SPRINGFIELD — As Chicago Bears officials laid out their $4.7 billion plan for a new domed stadium on the city’s lakefront, Mayor Brandon Johnson and others cheered as if the NFL’s founding franchise had just scored a touchdown.

But the team seems to be throwing a Hail Mary pass in Springfield, where state lawmakers and Gov. J.B. Pritzker appear unlikely to do the blocking and tackling necessary to muscle through legislation that would unlock the $900 million in public funding the team says is needed for the project.

The long-awaited plan, unveiled at a Wednesday press conference at Soldier Field, calls for a $3.2 billion stadium along with at least $325 million but perhaps as much as $1.5 billion for infrastructure upgrades.

The Bears have pledged about $2.3 billion toward stadium construction while asking the state, through the Illinois State Facilities Authority, to issue $900 million in taxpayer-backed bonds to cover the rest. The city and state would also be on the hook for the infrastructure bill. 

ISFA-issued bonds, which were used to build Guaranteed Rate Field and renovate Soldier Field, are backed by an existing 2% city hotel tax.

Bonds for those earlier projects are set to expire in 2033. The Bears have proposed issuing new bonds to be paid back over a 40-year period. This would require the approval of state lawmakers.

"This project will result in no new taxes on the residents of Chicago," Johnson said in backing public funding, proclaiming that the new stadium had the potential to be "the crown jewel of the city of Chicago."

Bears President Kevin Warren, though conceding that "this is not an easy project," said that by working together, the team, city and state can "create win-win-win situations."

But 15 miles away from the glitzy rollout event, Pritzker and legislative leaders said they remained unconvinced that the Bears’ proposal is a "win" for taxpayers.

"I’m highly skeptical of the proposal that’s been made and I believe strongly that this is not a high priority for legislators and certainly not for me," Pritzker told reporters at an unrelated press conference in Maywood to promote his health insurance reform legislation. 

Pritzker then observed that voters in Kansas City just rejected a referendum that would have authorized public funding for a new Royals ballpark and renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Super Bowl Champion Chiefs.

"I don’t really think that the people of Chicago or across Illinois feel any different than that," Pritzker said, adding that he had not been invited to the Bears’ announcement.

House Speaker Chris Welch, D-Hillside, at the same event, said that if he "were to put this issue on the board for a vote right now, it would fail and it would fail miserably." Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, said in a statement that he echoed Pritzker’s skepticism. 

Warren, however, said "the time is now" to get a stadium deal done, insisting that the team will push for a package before lawmakers adjourn their spring session at the end of May and not punt to the fall veto session. He said waiting could cost valuable time, both delaying the stadium’s opening date and increasing the overall project cost. 

Could the Bears come out of the state Capitol winners in a few weeks? Sure.

Even Welch, who said it is "highly unlikely" that the Bears can get the deal they’re looking for in this political climate, acknowledged that "in Springfield, environments change."

But if I were the Bears, I would consider drawing up a new game plan. The same with the White Sox. And the Chicago Red Stars. And any other Illinois team looking for a public subsidy for a new stadium. 

As I wrote last month regarding the White Sox’s quest for a new ballpark, the amount of doubt and distaste for public funding in the Capitol should not be underestimated and cannot be overstated.

That’s true in both the House and Senate. But look no further than Pritzker. Illinois’ billionaire governor has remained consistent in his general opposition to public subsidies for facilities used by privately owned teams and in his skepticism of the projects that have specifically been floated. 

Of course, politicians can change their minds.

Look at Johnson, a former Chicago Teachers Union organizer elected with heavy support from the progressive grassroots. He opposed subsidies as a candidate last year but flipped to the point of being part of the Bears’ rollout announcement on Wednesday.

But I’m not so sure about Pritzker in this instance. In the 2 1/2 years since he started to be asked about this topic, there’s been little deviation off his general position despite shifting plans from the Bears and added wrenches like the Sox’s trial balloon. 

For instance, when asked about the possibility of helping to finance a stadium project following the Bears’ September 2021 announcement of a purchase agreement for the 326-acre Arlington Park property, Pritzker said "that’s not something that we’re looking at."

He was asked again in a gubernatorial debate in October 2022 — his answer even more to the point: “Look, I’m a Bears fan. I support the Chicago Bears. But, I do not think that the state should be funding the private development of a stadium anywhere in the state.”

In April 2023, Pritzker told reporters in response to a legislative proposal that would lock in the Bears’ property tax rates for the now-mothballed Arlington Park development "that the state really shouldn’t be in the business of providing handouts to private industry and that’s what the Bears are."

When the Sox entered the fray earlier this year with a proposal for a publicly-financed ballpark in the city’s South Loop neighborhood, Pritzker said that he started out "really reluctant" and would be against it "unless a case is made that the investment yields a long-term return for the taxpayers," something he said had not yet been displayed.

In March, Pritzker said that the Bears’ commitment of $2 billion private money towards the project was "a good first step" but alone not enough to warrant state involvement in the project.

"I want to say one more time: We’re prioritizing the use of dollars here for people who need it," Pritzker said. "Wealthy owners of sports teams, I respect that they run private businesses and they want them to be profitable and they want constantly to provide better facilities for their customers. But I don’t think that should be the highest priority for the state of Illinois."

He may say it a little differently each time, but the message has essentially been the same. In this context, it’s hard to see Pritzker moving off such a long-held position in the course of just a few weeks. 

Now, there are things the Bears can do to drum up support in the legislature and perhaps turn up pressure on Pritzker and others.

The smart play is probably to deploy organized labor to help sell the plan. The unions collectively still have enough clout to make a difference under the Capitol dome. They will be incentivized by the promise of thousands of stadium construction jobs to help the Bears and perhaps the Sox. 

But again, if past is prologue, that will not deter Pritzker from his stance.

Kevin Warren and the Bears have four weeks to draw up a legislative play in Springfield. But they may need to call an audible.