Ethics CasesSport

Cases · MLB · 2024–2026

Approved, Then Abandoned: The Rays, St. Petersburg and a Stadium Deal Undone

In July 2024, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County approved public funding for a $1.3 billion Tampa Bay Rays ballpark. It was meant to anchor the $6.5 billion redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District, a historically Black neighborhood cleared for Tropicana Field. In October 2024, Hurricane Milton tore the roof off the Trop and the county delayed its bond vote. In March 2025 the Rays withdrew, citing the storms and higher costs. Stuart Sternberg then sold the team, and in August 2026 the new owners won approval for a $2.36 billion ballpark in Tampa. The case examines promises, public money, risk and repair for a displaced community.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. St. Petersburg City Council votes 5-3 to approve the Gas Plant redevelopment and stadium agreements.
  2. Pinellas County Commission votes 5-2 to contribute $312.5 million in bed tax revenue.
  3. Hurricane Milton shreds Tropicana Field's roof; the Rays move their 2025 games to Steinbrenner Field.
  4. After two delays, the county and the city approve their financing; the Rays seek further negotiations.
  5. The Rays announce they will not move forward with the ballpark.
  6. A group led by Patrick Zalupski completes its purchase of the Rays after unanimous owner approval.
  7. Hillsborough County approves a $2.36 billion ballpark in Tampa, a day after the Tampa City Council vote.

The ethical issues

  • Whether public money should fund private sports facilities.
  • Keeping promises when circumstances change.
  • Repairing harm to the displaced Gas Plant community.
  • Allocating risk between teams and taxpayers after disasters.
  • Relocation leverage within a region.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Tampa Bay Rays ownersA viable long-term ballpark and franchise value.
City of St. PetersburgKeeping the team and redeveloping the Trop site.
Pinellas and Hillsborough taxpayersSound use of public money.
Descendants of the Gas Plant communityPromised benefits and recognition.
FansA stable, accessible home for the team.
MLBKeeping the club in a viable market.

The case

On 18 July 2024, St. Petersburg’s mayor, Ken Welch, called the city council’s vote “a historic day.” “After 40 years and many promises,” he said, the city had approved the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District, anchored by a new ballpark for the Tampa Bay Rays.[1] Less than eight months later, the Rays walked away. The deal had survived years of negotiation and two public votes. It did not survive a hurricane, a delayed bond vote and rising costs. Within 18 months, new owners had a deal on the other side of the bay. The case asks what teams and governments owe each other, and the public, when a stadium deal collapses.

Background

Tropicana Field, the Rays’ home since their first season in 1998, sits on an 86-acre site in downtown St. Petersburg.[3] The Associated Press noted that the Historic Gas Plant District takes its name from “a predominantly Black neighborhood that was forced out by construction of the Trop and an interstate highway spur.”[5] The plan was for a 30,000-seat stadium at the center of a $6.5 billion redevelopment. Supporters pointed to plans for a Black history museum, affordable housing, offices, shops and thousands of jobs.[5]

The city council approved 12 agreements and related bond measures by 5-3 votes.[1] On 30 July 2024, Pinellas County commissioners voted 5-2 to contribute $312.5 million in bed tax revenue toward the stadium. Commission chair Kathleen Peters called it “the largest economic development project in our County’s history.”[2] The county projected $1.04 billion in tax revenue over 30 years and more than 15,200 annual jobs.[2] Under the agreement, the Rays would commit $700 million and cover any cost overruns, with the stadium opening in 2028.[3]

What happened

In early October 2024, Hurricane Milton shredded Tropicana Field’s roof, making it unplayable for 2025. The Rays moved their home games to George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, the Yankees’ spring training ballpark.[3][5] The Pinellas County Commission twice delayed its vote on the bonds for its share. In December, the county and city both approved their financing, covering $600 million toward the ballpark, but the Rays asked for further negotiations.[3] The club said the county’s delays had pushed the opening back a year, making it unrealistic for the team alone to afford the higher construction cost.[3]

The Rays faced a 31 March 2025 deadline to show they could meet their obligations.[3][4] On 13 March, principal owner Stuart Sternberg said: “After careful deliberation, we have concluded we cannot move forward with the new ballpark and development project at this moment. A series of events beginning in October that no one could have anticipated led to this difficult decision.”[3] Welch called the decision “a major disappointment” but not surprising. He said the city would honor its commitment to repair the Trop and would not “put our city’s progress on hold.”[3] Council member Richie Floyd said “we’ve had so much time wasted by unwilling partners.”[3]

The rules and governance

The deal was a set of contracts with conditions and deadlines, approved by elected bodies. The Rays’ existing use agreement for the Trop was extended by one year for each season the stadium was unusable, running through 2028.[3] MLB said it “remains committed to finding a permanent home for the Club in the Tampa Bay region.”[3] The withdrawal ended the agreement before construction began. Public approval had not locked in the project.

Aftermath

MLB owners unanimously approved the sale of the club to a group led by Patrick Zalupski, which closed on 30 September 2025 at a reported price of about $1.7 billion.[6] After the Rays returned to the repaired Trop in 2026, the Tampa City Council voted 4-3 for a ballpark at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus. On 28 August 2026 Hillsborough County commissioners approved it 5-2.[7] The fixed-roof stadium is projected to cost $2.36 billion. The county will contribute $796 million, mostly from tourist and community investment taxes. Tampa will contribute $80 million. The Rays will put in about $1.37 billion plus all cost overruns and pay $4 million a year in rent under a 35-year non-relocation agreement.[7] Opening Day is targeted for 2029.[7]

The core dilemma

When unforeseen events change the economics of a publicly backed stadium, is a team entitled to walk away? And how should the public’s investment and the displaced community’s interests be protected?

Competing values

Keeping promises stands against adapting to changed circumstances. Public benefit stands against private profit. Regional growth stands against local justice for the Gas Plant community.

Strongest arguments

For the Rays’ decision: A hurricane and the county’s delays were outside the team’s control. Higher costs fell on the club, which had agreed to cover overruns.[3][4]

Against: The public bodies had approved their funding, and the city kept its promise to repair the Trop.[3] Leaving undermined trust and the community benefits tied to the deal.[1][5]

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

Consequentialists compare outcomes: projected jobs and tax revenue against public costs and risk.[2] The Tampa deal costs more in total, which raises the question of whether its public share delivers more benefit.[7]

Justice

Justice asks who bears the burdens. The Gas Plant neighborhood was displaced once.[5] A failed deal delayed promised redress, while the public share in Tampa again draws on tax revenue.[7]

Kantian

A duty-based view emphasizes keeping commitments made to partners and citizens. Conditional contracts complicate this: was the withdrawal a breach of trust or a permitted exit?[3]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? Approval in July 2024, the hurricane, the delayed bonds, withdrawal in March 2025, the sale, and the Tampa approval in August 2026.[1][2][3][6][7]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? Owners, the city, county taxpayers, the Gas Plant community, fans and MLB.
  3. What are the options? Proceed and absorb the costs; renegotiate; or withdraw.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Promise-keeping against prudence; public benefit against private interest.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? Utilitarian analysis depends on the numbers. Justice and duty-based views stress the community and commitments.
  6. What would you decide and why? Take the role of a Pinellas commissioner in late 2024 or of Sternberg in March 2025.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The votes, the hurricane damage, the withdrawal, the sale and the Tampa terms.[1][2][3][6][7]

Contested: Who is to blame for the collapse, and whether public stadium funding delivers its promised returns.[3][4]

Why this case matters

Compare with the Kansas and Missouri bidding for the Chiefs and Royals and the Athletics’ move to Las Vegas. All three show how teams use the competition between places for leverage.

Key terms

Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
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.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Were the Rays justified in walking away after the county's delays and the hurricane?
  2. Did Pinellas County act responsibly in delaying its bond vote after Milton?
  3. What does a city owe the Gas Plant community regardless of baseball?
  4. Is the Tampa deal a better or worse use of public money than the St. Petersburg one?
  5. Should leagues restrict teams' use of relocation leverage?

Sources

  1. City Council Votes to Approve Historic Gas Plant District Redevelopment & Stadium-Related Agreements — City of St. Petersburg
  2. BCC approves historic Rays stadium partnership — Pinellas County
  3. Rays announce they won't move ahead with new ballpark — MLB.com
  4. Tampa Bay Rays not moving forward with new stadium plans — ESPN
  5. Tampa Bay Rays withdraw from planned $1.3 billion ballpark, citing storms and delays — NBC News (Associated Press)
  6. Rays sale finalized to ownership group led by Patrick Zalupski — MLB.com
  7. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners approves Rays' Forever Home in vote — MLB.com