Short Answer

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

1. Executive Verdict

  • Indiana offers a legislative framework for up to $900 million in stadium bonds.
  • Chicago's proposed lakefront stadium faces a $2.4 billion public funding gap.
  • Illinois House Speaker called the Bears' public financing request "insensitive."
  • Governor Pritzker remains optimistic about an Illinois stadium deal "sooner rather than later."
  • Bears settled Arlington Park property taxes, signaling continued Illinois investment.
  • Illinois lawmakers prioritize a stadium package and are reportedly "close to a deal."

Who Wins and Why

Outcome Market Model Why
Indiana 31.0% 29.8% Indiana has established a legislative framework for a potential stadium, including up to $900 million in bonds.
A new location in Illinois 64.0% 61.5% Illinois Governor Pritzker is optimistic about a competing stadium deal in Illinois "sooner rather than later."
Do not relocate or announce a relocation 8.0% 7.7% The Bears settled property taxes for their Arlington Park site, indicating continued investment in an Illinois-based option.
Iowa 1.0% 1.0% There is no public information or ongoing discussions suggesting a potential relocation to Iowa.

2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome probability
Date
This market, which speculates on the potential relocation of Chicago's pro football team, has exhibited a volatile and sideways trading pattern. The price has fluctuated within a wide range, from a low of 11.0% to a high of 59.0%, indicating significant disagreement among traders about the likelihood of a move. The overall trend is flat, with the current price of 31.0% sitting below the market's opening price of 36.0%. The most notable activity occurred in early April 2026, featuring several sharp, double-digit percentage point swings in a short period. This includes a 19.0pp drop on April 1st, a 9.0pp drop on April 3rd, a 10.0pp spike on April 6th, and another 11.0pp drop on April 7th.
Given the lack of specific news context provided, the direct causes for these dramatic price swings are not apparent from the available information. Such volatility often corresponds to breaking news, official announcements, or significant rumors regarding stadium negotiations, public funding, or team ownership's intentions. The trading volume of 7,385 contracts over the market's life, combined with days of zero volume in the sample data, suggests that trading may be sporadic. The large price movements could be the result of low liquidity, where a small number of trades can have an outsized impact, or reactions to external events not detailed here.
From a technical perspective, the market has established a clear support level at the 11.0% low and a long-term resistance at the 59.0% peak. More recently, the price has been oscillating primarily between the high-20s and mid-40s. The current price of 31.0% suggests that market participants currently assign roughly a one-in-three probability to the team relocating. The persistent volatility and lack of a clear directional trend reflect a high degree of market uncertainty regarding the final 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 10, 2026: 24.0pp drop

Price decreased from 85.0% to 61.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📈 April 08, 2026: 29.0pp spike

Price increased from 63.0% to 92.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📉 April 06, 2026: 25.0pp drop

Price decreased from 90.0% to 65.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📉 April 04, 2026: 16.0pp drop

Price decreased from 73.0% to 57.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

Outcome: Indiana

📉 April 07, 2026: 11.0pp drop

Price decreased from 38.0% to 27.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

4. Market Data

View on Kalshi →

Contract Snapshot

For this market, a "Yes" resolution occurs if the Chicago Pro Football Team relocates or officially announces a relocation to a new location in Illinois by the first game of the 2028 Pro Football regular season. Conversely, it resolves to "No" if the team does not relocate or officially confirm a relocation of its primary home stadium by this deadline. An official announcement is sufficient for a "Yes" resolution, even if the team still plays home games at its current location for the 2028 season, and the market will close by September 6, 2028, at 11:59 PM EDT, if not resolved earlier.

Available Contracts

Market options and current pricing

Outcome bucket Yes (price) No (price) Last trade probability
A new location in Illinois $0.63 $0.42 64%
Indiana $0.34 $0.69 31%
Do not relocate or announce a relocation $0.09 $0.92 8%
Iowa $0.01 $1.00 1%

Market Discussion

The market heavily favors the Chicago Pro Football Team relocating to a new site within Illinois (64%), with Indiana as a secondary possibility (31%). However, traders discuss skepticism about a relocation away from Chicago, citing its tourist appeal, potential for a new mayor in 2027, and the city's efforts to recover post-COVID. Some participants view the relocation talks as a "ruse" and are considering or holding positions that the team will not relocate.

5. What is the Latest Update on the Bears Stadium Deal?

Governor's OutlookCompeting stadium bill described as "in a good place" with a deal expected "sooner rather than later" [^]
House Speaker's ViewBears' stadium ask called "insensitive" amidst budget pressures [^]
Lawmaker ProgressLawmakers are "close to a deal" and a stadium package is a "top priority" [^]
Governor J.B. Pritzker maintains an optimistic outlook regarding the stadium package. He views the competing bill in Springfield as "in a good place" and anticipates "progress" when lawmakers reconvene [^]. Following discussions with the NFL commissioner, the Governor expects a deal to keep the team in Illinois "sooner rather than later" [^], suggesting his belief in sufficient political will and momentum for the legislation's advancement.
House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch, however, expresses reservations due to budget concerns. He has deemed the Bears' public financing request "insensitive" given current state budget constraints [^]. While some sources indicate lawmakers are "close to a deal" and consider a Bears stadium package a "top priority" [^], Welch's comments underscore potential legislative hurdles, particularly concerning the state's financial implications. The Bears have reportedly granted lawmakers additional time on a property tax measure, signaling that specific terms are still under negotiation [^]. Overall, the assessment is mixed, leaning towards an active pursuit of a deal but with significant challenges in securing votes for a comprehensive public financing package.

6. What Is the Chicago Bears' Property Tax Settlement Amount?

Annual Tax Payment$3.6 million (annually) [^]
Settlement ApprovedDecember 2024 [^]
School Districts InvolvedTownship High School District 214, Township High School District 211, Community Consolidated School District 15 [^]
The Chicago Bears finalized a property tax assessment settlement with school districts. The team reached an agreement with several Arlington Heights-area school districts, specifically Township High School District 214, Township High School District 211, and Community Consolidated School District 15 [^]. This settlement, formally approved by the school districts in December 2024, resolves the ongoing valuation dispute concerning the former Arlington Park racecourse site, which had been under appeal by the Bears [^].
This settlement projects annual tax payments and ends litigation. Under the terms of the agreement, the Chicago Bears are projected to pay approximately $3.6 million annually in property taxes for the site [^]. This resolution brings an end to previous litigation and appeal processes regarding the property's valuation with the involved school districts [^]. Separately, the Village of Arlington Heights has also established a deal to reduce the Bears' tax bill until construction of a stadium commences [^].

7. What are the public financing concerns for Chicago's stadium proposal?

Total Stadium Project Cost$4.7 billion [^]
Pro Football Team Contribution$2.3 billion [^]
Public Funding Gap$2.4 billion [^]
Mayor Johnson's stadium plan faces a significant public funding gap. The proposed lakefront stadium project totals $4.7 billion, with the Chicago Pro Football Team committing $2.3 billion, leaving a $2.4 billion public funding gap [^]. This public portion is intended to be covered primarily through new bond issuances and the extension of existing Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA) bonds, which includes refinancing the remaining $589 million debt on Soldier Field [^].
Independent analyses raise substantial concerns about the plan's credibility. Municipal finance experts, such as the Civic Federation, highlight that taxpayers would ultimately cover approximately half of the stadium's development cost [^]. Critics also point to the plan's reliance on 'scoop-and-toss' debt restructuring, a method that defers debt payments and could result in the true public cost, including interest, escalating to "billions more" than the initial $2.4 billion over time [^]. While no direct request for new state general fund appropriations has been made for the initial funding gap, the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority has a history of hotel tax revenue shortfalls, which have consistently required state general fund interventions to cover deficits [^], suggesting a potential future need for such support.

8. What Public Funding Framework Is Indiana Offering Chicago Bears?

Maximum Bond IssuanceUp to $900 million (by stadium authority) [^]
Earlier House Public Funding IndicationUp to $500 million [^]
Annual Net Fiscal Impact to State$10 million revenue increase, $16 million expenditure increase [^]
Indiana passed legislation to create a framework for a potential Bears stadium. Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed House Bill 1525 into law on February 26, 2026, which establishes a legislative framework for a potential Chicago Bears stadium in Northwest Indiana [^]. The state of Indiana has not presented a formal, written incentive and financing term sheet with a specific dollar amount of public subsidy directly offered to the Chicago Bears organization. This legislation, instead, lays the groundwork for future funding mechanisms. The Chicago Bears organization has acknowledged Indiana's legislative efforts as a "step forward" for building a new stadium in Hammond [^].
The new law allows significant bond issuance for stadium financing. The bill enables the creation of a stadium authority that would have the power to sell up to $900 million in bonds to finance the stadium project [^]. Earlier House-approved legislation related to the stadium plan had indicated a potential to allocate up to $500 million in public funding [^]. The legislative framework provides for these potential funding mechanisms, allowing for the issuance of up to $900 million in bonds, rather than a direct subsidy offer [^]. The fiscal impact statement for the stadium bill projects a net fiscal impact to the state, estimating an increase of $10 million in state revenue and an increase of $16 million in state expenditures annually due to borrowing costs for the venue [^].

9. What are the key 2026 deadlines for stadium financing and NFL relocation?

IL Spring Session AdjournmentMay 23, 2026 [^]
House Bills 3rd Reading DeadlineFebruary 7, 2026 [^]
NFL Annual League MeetingMarch 25-27, 2026 [^]
The Illinois General Assembly's 2026 Spring Session is crucial for stadium financing. This session, running from January 8, 2026, until its adjournment on May 23, 2026, offers the primary window for approving a stadium financing plan [^]. Procedurally, significant dates include February 7, 2026, when House Bills must reach a third reading, and March 13, 2026, for Senate Bills to achieve the same stage [^]. The May 23, 2026, adjournment date represents a critical "late-spring deadline" for any decision regarding stadium financing [^].
NFL owners' meetings serve as key junctures for relocation decisions. Any potential relocation applications could be considered or voted upon during these scheduled league gatherings. The 2026 Annual League Meeting is set for March 25-27, 2026, in Orlando, FL, and the Fall League Meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2026, in Phoenix, AZ [^]. A relocation decision mandates approval from three-fourths of the NFL owners, making these meetings pivotal for such a vote [^].

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.