ARLINGTON, Texas — In John Fisher’s quest to bring the A’s to Las Vegas, what’s striking is how little really changed Thursday. The same questions that existed before the owners’ vote still stand out now: Will Las Vegas and its tourist-heavy economy produce a strong, thriving base for the sport? Is relocating to what would be the game’s smallest media market going to prove wise in the long run, or is the $380 million Nevada is willing to provide for a new stadium fool’s gold?
Advertisement
Now, a vote did happen. Major League Baseball’s owners unanimously approved of Fisher’s plan to leave Oakland. The very fact a vote was held suggested multiple outcomes were possible; suggested suspense that this could go one way or the other.
But if ever a ballot among baseball owners might lead to drama, this wasn’t going to be the one.
Every other owner’s interest is tied to Fisher’s. They all want subsidies for stadiums, be they new ones or renovations. Later, they all will benefit at the point that MLB expands, a likelihood that draws nearer as the A’s and Rays continue on their paths to new buildings. Manfred has said those teams’ stadium situations are the primary hurdle to adding two teams and growing to 32 overall — and expansion will bring in huge money. New owners have to pay a big fee, big as in billions, likely.
People briefed on ownership discussions in Arlington over the past three days said there was no movement on expansion, not at this point. The Rays made a presentation on their stadium plans, and are said to be facing a crucial few months as they work toward a new ballpark of their own. But between the A’s news and the Rays’ plans, the owners are pushing toward a major goal.
So how viable is Las Vegas long-term? Before the vote, MLB prepared and distributed a report on relocation to all its owners.
“The report covers a mandatory set of topics that are essentially laid out in the relocation guidelines in terms of what’s the operating territory, what’s the home television territory,” commissioner Rob Manfred said. “The relocation committee was unanimous in the view that Las Vegas was a strong market — probably the strongest, one of the two strongest open markets in the United States — and that it had more than enough capacity to support a major-league team.
Advertisement
“The A’s analysis of the market was consistent with that view. And we actually used an outside consultant that did market analysis as well, (which) was consistent with the relocation committees’ view as well as the projections that the A’s had prepared.”
And what else would need to happen from here as the A’s work toward the move?
“There’s a binding construction agreement in place,” Manfred said when asked that question. “Exactly what the steps are going to be is a question for John, not for me.”
Fisher turned down an interview request from The Athletic on his way out of the Loews hotel. A’s president Dave Kaval spoke to The Athletic instead. Questions and answers have been edited and ordered for clarity.
Could anything halt the move to Las Vegas now?
I think today was the big step, today was the key step. It was a four-month, very thoughtful and deliberate process with the league, with many different levels of approval and pushback and negotiation to get to this point. And I think it was handled very professionally, in accordance with the original memo on relocation. We’re really excited about where we are, and we’re really proud that we were able to get a unanimous vote. I think that’s a big deal.
The Athletic has reported the success of the team could potentially hinge on tourism. Do you see it that way, if not, how do you see it?
I think our success on the business side is going to be balanced. There’s gonna be two things that need to be balanced. One is the strength of the local market, and local fans, the 2.2 million people who live in Southern Nevada coming to games and supporting the team.
And then there is the tourists, the 45 million people a year who come to Las Vegas. And both of those are going to need to be part of a successful financial business, a business plan. And we feel that if you look at the Raiders, and if you look at the Golden Knights, you see two examples — shining stars, actually — in terms of success. Those teams both, in the 40th media market in the country, have the highest ticket revenue in their respective sports.
Advertisement
But the fact that the Knights were the first major men’s sports team in Las Vegas is raised as a reason why they should be looked at differently. They latched on to the fan base first. And then the Raiders: A, it’s the NFL; B, it’s that schedule. It is not 81 home games that need to be sold like baseball. What would you say to those points?
I don’t think we’re assuming that we’re going to be the top revenue team in baseball. Those other teams are like near the top. And so what I’m saying is, I think we’ve been conservative in our estimates. I think we could exceed them, who knows? But I think we built a financing plan and an operating plan that assumes reasonable forecasts in these areas. And if you actually just looked at those other two teams, you would actually probably have more aggressive forecasts, because they’ve done so well.
I mean, the Raiders got the smallest stadium in the league and the highest revenue. And that’s because people who come to Las Vegas — I don’t know if you’ve been to Vegas recently. Let’s say you want to go to Vegas, and you want to go to the (show) “O,” Cirque du Soleil. To get into the “O,” you’re gonna spend $280. That is like the cheapest seat in the whole damn place.
I went to the Sphere the other day, the cheapest seats were going at like $600. Going to a sporting event, for $100 even, is a pretty good deal. People are used to and calibrated to a higher dollar figure on their spending. And so I think that’s one reason that sports has done very well, because it’s actually taking some of the spending from these other entertainment areas that were way more expensive.
Two other Las Vegas attractions, F1 and the Sphere, are not meeting expectations. Do you see any concern in that?
Those are such different products in so many different ways. I’ve tangentially been involved in both: I’ve been to the events, and I’ve gotten the tours, and I’ve seen it, and they’re very impressive. I don’t know if they’re the best example.
I think one thing is clear: that Vegas attracts so much interest globally, whether it is F1 or the Sphere. And it really is the place where people are having the global conversation about these new trends. And whatever the new Zeitgeist is in the world, and I think that’s exciting for baseball and the A’s.
Because we can be part of that conversation with our new stadium with our incredible design, which will be released very shortly, in our location on the Strip. There are a lot of things that are pulling positively for us, that I think we can actually use to our advantage so we have a very successful team on and off the field.
Top level, is this a bet to move to Las Vegas? A gamble? At least some in ownership think that it could go one direction, but it could also go another direction.
That’s true in any business decision, I suppose.
Advertisement
The extension from there is, where are the uncertainties? There have to be some.
I think the biggest uncertainty is around the local media. But that’s not just for Las Vegas. I mean, the entire industry is going through that. Traditionally in baseball, the regional sports networks had comprised an enormous amount of teams’ revenue, and created the biggest gap between the big markets and the small markets. And that was one reason I think when people looked at Las Vegas, maybe even like 10 years ago, they’re like, look, it’s got such few households for cable, that it wouldn’t make a good regional sports hub, wouldn’t get a lot of money there.
But our industry is changing, and actual revenue that you deliver out of your building — tickets and sponsorship and ratings, like how good you are — matter more now. And so I think in that new era, Vegas actually punches a little above its weight, compared to where things were 20 years ago.
Mayor Sheng Thao has a set of requirements for the team to be able to play in Oakland after 2024, including your club leaving the A’s name behind. Would you be willing to leave the name behind?
We go all the way back to 1901, and as a charter member of the American League, when Ban Johnson started, was the Philadelphia Athletics. And then we had a great history there, we had Connie Mack. And then we traveled to Kansas City, and had a decade there. And then we came to Oakland, and had an amazing chapter as the A’s in Oakland, with the three straight World Championships and the Bash Brothers and Moneyball. And now we’re in our next phase, this next chapter in Las Vegas, which we’re excited about, our fourth city.
But the one thing that’s been constant in all those communities has been the name: Athletics and the A’s. And we see that continuing.
Does that mean that on the terms the mayor has put forth, the likelihood is you wouldn’t end up staying at the Coliseum?
I think all I’m saying is that we have over a 120-year history as the Athletics, and we intend to continue that in our next chapter in Las Vegas.
Where are you overall on the team’s 2025-2027 home?
That’s a big question right now. Obviously, the focus so far has been on the relocation vote, and everything has been kind of going into that. But there is time pressure to get the interim-play plan figured out. We know we’re gonna play in Oakland next year. The three years after that, before we open in ’28, is not known.
We’re working super closely with the league, commissioner’s office, the other teams, the different communities. We have several options that are viable. It’s really about weighing those and getting feedback from all the stakeholders to see what makes the most sense, including the union, to make sure that we have a plan.
Advertisement
You heard from the commissioner today: He said he’d like us to play primarily in one place. So I think that is a little bit of a guiding principle that were taken out of these meetings.
At the World Series, Manfred said it would be a significant development if something happened with the referendum, the attempt by a teacher-backed PAC to get your stadium funding to a statewide vote. What’s your position?
We have a really strong coalition of labor leaders, local business interests, other school districts like the big one in Southern Nevada, that are really in favor of us coming into Nevada and the public-private partnership, because it creates a lot of incremental revenue that can be reinvested in the schools. So there’s actually a huge and broad coalition, including the governor and the bipartisan support of the legislature, who really want our legislation, and obviously passed it. And so we feel strongly that that group can demonstrate to the community that this is a win. And any efforts that are contrary to that, we feel that we have a broad coalition — including us and many others — to make sure that SB1 stands up.
Manfred deferred to Fisher today when asked what’s next.
So obviously, this is a huge approval in getting the owners to vote. But in Las Vegas, there are a couple other approvals (we need). We already got the legislation done in June. So that’s done, and been signed into law by Gov. Joe Lombardo in June. We have the stadium authority which has been established, which is the same stadium authority that governs the Raiders’ Allegiant Stadium. We are negotiating a lease and community benefits agreement with them. They were introduced a month ago, publicly.
There’s another two hearings, one in December and one in January, on those two agreements. So we intend to try to move those forward as quickly as we can. There’s also a non-relocation agreement that will probably come in January or February. But I think the intention is to work with that body to get all those kind of trailing approvals done in the first part of next year.
What about the financing agreements?
We signed an agreement with Mortenson-McCarthy to build the stadium, so a GMP (guaranteed maximum price) contract. That exists to build the stadium. And in terms of the financing piece, there’s a public part, and there’s a private part.
The public part is the $380 million from the county and from the state. And the private part is a mix of debt and equity from the ownership group. And we’ve been working with Goldman Sachs on those aspects. We have the ownership group, and its financial wherewithal to back that portion.
That’s the way we’re handling that, and we’ll move forward with that. It’s committed now. But it won’t actually be used for a couple of years when we’re actually under construction.
Advertisement
So at this point, the private financing is locked in?
It’s private financing for the $1.1 billion that’s not the public financing part, but yes we have a private financing plan for that, we do.
What about a TV deal?
We do not have a TV deal. That’s something that we’re going to have to work out between now and when we open in ’28. The focus right now has been on the relocation vote. … Obviously, it’s a different media market, so we have to determine how to do that effectively. And obviously, the regional sports landscape is changing a lot. The timing of that may be dependent on some other factors that are a little out of our control.
And the land deal?
The land deal is with Ballys and GLPI (Gaming & Leisure Properties, Inc.). That’s a tripartite agreement on the land deal for the site. So Bally’s is the operating entity that’s going to build the casino around us on the site. And then GLPI is a real estate company, and they own the land. And yes, we have a binding agreement. We got that earlier this year with them. That’s done. Nothing needs to be done on that.
We haven’t signed any sponsorship agreements or sold any tickets yet.
In the interim, do you need to stay in Northern California to maintain TV money?
Yes, yes. Our TV deal only applies if we play, like, in the Bay Area, not including Sacramento.
So would that be your preference, to stay in the current area prior to the new stadium opening? Is it the only thing you’re considering?
That is one of many considerations that we’re working with the league on. There’s just a variety of different things. But there’s no one thing, and that’s why when we work with all the stakeholders to balance these things out, we don’t have a decision yet. The focus was really on the relocation vote up to today. But this is taking a really high priority. Because typically, there’s an internal schedule that comes out in January of next year. So that’s not that far away.
Revenue projections?
It’s really too early to say on that. I mean we have projections, obviously, that were included in the relocation application. But, we’re working with a variety of different outside firms on market research to determine the best way to kind of peg those different numbers, whether it’s sponsorship, media, tickets, all the different aspects. I think we have a good sense of directionally where that’s headed, but we’re gonna hone that down. Because when you go to market, and you announce things like tickets and set prices, that’s going to drive a lot of those decisions. And we’re not all the way there yet, but that’ll be something that we continue to refine over time.
(Top photo of Dave Kaval: Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)
