Short Answer

Both the model and the market expect a new location in Illinois for the Chicago Pro Football Team, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.

1. Executive Verdict

  • Chicago Bears invested $197.2M in Arlington Park land purchase.
  • Millions more spent on pre-construction work for the Illinois site.
  • Indiana enacted legislation offering financial incentives to lure the team.
  • Illinois House adjournment delays critical stadium support legislation.
  • Bears plan a $2 billion private stadium investment in Arlington Heights.

Who Wins and Why

Outcome Market Model Why
Indiana 35.0% 32.2% Indiana offered significant legislative financial incentives to attract the team.
A new location in Illinois 56.0% 61.0% The Chicago Bears committed $197.2 million to purchase property and invest in pre-construction in Illinois.
Do not relocate or announce a relocation 5.0% 5.9% No definitive announcement has been made to finalize a relocation away from their current facility.
Iowa 1.0% 0.9% No substantial public or legislative efforts have emerged to relocate the team to Iowa.

2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome probability
Date
This prediction market shows a volatile and sideways trading pattern, indicating significant uncertainty regarding the potential relocation of Chicago's pro football team. The market has traded within a wide range, from a low of 11.0% to a high of 53.0%, and currently sits at 35.0%. While the overall trend is flat, late March and early April 2026 were marked by extreme volatility. The perceived probability spiked to 41.0% on March 27 before plummeting to a market low of 11.0% by April 1, a swing of 30 percentage points in just five days. The price then partially recovered to its current level.
The provided context does not include specific news events that would explain the catalysts for these sharp price movements. Therefore, the direct causes of the spikes and drops in late March and early April are not apparent from the chart data alone. The total trading volume of 6,381 contracts over the market's history suggests moderate but inconsistent engagement. Without volume data corresponding to the specific dates of large price swings, it is difficult to determine the level of conviction behind these moves. However, such dramatic shifts typically coincide with new information or rumors hitting the market, which causes traders to rapidly reassess probabilities.
From a technical perspective, the market has established a clear support level at the recent low of 11.0% and a long-term resistance level at the peak of 53.0%. The price has frequently revolved around the 30-40% zone, making it a key area of price discovery. The current price of 35.0% suggests that traders see a roughly one-in-three chance of relocation. Overall market sentiment appears to be highly reactive and unsettled, lacking a firm consensus. The price action reflects a market that is actively seeking direction but remains divided on the ultimate outcome.

3. Significant Price Movements

Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.

Outcome: A new location in Illinois

📉 April 04, 2026: 16.0pp drop

Price decreased from 73.0% to 57.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📈 April 03, 2026: 11.0pp spike

Price increased from 62.0% to 73.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📈 March 31, 2026: 34.0pp spike

Price increased from 54.0% to 88.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📉 March 30, 2026: 9.0pp drop

Price decreased from 63.0% to 54.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

Outcome: Indiana

📉 April 01, 2026: 19.0pp drop

Price decreased from 30.0% to 11.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

4. Market Data

View on Kalshi →

Contract Snapshot

For a specific relocation market (e.g., "A new location in Illinois"), a "Yes" resolution occurs if the Chicago Pro Football Team either relocates or officially announces a relocation to that location by the first game of the 2028 Pro Football regular season. Even if an announcement is made but the team still plays at their current stadium for the 2028 season, the specific relocation market will resolve to "Yes."

A "No" resolution for a specific relocation market, and a "Yes" for the "Do not relocate or announce a relocation" market, triggers if the team does not relocate or officially confirm a relocation by the 2028 regular season. The market will close by September 6, 2028, 11:59 PM EDT, unless an outcome occurs earlier, and all outcomes are mutually exclusive.

Available Contracts

Market options and current pricing

Outcome bucket Yes (price) No (price) Last trade probability
A new location in Illinois $0.58 $0.44 56%
Indiana $0.33 $0.71 35%
Do not relocate or announce a relocation $0.09 $0.94 5%
Iowa $0.01 $1.00 1%

Market Discussion

Traders are primarily discussing two potential relocation sites for the Chicago Pro Football Team: a new location within Illinois (currently favored at 56%) or Indiana (35%). While detailed arguments are scarce, one trader noted a recent announcement by the team president, possibly indicating forward movement on relocation. The market consensus heavily favors relocation over staying put (5%), with Iowa considered a negligible option.

5. Are Illinois Lawmakers Releasing Bears Stadium Vote Projections?

Vote Count ProjectionsNot available from Illinois legislative whips [^]
Identified Swing VotesNone specified in research [^]
Current Legislative ActionIllinois House adjourned until March without stadium bill [^]
No official vote projections or key swing votes have been identified. Current web research indicates an absence of specific vote count projections from Illinois legislative whips regarding any bill authorizing public financing for a new Bears stadium. Additionally, no specific state senators or representatives have been identified as key swing votes for such legislation. While bills related to the Chicago Bears' stadium plans have advanced through committees, the provided sources do not offer detailed vote counts or whip projections [^]. For example, a bill concerning property tax incentives for a proposed stadium in Arlington Heights advanced from an Illinois House committee, but specific vote details were not provided [^].
Legislation for a new Bears stadium is advancing but faces delays. Reports suggest general momentum for a new stadium deal, with legislation described as "inching closer" and "advancing" [^]. However, these accounts lack specific vote totals from legislative whips. The legislative process faces delays, as the Illinois House adjourned until March without addressing a bill that could facilitate a new stadium, indicating a pause in its progression [^]. Governor Pritzker has noted that the "megaproject bill" is now with the state legislature [^]. Although one lawmaker mentioned the deal is "closer than people realize," this is a general sentiment and not a detailed projection of specific votes or swing legislators [^].

6. What Incentives Did Indiana Offer Chicago Bears for Stadium?

Legislation PassedHouse Bill 1525 unanimously passed [^]
Bill Signed Into Law ByGovernor Mike Braun [^]
Purpose of LegislationCreates incentives for Bears stadium [^]
Indiana enacted legislation offering financial incentives to the Bears organization. Officials from the state of Indiana have formally offered a publicly-backed financial incentive package to the Chicago Bears through recently enacted legislation. The Indiana General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 1525, a measure specifically designed to lure the team away from Chicago and facilitate stadium construction in Indiana [^]. This bill, which explicitly "creates incentives" for a Bears stadium within Indiana [^], was subsequently signed into law by Governor Mike Braun [^].
The legislation implies significant public financial contributions without precise figures. While the available sources confirm the establishment of a formal incentive framework through this legislation, they do not specify a precise monetary value or detailed breakdown of direct financial incentives, such as grants or tax abatements, offered to the Bears organization. Nevertheless, a fiscal impact statement associated with the stadium bill indicated that its implementation would involve "millions in tax increases" [^], suggesting a public financial contribution towards the overall project. This legislative initiative by Indiana comes as the Bears are reportedly considering a $5 billion stadium plan [^].

7. What Are Chicago Bears' Capital Expenditures on Stadium Sites?

Arlington Park Property Purchase$197.2 million [^]
Proposed Arlington Heights Stadium Private Investment$2 billion [^]
Proposed Lakefront Stadium Private InvestmentOver $2 billion (stadium) plus $2 billion (infrastructure) [^]
The Chicago Bears ownership has made substantial capital expenditures for the Arlington Heights property. The team invested $197.2 million for the 326-acre Arlington Park property [^]. While the team has confirmed spending "millions of dollars" on pre-construction activities such as demolition, environmental remediation, and master planning at this site, specific capital expenditure figures for these pre-development activities during the last fiscal quarter are not publicly available in the provided sources [^]. The proposed total private investment for the stadium at this location is $2 billion [^].
In contrast, no direct pre-development spending by ownership is reported for the lakefront site. For the alternative proposed Museum Campus/lakefront site, the Chicago Bears have outlined a plan involving a private investment of "over $2 billion" for the stadium itself and an additional $2 billion for infrastructure and a surrounding entertainment district [^]. However, the Bears ownership has not reported any specific capital expenditures on pre-development activities, including demolition, architectural plans, or zoning applications, for the lakefront site to date [^]. The team's efforts for this location are currently focused on proposals and lobbying, including seeking public funds for a portion of the infrastructure costs [^].

8. Does NFL Prefer Downtown Chicago Stadium or Link Funding to Location?

Commissioner's UrgencyRoger Goodell urges Bears to find stadium solution soon [^]
Explored SitesGoodell toured Arlington Heights and Northwest Indiana [^]
G-4 Eligibility & LocationNo league guidance links stadium location to G-4 funding eligibility [^]
The NFL has not publicly favored any specific stadium location. There have been no disclosed private communications or official guidance from the NFL's stadium committee or the Commissioner's office indicating a league preference for a downtown Chicago stadium over a suburban or out-of-state location for the Bears. Commissioner Roger Goodell has underscored the necessity for the Bears to determine a stadium solution "soon" [^]. His active participation in touring various potential stadium sites, including Arlington Heights in Illinois and a location in Northwest Indiana [^], demonstrates the league's consideration of multiple options beyond just a downtown Chicago site.
Stadium location does not impact G-4 loan program eligibility. While the NFL offers G-4 (and subsequent G-5) stadium loan programs to facilitate new stadium construction [^], the available information does not specify any league guidance or communication suggesting that a stadium's chosen location (e.g., downtown versus suburban/out-of-state) affects the Bears' eligibility for this funding. The consistent message from the league, articulated by Commissioner Goodell, stresses the importance for the Bears to finalize a site and a comprehensive plan "relatively soon" [^].

9. What is the Latest on Chicago Bears Stadium Legislation?

Illinois House SessionAdjourned until March [^]
HB 910 StatusCleared Finance Committee [^]
Stadium Infrastructure FundingExpected in future legislation [^]
The Illinois House of Representatives has adjourned until March, which delays further consideration of bills that could support a new Chicago Bears stadium [^] . While specific dates for the introduction and passage of a stadium funding bill are not detailed, earlier legislative activity saw Illinois House Bill 910 advance through the State of Illinois' Finance Committee with a 13–7 vote, moving it to the House floor [^]. This bill grants the Bears the ability to negotiate property taxes with local governments in Arlington Heights.
House Bill 910 specifically excludes infrastructure funding provisions. However, House Bill 910 does not include provisions for infrastructure funding, which is anticipated to be addressed in subsequent legislative efforts [^]. This initial bill focuses solely on enabling property tax negotiations rather than broader development costs.
No expiration dates are specified for Arlington Park land agreements. Regarding the Chicago Bears' land purchase or development agreements for the Arlington Park site, the available research does not specify any expiration dates for these agreements.

10. What Could Change the Odds

Key Catalysts

Catalyst analysis unavailable.

Key Dates & Catalysts

  • Expiration: September 14, 2028
  • Closes: September 07, 2028

11. Decision-Flipping Events

  • Trigger: Catalyst analysis unavailable.

13. Historical Resolutions

No historical resolution data available for this series.