The Athletics Leave Oakland for Las Vegas

Timeline

1. May 11, 2021MLB allows the A's to explore relocation if no Oakland stadium deal is reached.
2. Oct 2022Oakland misses a deadline for a Howard Terminal ballpark agreement.
3. Jun 13, 2023Oakland fans hold a "reverse boycott" at the Coliseum.
4. Jun 15, 2023Nevada's governor signs SB1, providing up to $380 million in public funding.
5. Nov 16, 2023MLB owners unanimously approve the move.
6. May 2024Nevada's Supreme Court rejects an effort to put the funding on the ballot.
7. Sep 2024The A's play their final game in Oakland.
8. Jun 23, 2025The A's break ground in Las Vegas; the team plays 2025–26 in West Sacramento.

The ethical issues

• Public subsidies: whether taxpayers should fund private stadiums.
• Owner obligations to a community and fan base.
• League governance: whether relocation threats pressure cities.
• Fan loyalty and the loss of a team.
• Democratic accountability: whether voters should decide stadium funding.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Oakland fans and city	Their team, identity and economy.
John Fisher and the A's	A modern stadium and profitability.
Nevada taxpayers	Public money and expected benefits.
MLB and other owners	Market value and league growth.
Players	Working conditions during temporary homes.
Las Vegas residents and businesses	Tourism and jobs.

The case

The Athletics moved to Oakland in 1968 and won World Series titles there in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1989.^[1] The Oakland Coliseum, shared for decades with the NFL’s Raiders, became one of baseball’s oldest and most criticized venues.^[1][2]

Background

The franchise had moved before. Under owner Connie Mack, the Athletics played in Philadelphia from 1901 to 1954, at Columbia Park and Shibe Park, before relocating.^[1] In Oakland, attendance was not always strong. It reached a low point on April 17, 1979, when only 653 fans attended a game against the Seattle Mariners.^[1] After the 2005 sale, a proposed ballpark in Fremont, known as Cisco Field, failed.^[1] Oakland’s sports landscape then thinned: the Raiders announced their move to Las Vegas, and the Warriors moved to San Francisco, leaving the Athletics as the city’s only major professional team.^[1]

The Las Vegas plan went through several sites. In 2023, team president Dave Kaval told owners the team was considering locations along the Strip, at the Cashman Field site and in Henderson or Summerlin.^[1] The team had bid for the Tropicana site in December 2021, before the casino’s non-land assets were sold to Bally’s Corporation. The team later reached a deal with Bally’s to build there, cutting the public funding it sought from $500 million to $395 million, while Bally’s would build an adjacent casino-hotel.^[1]

The rules and governance

Moving a franchise required both public law and league approval. Nevada’s funding came through a special legislative session. The bill was amended to add a community benefits agreement and more repayment of state tax credits before Lombardo signed SB1.^[1] Opponents tried direct democracy. Schools Over Stadiums, a group led by the local teachers union, sought a ballot referendum on the funding and filed a lawsuit to overturn SB1. Team lobbyists sued to keep the petition off the ballot, and the state Supreme Court rejected the referendum effort.^[1]

Under MLB rules, the owners must approve any relocation, which is why Manfred’s recommendation and the November 2023 vote were decisive.^[1][2] The team also struck a deal with the Southern Nevada Building Trades Union to use local workers and contractors.^[1]

Two decades of stadium plans

From 2001, the team explored sites in Oakland and elsewhere in the Bay Area without success.^[1] In 2005, the team was sold to Lew Wolff and John Fisher.^[1] Plans for a waterfront ballpark at Oakland’s Howard Terminal stalled; in October 2022, Oakland missed a deadline to reach an agreement, and federal transportation officials declined to grant $182 million for the project in early 2023.^[1]

On May 11, 2021, MLB allowed the A’s to explore relocation if they could not secure a new stadium in Oakland.^[1] The team began talks in Las Vegas, home to the NFL’s Raiders, who had also left Oakland, and the NHL’s Golden Knights.^[1]

Nevada’s deal

On June 15, 2023, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed SB1, providing up to $380 million in public funding for a ballpark on the site of the Tropicana casino on the Las Vegas Strip.^[1] The law requires an enclosed stadium for about 30,000 people at the southeast corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Tropicana Avenue.^[5] The public money combines county bonds with transferable state tax credits. The credits are capped at $36 million a year and $180 million in total, and together with the bonds may not exceed $380 million.^[5] The team’s developer must pay the first $100 million of costs.^[5] The Stadium Authority must sign a non-relocation agreement and a lease of at least 30 years. A community benefits agreement, with an oversight committee, is also required.^[5] Surplus district revenue must refund to the state any tax credits above $60 million, up to $120 million in total, with a share going to a county fund for low-income housing.^[5] A group called Schools Over Stadiums sought to put the funding to a public vote; in May 2024, Nevada’s Supreme Court rejected the effort.^[1] The petition targeted only the sections of SB1 that committed state funds.^[6] The court affirmed an injunction blocking it on two grounds. The constitution required the “full text of the measure proposed,” so all of SB1 had to be included. And the petition’s description of effect was “misleading”: its reference to “up to $380 million taxpayer dollars” suggested existing state funds, when part of the money was to come from the stadium district itself.^[6] Justice Kristina Pickering dissented. She argued the description fairly said that a no vote could remove state support and “result in the stadium not being built.”^[6] Justice Patricia Lee joined her on the full-text question.^[6]

On November 16, 2023, MLB’s 30 owners unanimously approved the move. Commissioner Rob Manfred said: “I know this is a terrible day for fans in Oakland,” but added that “the status quo in Oakland was untenable.”^[2] Fisher said, “I understand the grief and anger and disappointment and sadness that our fans have.”^[2]

The fans

Critics argued that low spending on the roster had driven fans away. On June 13, 2023, fans staged a “reverse boycott,” drawing the season’s largest home crowd to a weeknight game with fan-funded shirts reading “SELL,” and the crowd chanted “sell the team.”^[1] Fans founded the Oakland Ballers, an independent minor-league team, in response.^[1]

Aftermath

The A’s played their last Oakland game in 2024 and moved temporarily to Sutter Health Park in West Sacramento for 2025 and 2026.^[1] The team broke ground in Las Vegas on June 23, 2025, with completion expected for Opening Day 2028.^[3] By 2026, the stadium’s cost was reported at about $2 billion.^[4] Fisher committed to financing most of it. The cost was initially $1.75 billion and rose to $2 billion in 2025, and U.S. Bank and Goldman Sachs agreed to lend the team $300 million.^[4] In 2026 the team reported that it had not yet drawn on a planned $350 million of the $380 million in public financing. Questions about the finances of its partner, Bally’s, had raised doubts about the schedule, but both told the Stadium Authority the 2028 opening remained on track.^[4] The Tropicana, which stood on the 35-acre site, was imploded in October 2024.^[4]

The core dilemma

The A’s argued they had tried for decades to stay and that no viable Oakland deal emerged. Fans argued the owner had underinvested and used relocation to secure public money elsewhere. What do owners, leagues and governments owe to fans and communities?

Competing values

• Private ownership vs. community investment.
• Public subsidy vs. other public priorities.
• League stability vs. local loyalty.
• Elected officials’ decisions vs. direct voter approval.

Strongest arguments

For the move: Oakland could not deliver a viable stadium after many years, the Coliseum was outdated, and Las Vegas offered a site and funding.

Against: the public pays for stadiums whose economic benefits economists often doubt, and the team abandoned a loyal fan base it had underserved.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh benefits to Las Vegas, the team’s finances and MLB against costs to Oakland’s fans, workers and city, and the opportunity cost of $380 million in public money. Economists often find that stadium subsidies return less than promised, a factor this lens must weigh.

Justice

A justice lens asks whether it is fair for owners to leave a community whose fans supported a team for over five decades, and whether public money should support private profit. It also asks who decided: owners and legislators, while fans in Oakland and voters in Nevada had little direct say.

Rights

A rights lens notes that owners have legal rights over their property and business, but asks whether fans and cities have moral claims grounded in loyalty and public investment. The failed referendum raises questions about citizens’ right to vote on public spending.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are an MLB owner voting in November 2023 on the Athletics’ relocation. The stakeholders include Oakland fans, Las Vegas residents, the team’s owners, players, MLB, Nevada taxpayers and Oakland city leaders. The codes in play are MLB’s relocation rules and your duties as a league partner.
2. Gather facts. What efforts did the team make to stay in Oakland? What is the financial case for Las Vegas, and what public money is involved?
3. Test options. Options: (a) approve; (b) reject and require further negotiation with Oakland; (c) approve with conditions, such as commitments to the Oakland community. Weigh league economics against fans’ loyalty and public trust.
4. Check codes and law. Are you approving because it benefits owners collectively? Would you accept the same treatment of your own team’s fans?
5. Decide and document. Record the vote and the reasons.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate openly with Oakland fans about the decision and any commitments, and follow up on them.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the funding bill; MLB’s approval; the temporary move; groundbreaking.
• Contested: who was responsible for the Oakland failure; whether the public investment will pay off.

Why this case matters

The A’s move is a textbook case of the leverage that relocation gives team owners, and of the costs to fans.

Key terms

Commercialization

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

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.

Residential exposure

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

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Did Oakland or the A's bear more responsibility for the failure to build a stadium?
2. Should Nevada have provided public funding? What evidence should states require?
3. Was MLB's unanimous approval fair to Oakland fans?
4. Do owners have moral obligations to communities beyond their contracts?
5. Should stadium subsidies require a public vote?

Sources

1. Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas — Wikipedia
2. Owners approve A's relocation to Las Vegas — MLB.com
3. A's break ground on new Las Vegas stadium — MLB.com
4. A's stadium still on track to be completed for 2028 season following prior uncertainty — The Nevada Independent
5. Senate Bill No. 1, 35th Special Session (2023), as enrolled (Southern Nevada Tourism Innovation Act) — Nevada Legislature, via Las Vegas Stadium Authority
6. Schools Over Stadiums v. Thompson, No. 87613, Order of Affirmance (May 13, 2024) — Supreme Court of Nevada, via Courthouse News Service