Who lost the Bears? Brandon Johnson
You know things are going badly for a mayor when even the governor from his own party publicly humiliates him. That is exactly what happened when JB Pritzker openly criticized Brandon Johnson for having “no plan” to keep the Chicago Bears in Chicago. Coming from a Republican, that would have been ordinary politics. Coming from the Democratic governor of Illinois, it was devastating.
Pritzker’s remarks cut right to the core of what increasingly defines the Johnson administration: drift, improvisation, and a stunning inability to execute. According to the governor, the mayor waited until the end of the legislative session yet again to suddenly announce what he wanted, despite the fact that major projects such as a stadium proposal require months or even years of groundwork, negotiation, coalition-building, and political discipline. In other words, the governor was effectively saying that Johnson behaves less like the chief executive of America’s third-largest city and more like an activist showing up late to a rally with a bullhorn and a list of demands.
The sad reality is Chicago has lost a great deal in just three short years under Brandon Johnson. We lost ShotSpotter, despite the fact many police officers believed it helped save lives by locating gunfire quickly. We have lost businesses, investment, conventions, taxpayers, and confidence in public safety. We have lost far too many young people to gun violence, and we have lost police officers both literally and figuratively as morale within law enforcement continues to erode. None of that is remotely comparable to a football team potentially relocating, of course, but cities operate on symbolism as much as statistics. Civic institutions matter. Momentum matters. Reputation matters. And losing the Bears would send a devastating message about the trajectory of Chicago.
The economic impact alone would not be trivial. NFL franchises generate jobs, tourism, development, restaurant traffic, hotel stays, and tax revenue. Stadium districts often become anchors for surrounding commercial investment. But the symbolic impact could be even worse than the direct economic hit, especially if the Bears ultimately flee not merely to Arlington Heights but potentially across the border into Indiana. Imagine what that would say about Chicago’s governance and competitiveness. One of the founding franchises of the National Football League, a team that has represented Chicago for nearly a century, deciding Indiana is a more functional and attractive partner than the City of Chicago would become an international symbol of decline.
That symbolism matters because perception drives investment. Businesses considering relocation decisions notice these things. Investors notice these things. Families deciding where to live notice these things. A city that cannot retain one of its most iconic institutions begins to project instability and incompetence. Whether fair or not, it reinforces a growing narrative that Chicago is becoming unable to manage large-scale projects, maintain public confidence, or provide the kind of leadership necessary to compete with other metropolitan regions.
Now, there are certainly reasonable arguments against massive taxpayer subsidies for sports team owners. Many Chicagoans understandably do not want public money poured into private stadium projects while the city struggles with pensions, crime, infrastructure, and enormous debt burdens. But from everything currently on the table, the Bears are not demanding a blank check from taxpayers. Much of the discussion has revolved around infrastructure improvements, tax treatment, and surrounding development assistance. Governments routinely provide those kinds of incentives for projects they view as economically or strategically valuable.
Chicago and Illinois have handed out TIF subsidies and development incentives for years. The Chicago Blackhawks have received support tied to their ambitious West Side development project. Politicians frequently justify subsidies for housing developments, entertainment districts, corporate relocations, green energy projects, and countless other ventures on the grounds that they create jobs or stimulate growth. If those projects are worthy of public partnership, it is hardly irrational to argue keeping the Bears in Chicago may also justify some level of cooperation.
Instead, what Chicago has received from Brandon Johnson is paralysis wrapped in ideology. Johnson’s administration continues insisting that only a publicly owned stadium solution is acceptable, even though the political support for that concept appears nonexistent. Meanwhile, Arlington Heights aggressively positioned itself as a realistic alternative, and Indiana politicians saw an opening and rushed directly through it. That is what competent political leadership looks like: identifying opportunities and acting decisively. Chicago, by contrast, has spent years talking while everybody else moved.
The mayor’s defenders will insist Johnson inherited difficult circumstances, that Chicago’s financial problems, crime issues, pension liabilities, and political dysfunction did not begin in 2023. But leadership is ultimately measured by results, not excuses. And the results so far are deeply discouraging. Even Democrats are now publicly acknowledging it. Pritzker’s criticism was not merely about a stadium deal. It was an indictment of Johnson’s entire governing style.
What makes the situation particularly frustrating is that Chicago still possesses enormous strengths. It remains one of the world’s greatest cities with extraordinary architecture, culture, universities, transportation infrastructure, and economic potential. Millions of people still love this city and desperately want it to succeed. But hallmark cities can absolutely decline through prolonged bad governance. History is filled with examples of major urban centers hollowing themselves out through ideological rigidity, fiscal irresponsibility, and administrative incompetence.
That is why the Bears’ situation resonates so strongly. It feels like one more piece of evidence in a broader story of civic deterioration. Another institution slipping away. Another sign Chicago’s political leadership is struggling to maintain the confidence of residents, businesses, and investors alike.
Perhaps the Bears ultimately stay somewhere within Illinois. Perhaps a compromise emerges at the last minute. But politically, the damage has already been done. The governor of Illinois has now publicly declared the mayor of Chicago spent three years without a coherent plan to retain one of the city’s defining institutions. That is an extraordinary admission.
And if the Bears do leave, it will become yet another cost imposed on Chicago by the ineptitude of a mayor who increasingly appears overwhelmed by the basic responsibilities of governing.
