- May 21, 2026
- 15,798
- 0
With the Bears issuing a non-binding announcement on Friday that they will be advancing with the potential construction of a new stadium in Hammond, Indiana, the Bears want their leverage play against Illinois to not be viewed as the leverage play it is.
Of course it's a leverage play. If it wasn't, a deal would already be done to build in Hammond.
Instead, the Bears keep talking to Illinois even as they supposedly focus on Indiana.
It makes sense for the Bears to try to persuade members of the media that Indiana isn't a leverage play. (It doesn't make sense for members of the media to swallow the hook, unless it's a part of a broader quid pro quo for scoops and/or access.) For a leverage play to be effective, it has to be viewed as real. If it's not viewed as real, the leverage won't move the needle in Illinois.
The real question isn't whether Indiana is leverage (because it is) but whether Indiana is a bluff. In other words, are the Bears simply using a potential Hammond move as a way to get the best possible deal in Arlington Heights? (Also, did the Bears initially pivot to Arlington Heights to get the best possible deal in Chicago?)
It's possible that the Bears, deep down, do not want to leave Chicago, but that the organization concluded at the outset of this process that it's impossible to build a new stadium in Chicago on terms favorable to the franchise unless the city and the state believe the team may build across the border.
With a move out of the area an impossibility (the placement of two teams in L.A. took away an ideal "or else" threat for two decades of stadium projects), a potential move within the area carries real value. As leverage, and possibly as a bluff.
That's the thing about a bluff. Admitting it's a bluff strips the bluff of any value.
Regardless of whether the Bears will actually move to Indiana, the possibility remains leverage for now. If it wasn't, there would be nothing for the Bears and Illinois to discuss. The mere fact that the two sides are still talking proves conclusively that the Bears are playing Indiana against Illinois — in the same way that they've been playing Arlington Heights against Chicago.
Of course it's a leverage play. If it wasn't, a deal would already be done to build in Hammond.
Instead, the Bears keep talking to Illinois even as they supposedly focus on Indiana.
It makes sense for the Bears to try to persuade members of the media that Indiana isn't a leverage play. (It doesn't make sense for members of the media to swallow the hook, unless it's a part of a broader quid pro quo for scoops and/or access.) For a leverage play to be effective, it has to be viewed as real. If it's not viewed as real, the leverage won't move the needle in Illinois.
The real question isn't whether Indiana is leverage (because it is) but whether Indiana is a bluff. In other words, are the Bears simply using a potential Hammond move as a way to get the best possible deal in Arlington Heights? (Also, did the Bears initially pivot to Arlington Heights to get the best possible deal in Chicago?)
It's possible that the Bears, deep down, do not want to leave Chicago, but that the organization concluded at the outset of this process that it's impossible to build a new stadium in Chicago on terms favorable to the franchise unless the city and the state believe the team may build across the border.
With a move out of the area an impossibility (the placement of two teams in L.A. took away an ideal "or else" threat for two decades of stadium projects), a potential move within the area carries real value. As leverage, and possibly as a bluff.
That's the thing about a bluff. Admitting it's a bluff strips the bluff of any value.
Regardless of whether the Bears will actually move to Indiana, the possibility remains leverage for now. If it wasn't, there would be nothing for the Bears and Illinois to discuss. The mere fact that the two sides are still talking proves conclusively that the Bears are playing Indiana against Illinois — in the same way that they've been playing Arlington Heights against Chicago.