Latest On Chargers’ Viability In Los Angeles

The Chargers’ viability in the Los Angeles market was an informal topic of discussion at recent league meetings, according to Seth Wickersham of However, the Chargers are essentially locked into the city of Los Angeles, as the club agreed to a 20-year lease to share the Rams’ new stadium in Inglewood beginning in 2020, per Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk.

No owner officially broached the Chargers’ plans in Los Angeles at the NFL’s meetings, but there was reportedly concern after the team revised its revenue projections from $400MM down to $150MM. That alteration is likely due to lower ticket prices, as the Chargers recently announced plans for cheaper seats that come with personal seat licenses.

But sources tell Florio the Chargers don’t have the option to leave Los Angeles, barring an unforeseen breach of contract with Rams owner — and Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park builder — Stan Kroenke. Not only did the Chargers sign up for a 20-year lease, but the club also has two 10-year options tacked onto the end of the deal.

Moreover, the Chargers have no incentive to back out of the stadium deal, as Florio explains. The Chargers won’t pay any construction costs for their new stadium, and won’t be responsible for any cost overruns. Instead, they’ll essentially be acting as a tenant of the Rams, not a co-owner.

View Comments (35)
newest oldest

35 comments on “Latest On Chargers’ Viability In Los Angeles

  1. duke1776

    Y’all blame this move solely on the Chargers. San Diego had decades to get a new stadium deal done. That stadium in San Diego was a joke. I see high schools in California with nicer stadiums. Then on top of that San Diego had two years to get a hotel tax passed to fund a new stadium, and they couldn’t even get 50% support. The Chargers made the right choice to move. All it will take to get more fans. Is winning and that’s it. It’s literally that simple.

    • Dodgethis

      The argument that citizens should foot the bill for a stadium so a billionaire can make more money is absurd. No citizen or tax should ever be compelled to fund a private business. Just because some corrupted politicians push for it, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do and it certainly doesn’t make it the only option. How did the San Francisco 49ers and San Francisco giants and golden State warriors pay for their state of the art brand new stadiums? Private funding. It’s 100% on the ownership group for failing to build a new stadium in San Diego. Billionaire welfare recipients are not to be trusted.

      • paddyo875

        Very good point. Although ‘Niners and Levi Stadium aren’t best example. No taxpayer funding for billionaires’ stadiums. But stadium should be in the city with public transit having the capability to take a significant portion of fan base. Places like Suntrust Park and Levi Stadium should be examples of how not to do it.

      • Steven Juris

        Corporations get tax breaks from moving into cities. Airplanes get bought on loans from the US government not from actual banks. Not every owner has a billion dollars either and they have a right to go where they want to since they and not the fans actually own their teams. The Chargers for instance will save hundreds of millions by being a tenant at another facility. That is actually prudent for their team and organization. Something that most fans are too blind to see.

        • LordBanana

          Saving a billionaire owner money doesn’t do anything for the fans. It’s not that they’re too blind to see it.

          Should fans in San Diego be happy their team left and made their owner some more money?

        • redbeard87

          Tax breaks and welfare handouts are not the same thing. Worst argument ever

      • seth3120

        The fact is right or wrong cities are willing to offer the incentive to lure these franchises to their cities so the current city has to at least come close and propose a deal that makes staying the better option. I was a St. Louis Rams fan and it sucked when they left. Although they tried very hard in the end all they had to do was upgrade the dome to make it a top ten facility a couple years prior and they couldn’t have left. But they waited until they were forced to fight head to head with the mega stadium plan in LA to come up with a proposal that a few years ago would have made it impossible for them to leave. Cities want these franchises. They bring revenue and make a city seem like a more attractive place to live with things to do

    • SanDiegoTom

      That’s not the whole story, the measure for the hotel tax was thrown together last minute and was designed to fail. It wasn’t even advertised on the radio. Smoke and mirrors.

    • Kwflanne

      “The chargers made the right choice to move…”
      why do you think they had to lower ticket prices and drop their revenue projections by about 250 million dollars?? Because they have NO fanbase in Los Angeles.
      “All is takes is winning…” like how they finished last year one game out of the playoffs after winning most of their remaining games after an 0-4 start? Like how they are currently 4-2? And the stadium is still filled with opposing teams fans? Oh you mean…. all they have to do is win a SUPERBOWL, and they will have fans… “it’s literally that simple”. Yeah…. superbowls are simple. I think the fans you are referring to, are what you call BANDWAGON fans…. completely different from developing a FAN BASE. They have no fan base. They had one in San Diego. They made the wrong choice. Cheap owner who’s only interest is filling his pockets. It’s literally THAT simple

      • grizzled sports vet

        ALL OWNERS in all sports are essentially only interested in filling their pockets – at the expense of tax payers. That would include tax funding for new stadiums, personal seat licenses, high ticket prices (with added fees), parking, outrageously priced concessions, plus TV revenues & product licensing deals which are ultimately paid for by fans.

        It’s the same in any business with tax-based grants, tax funded low interest loans, business tax forgiveness, etc. You pay the taxes that corporate scum benefit from, then get gouged when paying for their product in any combination of the examples above.

        In the case of sporting events, the exorbitant costs have far out-weighed the excitement of the onfield product for years. Then when a C.B.A. expires, the multibillionaire owners fight with the multimillionaire players over the pie share. No doubt the mouth-breathing moron fans will demand the two sides settle, no matter the cost, so they can now watch players individually holdout from a sport where they can’t properly form tackle, or don’t hustle to first base, etc. In due time some of these same fans may have to work overtime or pick up a 2nd job to put food on their own table because they have to support their team with a big chunk of the original paycheck. Perhaps they’ll even start missing the games they love because the 2nd job requires a work schedule that isn’t sport-viewing friendly.

        It won’t be long before the tax man will be calling again. The greedy owners are going to need you to renovate that stadium you built a few years ago…

        • Ironman_4life

          So have you been to every single high school football stadium in Texas because kudos if you have that’s quite an accomplishment

    • all in ad

      Amen duke. If we owned the team, we would have made the same move. 60 % of the SD libs voted no! Was he supposed to wait four years and hope they will change their minds? The new stadium wasn’t costing the citizens a cent….hotel tax would pay for it. You can’t fix stupid.

  2. RootedInOakland

    The real move would’ve been to let the Raiders and Rams move back to LA and then let the Chargers take the $900M in public funding from Las Vegas. Jerry and the rest of those pos owners are too dumb tho

  3. jorge78

    No welfare for billionaires!!!!!
    They need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps like I have to!!!!!

  4. Guest617

    no different than building a kids park. it adds a quality of life, creates jobs, and gives a city an identity. living in a free capitalistic society where a billionaire gets richer is what this is all about.

    • paddyo875

      If you think that building a local(?) kids park is no different from a pro football stadium as far as benefits and costs and planning… I’d remind you that Leave It To Beaver is no longer making new shows.

      • Steven Juris

        Your right, kids parks don’t actually provide a monetary benefit to the city. Maybe the city should charge kids for using them.

        • Bill Jasper

          Time and again, the economic benefits for major stadiums to the communities that build them has been shot down. It simply doesn’t exist.

  5. Senioreditor

    I live in San Diego. It’s still a great place to live even without the Chargers. We’ve all moved on to better things.

    • crosseyedlemon

      The San Diego Zoo is consistently ranked among the world’s top 3. If the Chargers had that kind of management they probably would have won a SB or two before leaving.

  6. mhdunbar99

    The REAL issue is Dean Spanos never intended to stay. He did NOT show up to even (pretend) to negotiate with the SD mayor. He never even made a legitimate proposal or viable request. Prop C was a farce and structured in such a way to be certain to fail – his arrogant way of trying to fool San Diegans to justify his move. He hid behind lies and lawyers for years. Spanos is greedy, incompetent and disingenuous – that is his legacy.

  7. Bill Jasper

    Why should anyone be paying for toys for billionaires, except the billionaires themselves?

  8. trident

    Pfft people acting like there was a strong fan base in san diego…it’s a transplant city full of tourists and military personnel. They always struggled to fill Qualcomm

    • bleacherbum

      I am a DIE-HARD SAN DIEGO CHARGERS fan. Your spin is incorrect. There were plenty of Chargers fans, the owner killed every one of them. I’m sorry but I will never watch a “Los Angeles Chargers” game, it’s a joke. Sick joke.

  9. darquee

    The Chargers will never be a financial success in LA. At best they will be the 3rd most popular NFL team in LA because they will never be more popular than the Rams or the Raiders. The Rams ownership solved the NFL’s lack of presence in LA problem by agreeing to build a stadium with his own money and the idiots running the NFL created a new problem by approving the Chargers move there. I’m sure the Chargers owner will want to sell the team when he sees the all empty seats and the visiting team fans turning Charger home games into virtual road games. But who will want to pay billions for the team if it is locked into a lease that keeps them in that situation?

  10. desertdawg

    City of San Diego has a initiative on the ballot in November, telling San Diego State or a private investment company that who ever wins on the ballot measure gets to buy the land the old San Diego stadium sits on. SDSU will expand the college into Mission Valley and build a new 40,000 seat stadium for football, the other guys wins they build a soccer stadium, and put a NASL soccer team their plus other business being brought in. So San Diego will be alright, they don;t need the NFL, the citizens did not want to put more tax dollars into a billionaire’s stadium, and they were glad to get rid of the Spanos;s out of San Diego. He is LA’s problem now.

Leave a Reply