger.^[1] It hosted World Series games in 2021 and the 95th MLB All-Star Game on July 15, 2025.^[1] Those milestones are central to supporters’ argument. Bradbury’s study remains the main counterweight, finding net costs to the county’s taxpayers.^[2]

The core dilemma

County leaders argued that moving quickly secured a major-league team and private development. Critics argued that a multi-hundred-million-dollar commitment should not be made without time for public debate or a vote, and that the promised economic benefits did not materialize. How should communities decide on stadium subsidies?

Competing values

• Speed and competition vs. deliberation.
• Representative decision-making vs. direct democracy.
• Projected benefits vs. measured outcomes.
• Civic prestige vs. fiscal prudence.

Strongest arguments

For the deal: the county secured a major-league team and a privately funded development, and voters retained the power to remove officials.

Against: the process denied residents a meaningful voice, and independent analysis found the public subsidy was not repaid.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

A utilitarian analysis tallies the benefits (jobs, tax receipts, regional prestige, fans’ enjoyment, The Battery’s development) against the costs: debt service, spending diverted from other local businesses, and the opportunity cost of public funds that could go to schools or transit. Bradbury’s finding of roughly $50 per household per year matters, as does distribution. The gains flow heavily to the team’s owners and nearby property holders, while the costs fall on all taxpayers. The lens may lean against the subsidy on the evidence, but defenders argue that intangible civic benefits are being undercounted.

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, would a Cobb resident who did not know whether they would be a season-ticket holder, a business owner near The Battery or a renter far from the ballpark accept this deal? The justice lens also looks at Atlanta, the city left with a vacant stadium, and at who gained or lost access to the team when it moved from an urban site to a suburban one. Process matters too. A two-week window before the vote limited fair participation.

Rights-based

A rights lens asks whether residents had a meaningful say in a decision that committed their tax dollars for decades. No referendum was held. The court challenge failed on legal grounds, and the commission chairman’s electoral defeat came only after the obligations were locked in. The lens highlights the democratic deficit, though others answer that elected commissioners are the legitimate decision-makers and that voters held them to account.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a Cobb County commissioner in November 2013. The stakeholders are taxpayers, Braves fans, the team and its owners, nearby residents and businesses, Atlanta and its residents, and future commissions bound by the debt. The relevant rules are county financing authority, bond law and open-meeting requirements.
2. Gather facts. What independent economic analysis exists, and what does the academic literature on stadium subsidies say? Separate the team’s projections from neutral estimates. Watch for deadline pressure and the excitement of landing a major league team.
3. Test options. Options: (a) approve as proposed; (b) delay for public hearings and an independent study; (c) approve with stronger public-return terms such as revenue sharing, clawbacks or community benefits. Test each through consequences, the duty to steward public money, and the virtues of prudence and transparency.
4. Check codes and law. Check what Georgia law requires for bond approval and public notice. Then ask whether meeting the minimum honors the spirit of democratic accountability.
5. Decide and document. Record the projected costs and benefits, the alternatives considered, and who was consulted, including independent economists, residents and transit authorities.
6. Communicate and follow up. Explain the decision publicly, publish the agreements, and set metrics to measure the actual return over time, such as tax revenue, traffic and local business effects.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the timeline; the bond commitment; the court ruling.
• Contested: the stadium’s net economic effect; whether intangible benefits justify the cost.

Why this case matters

The Cobb deal shows how stadium agreements can bypass public deliberation, and offers rare retrospective evidence of their fiscal effects.

Key terms

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Residential exposure

The everyday burden, such as noise, traffic, policing and cost of living, on people who live near venues and mega-events.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Principal–agent problem

When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Was the speed and secrecy of the deal justified by competitive concerns?
2. Should stadium funding require a public referendum?
3. How should officials weigh benefits like civic pride that are hard to measure?
4. Does the success of The Battery Atlanta change your assessment?
5. What standards should govern economic impact studies commissioned by stadium advocates?

Sources

1. Truist Park — Wikipedia
2. A Home Run for Cobb? A Comprehensive Report on the Economic Impact of Truist Park and The Battery Atlanta on Cobb County — Kennesaw State University
3. Atlanta Braves Announce Plans to Move to New Stadium — USA Today
4. Savage v. State of Georgia, 297 Ga. 627 (2015) — Supreme Court of Georgia (via Caselaw Access Project)
5. Atlanta Braves formalize agreement with Cobb County to build new stadium (Nov. 2013) — Atlanta Braves / MLB.com
6. Does hosting a professional sports team benefit the local community? Evidence from property assessments — Economics of Governance (J.C. Bradbury, 2022)