If everything goes right, new taxes generated by a $1.9 billion ballpark will help pay off a $600 million city loan to help finance the deal. But if it goes wrong, that money could be drained from city services

By:<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/joshmerchant/">Josh Merchant</a>

Kansas City leaders are bidding to retain the Royals at a new downtown stadium two years after Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a sales-tax-funded ballpark in the Crossroads.

Not surprisingly, a familiar fight about taxpayer-subsidized stadiums has roared back to life.

Kansas City’s Finance Department presented the plan on Tuesday to the Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee, which unanimously advanced an ordinance to the full Kansas City Council.

<a href="https://clerk.kcmo.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7978487&amp;GUID=681B1310-8C5C-473C-B8B3-3F54F3636E89&amp;Options=&amp;Search=&amp;FullText=1" target="_blank">That ordinance</a>&nbsp;would direct City Manager Mario Vasquez to submit an application for a tax-increment financing deal that would leverage new sales and earnings tax revenue in a still-undefined stadium district to pay off a $600 million city-backed bond to help finance the project. All told, the ballpark is expected to cost $1.9 billion, with the balance financed by the Royals and the state of Missouri.

The proposed ordinance is co-sponsored by nine out of 13 City Council members, so it will likely pass.

“We think we have a great project that will ultimately come to pass,” Brooks Sherman, the Royals president of real estate and development,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article315413846.html" target="_blank">told reporters on Tuesday</a>. “We are very appreciative of this process and we will maintain our work in it.”

Even so, it faces fierce opposition from KC Tenants, the citywide tenants union, and advocacy groups like the Missouri Workers Center and Stand Up KC. Those groups also campaigned against the Jackson County ballot measure in 2024.

Some opponents, including City Councilmember Johnathan Duncan, have suggested they may even&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kmbc.com/article/kc-royals-stadium-public-vote-petition-washington-square/71006883" target="_blank">gather petition signatures to force a citywide referendum</a>.

Importantly, the City Council will not be making any final decisions on the stadium subsidy when members vote on the ordinance.

They still need to nail down several key details before a plan can come before the Tax Increment Financing Commission. Even then, that commission is required by law to provide 45 days of notice before anything can be approved.

“What this ordinance does,” Vasquez told the committee on Tuesday, is “it lays out the necessary steps for the city to begin negotiation, discussion for the construction of the major league baseball stadium in the area of Crown Center and Washington Square Park. This is the first step. We’ve had a lot of conversations with the team, and I think this is a step that we need to take forward in order to proceed.”

The biggest difference from the 2024 Jackson County sales tax is that Kansas City is proposing a tax-increment financing plan —&nbsp;also known as a TIF — rather than a direct subsidy.

Anyone who shops in Jackson County currently pays a 3/8-cent sales tax that’s split between the Chiefs and the Royals. It was approved in 2006 and is set to expire in 2031.

If it had been renewed in 2024, it would have generated about $2.2 billion by 2056 —&nbsp;$1.1 billion for each team.

That Jackson County tax is, in many ways, a blank check.

It’s money that’s collected from taxpayers and given to the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which reimburses the teams for anything that could fall under the wide umbrella of “repair, maintenance, management or operations.”

The Kansas City proposal, on the other hand, is a $600 million bond supported by TIF.

Basically, the city will designate a certain area of the city as a TIF district. That district will include the stadium and nearby businesses that are expected to benefit from increased traffic generated by the stadium.

That district has not been drawn yet, but it will likely include Washington Square Park, proposed as the new stadium location, as well as Crown Center and much of the Crossroads neighborhood.

The city will then calculate a baseline level of sales tax and earnings tax revenue within that district.

Then, to build the stadium, Kansas City will borrow $600 million to help finance the estimated $1.9 billion stadium project. The city’s contribution would be paid off using specific tax revenue from the TIF district.

Once the stadium opens and nearby businesses start to generate more tax revenue, some of the increased tax revenue above the baseline will be used to pay off the $600 million loan. In theory, that incremental revenue could otherwise be used to pay for city services.

Say, for example, that a nearby restaurant is currently generating $4,000 per year in sales taxes. Then, once the stadium opens, the restaurant gets more customers and generates $6,000 per year in sales taxes.

A portion of that $2,000 increase — half of it, under a traditional TIF deal — will go toward paying off the city’s debt on the stadium, rather than police salaries or trash collection.

The rationale goes that any of the increase in tax revenue at the stadium will be entirely new money that would not be there if not for the stadium.

Some observers, on the other hand, say that some of the economic impact is more likely to be&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/03/07/kc-royals-stadium-gold-plating-effect/" target="_blank">displaced from other areas</a>&nbsp;of the city. For example, Kansas Citians might go to a bar in the Crossroads instead of a bar in Waldo, or spend money on a baseball ticket instead of going to Worlds of Fun.

But here’s where the deal could go wrong.

Unlike most other TIF deals, Kansas City will be on the hook for its portion of the debt used to build the stadium, instead of the Royals.

The city plans to guarantee repayment of its bond, meaning that if the stadium and the surrounding district don’t generate enough money to pay for the debt payments, City Hall will need to dig into its own pockets to cover the shortfall.

In a worst-case scenario, that could be tens of millions of dollars every year —&nbsp;money that could otherwise be spent on public safety, transit or other city services.

(For reference, Kansas City is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2026-04-02/kansas-city-budget-police-transit-housing-infrastructure" target="_blank">spending $84 million total on public transit</a>&nbsp;in the next fiscal year.)

If that sounds familiar, that’s because the city also backed the loan for the Power &amp; Light District in 2006 — and has paid to backfill financial shortfalls on that project over the past two decades.

As of 2023, Kansas City had&nbsp;<a href="https://fox4kc.com/business/kansas-city-has-paid-over-160m-to-cover-power-lights-debt/" target="_blank">paid a total of $167 million over 16 years</a>&nbsp;to cover the shortfall at the Power &amp; Light District — an average of $10.4 million per year.

There are a lot of theories as to why that happened at the Power &amp; Light District.

Some people blame the Great Recession that began in 2007 and forced the developer to scale back more ambitious plans —&nbsp;and muffled any boom in entertainment spending. Others say that the boundary of the Power &amp; Light TIF district was too small, so some of the increases in economic activity in surrounding areas were never captured. Still others believe that the financial projections didn’t build in enough margin for error.

The city has since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2026/03/05/kc-power-light-district-bond-refinancing-budget.html" target="_blank">refinanced the Power &amp; Light debt</a>&nbsp;to bring down those payments.

In any case, members of the City Council want to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

That’s why the stadium ordinance includes a $250,000 allocation to, in part, pay for an independent study to determine whether it’s a safe investment and how the city can shield itself from crushing debt payments.

That analysis, City Councilmember Andrea Bough said, would be completed by a third party —&nbsp;not the Royals or the city. Bough represents the 6th District at large.

“Especially as the finance chair,” Bough said, “I want to make sure that we’re not doing anything to jeopardize the basic services of the city.”

Essentially, what the city needs to prevent is a gap between what the stadium and district are generating, versus the amount the city needs to pay on the debt.

The problem right now is that those exact numbers are unknown. Hence, the financial analysis.

A traditional TIF deal can last a maximum of 23 years. And if we make a simple assumption of&nbsp; a 4.5% interest rate,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html?cloanamount=600%2C000%2C000&amp;cloanterm=23&amp;cloantermmonth=0&amp;cinterestrate=4.5&amp;ccompound=monthly&amp;cpayback=year&amp;x=Calculate&amp;type=1#monthlyfixedr" target="_blank">that comes out to about $42 million in payments each year</a>.

In reality, that payment will depend on a variety of factors, such as the interest rate when the city issues the bond and whether the city takes out all $600 million at once or in phases.

As far as the TIF revenue goes, Bough said that the city’s finance department has drawn up some estimates, which she believes are conservative. Even so, she wants someone to check that math to make sure neither the Royals nor the city are setting unrealistic expectations.

That’s because, again, the city is backing the debt. The city will need to pull money from other city services if the TIF district doesn’t generate enough money to make the debt payment.

And with all of the financial analysis, there will always remain the uncertainty of future economic conditions. Even with the most preparation, a recession or a pandemic or a war could scramble the city’s numbers.

Duncan is very concerned about a scenario where those estimates are wrong and taxpayers suffer.

“My concern stems from,” he said, “we are bearing the burden of feasibility studies that were wrong for Power &amp; Light, for instance. … It’s $600 million of public dollars that we could be on the hook for, coming out of our general fund when we know we’re already struggling with revenues.”

The ordinance will kick-start the city’s earnest negotiations with the Royals.

Aside from the $250,000 for financial advice, legal services and architectural services, nothing in the ordinance will be, from a legal or financial perspective, a final deal.

But Melissa Patterson Hazley, a councilmember representing the 3rd District at large, is more concerned about the political pressure.

“I just want the language (of the ordinance) to be softened,” Patterson Hazley said during the committee meeting, “such that nobody has the impression that we are making commitments and taking responsibility, and then the council is politically — politically, not financially, politically — in a position where we can’t pull back.”

Once Vasquez, the city manager, submits an application to the TIF Commission for the city’s $600 million portion of the Royals deal, the commission will be required by law to provide taxing jurisdictions a 45-day notice.

(Those taxing jurisdictions include any school districts, libraries or counties whose funding will be affected by the deal.)

From there, the TIF Commission will give their recommendation, and the City Council will take a full vote to draw the TIF district, authorize the tax redirection and take out the $600 million loan.

By that time, the City Council hopes to have a community benefits agreement in place. Negotiations for a similar agreement fell apart leading up to the Jackson County vote, resulting in groups like Stand Up KC, which represents low-wage workers, campaigning against the sales tax.

Most council members are asking for a community benefits agreement for the city deal, including benefits for residents outside of downtown.

That includes Darrell Curls, who represents the 5th District at large, as well as Lindsay French, who represents the 2nd District at large.

That community benefits agreement, French said, should include affordable housing, labor and apprenticeship benefits, child care, streetscaping and small-business benefits.

“If this is going to be a transformative project for Kansas City,” she said during the committee meeting, “I want to have a transformative community benefits agreement as well.”

This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2026/04/15/kansas-city-royals-stadium-tif-washington-square-park/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Kansas City</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2026/4/1776443147958.png" alt="The Kansas City Royals have played out of Kauffman Stadium for decades, boosted by a sales tax in Jackson County. But both the team’s lease and the county’s sales tax expire in 2031, and Kansas City is pitching a downtown ballpark as the new home for the Royals (Vaughn Wheat/The Beacon)." />
 <figcaption>The Kansas City Royals have played out of Kauffman Stadium for decades, boosted by a sales tax in Jackson County. But both the team’s lease and the county’s sales tax expire in 2031, and Kansas City is pitching a downtown ballpark as the new home for the Royals (Vaughn Wheat/The Beacon).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>If everything goes right, new taxes generated by a $1.9 billion ballpark will help pay off a $600 million city loan to help finance the deal. But if it goes wrong, that money could be drained from city services</h2>By:<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/joshmerchant/">Josh Merchant</a>Kansas City leaders are bidding to retain the Royals at a new downtown stadium two years after Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a sales-tax-funded ballpark in the Crossroads.Not surprisingly, a familiar fight about taxpayer-subsidized stadiums has roared back to life.Kansas City’s Finance Department presented the plan on Tuesday to the Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee, which unanimously advanced an ordinance to the full Kansas City Council.<a href="https://clerk.kcmo.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7978487&amp;GUID=681B1310-8C5C-473C-B8B3-3F54F3636E89&amp;Options=&amp;Search=&amp;FullText=1" target="_blank">That ordinance</a>&nbsp;would direct City Manager Mario Vasquez to submit an application for a tax-increment financing deal that would leverage new sales and earnings tax revenue in a still-undefined stadium district to pay off a $600 million city-backed bond to help finance the project. All told, the ballpark is expected to cost $1.9 billion, with the balance financed by the Royals and the state of Missouri.The proposed ordinance is co-sponsored by nine out of 13 City Council members, so it will likely pass.“We think we have a great project that will ultimately come to pass,” Brooks Sherman, the Royals president of real estate and development,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article315413846.html" target="_blank">told reporters on Tuesday</a>. “We are very appreciative of this process and we will maintain our work in it.”Even so, it faces fierce opposition from KC Tenants, the citywide tenants union, and advocacy groups like the Missouri Workers Center and Stand Up KC. Those groups also campaigned against the Jackson County ballot measure in 2024.Some opponents, including City Councilmember Johnathan Duncan, have suggested they may even&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kmbc.com/article/kc-royals-stadium-public-vote-petition-washington-square/71006883" target="_blank">gather petition signatures to force a citywide referendum</a>.Importantly, the City Council will not be making any final decisions on the stadium subsidy when members vote on the ordinance.They still need to nail down several key details before a plan can come before the Tax Increment Financing Commission. Even then, that commission is required by law to provide 45 days of notice before anything can be approved.“What this ordinance does,” Vasquez told the committee on Tuesday, is “it lays out the necessary steps for the city to begin negotiation, discussion for the construction of the major league baseball stadium in the area of Crown Center and Washington Square Park. This is the first step. We’ve had a lot of conversations with the team, and I think this is a step that we need to take forward in order to proceed.”<h2>How the deal would work</h2>The biggest difference from the 2024 Jackson County sales tax is that Kansas City is proposing a tax-increment financing plan —&nbsp;also known as a TIF — rather than a direct subsidy.Anyone who shops in Jackson County currently pays a 3/8-cent sales tax that’s split between the Chiefs and the Royals. It was approved in 2006 and is set to expire in 2031.If it had been renewed in 2024, it would have generated about $2.2 billion by 2056 —&nbsp;$1.1 billion for each team.That Jackson County tax is, in many ways, a blank check.It’s money that’s collected from taxpayers and given to the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which reimburses the teams for anything that could fall under the wide umbrella of “repair, maintenance, management or operations.”<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2026/4/1776443069293.png" alt="Voters were asked two years ago whether to renew the Jackson County stadium sales tax, igniting a contentious election with the teams and some unions on one side, and KC Tenants and Stand Up KC on the other. (Hilary Becker/The Beacon)" />
 <figcaption>Voters were asked two years ago whether to renew the Jackson County stadium sales tax, igniting a contentious election with the teams and some unions on one side, and KC Tenants and Stand Up KC on the other. (Hilary Becker/The Beacon)</figcaption>
 </figure>The Kansas City proposal, on the other hand, is a $600 million bond supported by TIF.Basically, the city will designate a certain area of the city as a TIF district. That district will include the stadium and nearby businesses that are expected to benefit from increased traffic generated by the stadium.That district has not been drawn yet, but it will likely include Washington Square Park, proposed as the new stadium location, as well as Crown Center and much of the Crossroads neighborhood.The city will then calculate a baseline level of sales tax and earnings tax revenue within that district.Then, to build the stadium, Kansas City will borrow $600 million to help finance the estimated $1.9 billion stadium project. The city’s contribution would be paid off using specific tax revenue from the TIF district.Once the stadium opens and nearby businesses start to generate more tax revenue, some of the increased tax revenue above the baseline will be used to pay off the $600 million loan. In theory, that incremental revenue could otherwise be used to pay for city services.Say, for example, that a nearby restaurant is currently generating $4,000 per year in sales taxes. Then, once the stadium opens, the restaurant gets more customers and generates $6,000 per year in sales taxes.A portion of that $2,000 increase — half of it, under a traditional TIF deal — will go toward paying off the city’s debt on the stadium, rather than police salaries or trash collection.The rationale goes that any of the increase in tax revenue at the stadium will be entirely new money that would not be there if not for the stadium.Some observers, on the other hand, say that some of the economic impact is more likely to be&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/03/07/kc-royals-stadium-gold-plating-effect/" target="_blank">displaced from other areas</a>&nbsp;of the city. For example, Kansas Citians might go to a bar in the Crossroads instead of a bar in Waldo, or spend money on a baseball ticket instead of going to Worlds of Fun.<h2>Lots of unanswered questions</h2>But here’s where the deal could go wrong.Unlike most other TIF deals, Kansas City will be on the hook for its portion of the debt used to build the stadium, instead of the Royals.The city plans to guarantee repayment of its bond, meaning that if the stadium and the surrounding district don’t generate enough money to pay for the debt payments, City Hall will need to dig into its own pockets to cover the shortfall.In a worst-case scenario, that could be tens of millions of dollars every year —&nbsp;money that could otherwise be spent on public safety, transit or other city services.(For reference, Kansas City is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2026-04-02/kansas-city-budget-police-transit-housing-infrastructure" target="_blank">spending $84 million total on public transit</a>&nbsp;in the next fiscal year.)If that sounds familiar, that’s because the city also backed the loan for the Power &amp; Light District in 2006 — and has paid to backfill financial shortfalls on that project over the past two decades.As of 2023, Kansas City had&nbsp;<a href="https://fox4kc.com/business/kansas-city-has-paid-over-160m-to-cover-power-lights-debt/" target="_blank">paid a total of $167 million over 16 years</a>&nbsp;to cover the shortfall at the Power &amp; Light District — an average of $10.4 million per year.There are a lot of theories as to why that happened at the Power &amp; Light District.Some people blame the Great Recession that began in 2007 and forced the developer to scale back more ambitious plans —&nbsp;and muffled any boom in entertainment spending. Others say that the boundary of the Power &amp; Light TIF district was too small, so some of the increases in economic activity in surrounding areas were never captured. Still others believe that the financial projections didn’t build in enough margin for error.The city has since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2026/03/05/kc-power-light-district-bond-refinancing-budget.html" target="_blank">refinanced the Power &amp; Light debt</a>&nbsp;to bring down those payments.In any case, members of the City Council want to make sure that doesn’t happen again.That’s why the stadium ordinance includes a $250,000 allocation to, in part, pay for an independent study to determine whether it’s a safe investment and how the city can shield itself from crushing debt payments.That analysis, City Councilmember Andrea Bough said, would be completed by a third party —&nbsp;not the Royals or the city. Bough represents the 6th District at large.“Especially as the finance chair,” Bough said, “I want to make sure that we’re not doing anything to jeopardize the basic services of the city.”Essentially, what the city needs to prevent is a gap between what the stadium and district are generating, versus the amount the city needs to pay on the debt.The problem right now is that those exact numbers are unknown. Hence, the financial analysis.A traditional TIF deal can last a maximum of 23 years. And if we make a simple assumption of&nbsp; a 4.5% interest rate,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html?cloanamount=600%2C000%2C000&amp;cloanterm=23&amp;cloantermmonth=0&amp;cinterestrate=4.5&amp;ccompound=monthly&amp;cpayback=year&amp;x=Calculate&amp;type=1#monthlyfixedr" target="_blank">that comes out to about $42 million in payments each year</a>.In reality, that payment will depend on a variety of factors, such as the interest rate when the city issues the bond and whether the city takes out all $600 million at once or in phases.As far as the TIF revenue goes, Bough said that the city’s finance department has drawn up some estimates, which she believes are conservative. Even so, she wants someone to check that math to make sure neither the Royals nor the city are setting unrealistic expectations.That’s because, again, the city is backing the debt. The city will need to pull money from other city services if the TIF district doesn’t generate enough money to make the debt payment.And with all of the financial analysis, there will always remain the uncertainty of future economic conditions. Even with the most preparation, a recession or a pandemic or a war could scramble the city’s numbers.Duncan is very concerned about a scenario where those estimates are wrong and taxpayers suffer.“My concern stems from,” he said, “we are bearing the burden of feasibility studies that were wrong for Power &amp; Light, for instance. … It’s $600 million of public dollars that we could be on the hook for, coming out of our general fund when we know we’re already struggling with revenues.”<h2>Next steps</h2>The ordinance will kick-start the city’s earnest negotiations with the Royals.Aside from the $250,000 for financial advice, legal services and architectural services, nothing in the ordinance will be, from a legal or financial perspective, a final deal.But Melissa Patterson Hazley, a councilmember representing the 3rd District at large, is more concerned about the political pressure.“I just want the language (of the ordinance) to be softened,” Patterson Hazley said during the committee meeting, “such that nobody has the impression that we are making commitments and taking responsibility, and then the council is politically — politically, not financially, politically — in a position where we can’t pull back.”Once Vasquez, the city manager, submits an application to the TIF Commission for the city’s $600 million portion of the Royals deal, the commission will be required by law to provide taxing jurisdictions a 45-day notice.(Those taxing jurisdictions include any school districts, libraries or counties whose funding will be affected by the deal.)From there, the TIF Commission will give their recommendation, and the City Council will take a full vote to draw the TIF district, authorize the tax redirection and take out the $600 million loan.By that time, the City Council hopes to have a community benefits agreement in place. Negotiations for a similar agreement fell apart leading up to the Jackson County vote, resulting in groups like Stand Up KC, which represents low-wage workers, campaigning against the sales tax.Most council members are asking for a community benefits agreement for the city deal, including benefits for residents outside of downtown.That includes Darrell Curls, who represents the 5th District at large, as well as Lindsay French, who represents the 2nd District at large.That community benefits agreement, French said, should include affordable housing, labor and apprenticeship benefits, child care, streetscaping and small-business benefits.“If this is going to be a transformative project for Kansas City,” she said during the committee meeting, “I want to have a transformative community benefits agreement as well.”This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2026/04/15/kansas-city-royals-stadium-tif-washington-square-park/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Kansas City</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.

Inside Kansas City’s $600 million bet on a downtown Royals ballpark

WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) — President Donald Trump used the first military commencement address of his second term Saturday to congratulate West Point cadets on their academic and physical accomplishments while veering sharply into politics, taking credit for America's military might while boasting about the "mandate" he says he earned in the 2024 presidential election.

"In a few moments, you'll become graduates of the most elite and storied military academy in human history," Trump said at the ceremony at Michie Stadium. "And you will become officers of the greatest and most powerful army the world has ever known. And I know, because I rebuilt that army, and I rebuilt the military. And we rebuilt it like nobody has ever rebuilt it before in my first term."

Wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat, the Republican president told the 1,002 graduating cadets that the U.S. is the "hottest country in the world," boasted of his administration's achievements and underscored a distinct America First ethos for the U.S. military, which he called "the greatest fighting force in the history of the world."

"We're getting rid of distractions and we're focusing our military on its core mission: crushing America's adversaries, killing America's enemies and defending our great American flag like it has never been defended before," Trump said. He later said that "the job of the U.S. Armed Forces is not to host drag shows or transform foreign cultures," a reference to drag shows on military bases that former President Joe Biden's administration halted after Republican criticism.

Trump said the cadets were graduating at a "defining moment" in the Army's history, as he criticized past political leaders for leading soldiers into "nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us." He said he was clearing the military of transgender ideas, "critical race theory" and trainings he called divisive and political.

"They subjected the armed forces to all manner of social projects and political causes while leaving our borders undefended and depleting our arsenals to fight other countries' wars," he said of past administrations.

Several points during his address at the football stadium on the military academy's campus were indistinguishable from a political speech. Trump claimed that when he left the White House in 2021, "we had no wars, we had no problems, we had nothing but success, we had the most incredible economy." He noted that he won all seven swing states in the November election, arguing that those results gave him a "great mandate" and "it gives us the right to do what we want to do."

But Trump also took several moments to acknowledge specific graduates' achievements. He summoned one cadet, Chris Verdugo, on the stage, noting that he completed an 18.5-mile march on a freezing night in January in just two hours and 30 minutes. He had the top-ranking lacrosse team stand to be recognized. Trump also brought West Point's football quarterback, Bryson Daily, to the lectern, praising his "steel"-like shoulder. He later used Daily as an example to make a case against transgender women participating in women's athletics.

In a nod to presidential tradition, Trump also pardoned about half a dozen cadets who had faced disciplinary infractions.

"You could have done anything you wanted, you could have gone anywhere," Trump told the class, later continuing: "Writing your own ticket to top jobs on Wall Street or Silicon Valley wouldn't be bad, but I think what you're doing is better."

The president also ran through several pieces of advice for the graduating cadets, urging them to do what they love, think big, work hard, hold onto their culture, keep faith in America and take risks.

"This is a time of incredible change and we do not need an officer corps of careerists and yes men," Trump said, going on to note recent advances in military technology. "We need patriots with guts and vision and backbone."

Trump closed his speech by calling on the graduating cadets to "never ever give up," then said he was leaving to deal with matters involving Russia and China.

"We're going to keep winning, this country's going to keep winning, and with you, the job is easy," he said.

Just outside campus, about three dozen demonstrators gathered before the ceremony and were waving miniature American flags. One in the crowd carried a sign that said "Support Our Veterans" and "Stop the Cuts," while others held up plastic buckets with the message: "Go Army Beat Fascism."

Trump gave the commencement address at West Point in 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. He urged the graduating cadets to "never forget" the soldiers who fought a war over slavery during his remarks, which came as the nation was reckoning with its history on race after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Trump also paid tribute to the military academy's history and its famed graduates, including Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The ceremony five years ago drew scrutiny because the U.S. Military Academy forced the graduating cadets, who had been home because of COVID-19, to return to an area near a pandemic hot spot.

Trump traveled to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, earlier this month to speak to the University of Alabama's graduating class. His remarks mixed standard commencement fare and advice with political attacks against his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, musings about transgender athletes and lies about the 2020 election.

On Friday, Vice President JD Vance spoke to the graduating class at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Vance said in his remarks that Trump is working to ensure U.S. soldiers are deployed with clear goals, rather than the "undefined missions" and "open-ended conflicts" of the past.

Swenson reported from Bridgewater, New Jersey.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748101992053.png" alt="After his address, President Trump was given a photo of the class of 2025 -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>After his address, President Trump was given a photo of the class of 2025 -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>By SEUNG MIN KIM and ALI SWENSON&nbsp;WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) — President Donald Trump used the first military commencement address of his second term Saturday to congratulate West Point cadets on their academic and physical accomplishments while veering sharply into politics, taking credit for America's military might while boasting about the "mandate" he says he earned in the 2024 presidential election.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President Trump Addresses the Army Academy’s Class of 2025 <a href="https://t.co/fmzvdGxCUx">https://t.co/fmzvdGxCUx</a>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1926277258576085165?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Panaromic photo of West Point Class of 2025 presented to President Trump as class gift after commencement address <a href="https://t.co/A7aYOBcsBf">pic.twitter.com/A7aYOBcsBf</a>&mdash; Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) <a href="https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1926347848766927164?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>"In a few moments, you'll become graduates of the most elite and storied military academy in human history," Trump said at the ceremony at Michie Stadium. "And you will become officers of the greatest and most powerful army the world has ever known. And I know, because I rebuilt that army, and I rebuilt the military. And we rebuilt it like nobody has ever rebuilt it before in my first term."Wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat, the Republican president told the 1,002 graduating cadets that the U.S. is the "hottest country in the world," boasted of his administration's achievements and underscored a distinct America First ethos for the U.S. military, which he called "the greatest fighting force in the history of the world."<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WestPoint_USMA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WestPoint_USMA</a>🇺🇸🦅 <a href="https://t.co/17qWJjNzE2">pic.twitter.com/17qWJjNzE2</a>&mdash; Dan Scavino (@Scavino47) <a href="https://twitter.com/Scavino47/status/1926364115561255162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>"We're getting rid of distractions and we're focusing our military on its core mission: crushing America's adversaries, killing America's enemies and defending our great American flag like it has never been defended before," Trump said. He later said that "the job of the U.S. Armed Forces is not to host drag shows or transform foreign cultures," a reference to drag shows on military bases that former President Joe Biden's administration halted after Republican criticism.Trump said the cadets were graduating at a "defining moment" in the Army's history, as he criticized past political leaders for leading soldiers into "nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us." He said he was clearing the military of transgender ideas, "critical race theory" and trainings he called divisive and political."They subjected the armed forces to all manner of social projects and political causes while leaving our borders undefended and depleting our arsenals to fight other countries' wars," he said of past administrations.Several points during his address at the football stadium on the military academy's campus were indistinguishable from a political speech. Trump claimed that when he left the White House in 2021, "we had no wars, we had no problems, we had nothing but success, we had the most incredible economy." He noted that he won all seven swing states in the November election, arguing that those results gave him a "great mandate" and "it gives us the right to do what we want to do."But Trump also took several moments to acknowledge specific graduates' achievements. He summoned one cadet, Chris Verdugo, on the stage, noting that he completed an 18.5-mile march on a freezing night in January in just two hours and 30 minutes. He had the top-ranking lacrosse team stand to be recognized. Trump also brought West Point's football quarterback, Bryson Daily, to the lectern, praising his "steel"-like shoulder. He later used Daily as an example to make a case against transgender women participating in women's athletics.In a nod to presidential tradition, Trump also pardoned about half a dozen cadets who had faced disciplinary infractions."You could have done anything you wanted, you could have gone anywhere," Trump told the class, later continuing: "Writing your own ticket to top jobs on Wall Street or Silicon Valley wouldn't be bad, but I think what you're doing is better."The president also ran through several pieces of advice for the graduating cadets, urging them to do what they love, think big, work hard, hold onto their culture, keep faith in America and take risks."This is a time of incredible change and we do not need an officer corps of careerists and yes men," Trump said, going on to note recent advances in military technology. "We need patriots with guts and vision and backbone."Trump closed his speech by calling on the graduating cadets to "never ever give up," then said he was leaving to deal with matters involving Russia and China."We're going to keep winning, this country's going to keep winning, and with you, the job is easy," he said.Just outside campus, about three dozen demonstrators gathered before the ceremony and were waving miniature American flags. One in the crowd carried a sign that said "Support Our Veterans" and "Stop the Cuts," while others held up plastic buckets with the message: "Go Army Beat Fascism."Trump gave the commencement address at West Point in 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. He urged the graduating cadets to "never forget" the soldiers who fought a war over slavery during his remarks, which came as the nation was reckoning with its history on race after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.Trump also paid tribute to the military academy's history and its famed graduates, including Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The ceremony five years ago drew scrutiny because the U.S. Military Academy forced the graduating cadets, who had been home because of COVID-19, to return to an area near a pandemic hot spot.Trump traveled to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, earlier this month to speak to the University of Alabama's graduating class. His remarks mixed standard commencement fare and advice with political attacks against his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, musings about transgender athletes and lies about the 2020 election.On Friday, Vice President JD Vance spoke to the graduating class at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Vance said in his remarks that Trump is working to ensure U.S. soldiers are deployed with clear goals, rather than the "undefined missions" and "open-ended conflicts" of the past.—Swenson reported from Bridgewater, New Jersey.

🎥Trump has fun with West Point cadets at commencement

NEW YORK (AP) — Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour brought in $2.2 billion in its nearly two-year run, making it the highest-grossing tour of all time for a second year in a row, Pollstar estimates from data collected across 149 shows.

The new numbers were provided to The Associated Press on Monday, the morning after Swift wrapped the Eras tour with its final show in Vancouver, Canada. Last year, Swift’s landmark tour became the first to cross the billion-dollar mark.

In North America, Swift’s tour earned an estimated $1.04 billion over its run. Globally, that number jumps to an estimated $2.2 billion.

“We are witnessing history in the making. What Taylor Swift and The Eras Tour accomplished in 21 months across five continents before 10 million fans is extraordinary and unprecedented. The tour’s $2.2 billion estimated gross is the highest of all time and nearly doubles the second biggest tour,” said Andy Gensler, editor-in-chief of Pollstar &amp; VenuesNow, in a statement. “It’s also an example of the limits this industry continues to push far past while bringing music, community and peak life experiences to legions across the globe.”

The second biggest tour is Coldplay’s ongoing “Music of the Spheres” run, currently at an estimated $1.14 billion since March 2022, with more dates to come in 2025.

According to Pollstar’s approximations, Coldplay has sold more than 10.3 million tickets; Swift’s tour sold just over 10 million, which means she’s sold the most tickets of any solo performer.

Pollstar data is pulled from box office reports, venue capacity estimates, historical Pollstar venue ticket sales data, and other undefined research, collected from November 2022 to December 2024.

Additional data will become available in Pollstar’s special year-end issue and on Pollstar.com beginning Friday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/12/1733776996717.png" alt="Taylor Swift performs during "The Eras Tour" on Friday, Dec. 6, 2024, in Vancouver, British Columbia. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)" />
 <figcaption>Taylor Swift performs during "The Eras Tour" on Friday, Dec. 6, 2024, in Vancouver, British Columbia. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)</figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK (AP) — Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour brought in $2.2 billion in its nearly two-year run, making it the highest-grossing tour of all time for a second year in a row, Pollstar estimates from data collected across 149 shows.The new numbers were provided to The Associated Press on Monday, the morning after Swift wrapped the Eras tour with its final show in Vancouver, Canada. Last year, Swift’s landmark tour became the first to cross the billion-dollar mark.In North America, Swift’s tour earned an estimated $1.04 billion over its run. Globally, that number jumps to an estimated $2.2 billion.“We are witnessing history in the making. What Taylor Swift and The Eras Tour accomplished in 21 months across five continents before 10 million fans is extraordinary and unprecedented. The tour’s $2.2 billion estimated gross is the highest of all time and nearly doubles the second biggest tour,” said Andy Gensler, editor-in-chief of Pollstar &amp; VenuesNow, in a statement. “It’s also an example of the limits this industry continues to push far past while bringing music, community and peak life experiences to legions across the globe.”The second biggest tour is Coldplay’s ongoing “Music of the Spheres” run, currently at an estimated $1.14 billion since March 2022, with more dates to come in 2025.According to Pollstar’s approximations, Coldplay has sold more than 10.3 million tickets; Swift’s tour sold just over 10 million, which means she’s sold the most tickets of any solo performer.Pollstar data is pulled from box office reports, venue capacity estimates, historical Pollstar venue ticket sales data, and other undefined research, collected from November 2022 to December 2024.Additional data will become available in Pollstar’s special year-end issue and on Pollstar.com beginning Friday.

Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour ends by shattering own record

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>

A pair of Republican state legislators and an anti-abortion activist filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a judge to block an abortion-rights constitutional amendment from appearing on the Nov. 5 ballot.&nbsp;

State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly and Kathy Forck<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/08/07/gop-legislators-file-lawsuit-challenging-cost-estimate-of-missouri-abortion-rights-amendment/">&nbsp;sued last year challenging the cost estimate for a proposed constitutional amendment</a>&nbsp;rolling back Missouri’s ban on abortion.&nbsp;

The campaign behind the proposal ultimately&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">turned in enough signatures to earn a spot on the November ballot</a>, where it is set to appear as Amendment 3.&nbsp;

On Thursday, Coleman, Kelly, Forck and Marguerite Forrest, the operator of a shelter for homeless pregnant women in St. Louis County, filed a new lawsuit in Cole Circuit Court arguing that the decision to place the amendment on the ballot should be reversed.

The amendment violates the Missouri Constitution, the lawsuit argues, because it illegally includes more than one subject. It also fails to specify the laws and constitutional provisions that would be repealed if it were approved by voters, the lawsuit argues.&nbsp;

In a joint statement released to the media, the plaintiffs said Amendment 3&nbsp;is a “direct threat to the lives of Missouri women by erasing the will of voters who chose to protect the safety of women and the child by electing strong pro-life leaders.”

Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which is supporting Amendment 3, called Thursday’s lawsuit “yet another baseless and desperate attempt from politicians to silence Missouri voters and prevent them from being heard. We will not let that happen.”

Sweet said she is confident the courts will “see through this thinly veiled effort to block Missouri voters and dismiss it swiftly.”

Missouri was the first state to ban abortion after the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the constitutional right to the procedure. Since then, abortion has been virtually illegal, with limited exceptions only in cases of medical emergencies. There are no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest.

If approved by voters, Amendment 3 would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability, an undefined period of time generally seen as the point in which the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own, generally around 24 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.&nbsp;

Such an amendment would return Missouri to the standard of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which also legalized abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Missouri’s amendment also includes exceptions after viability “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”

Missouri’s amendment also states that women and those performing or assisting in abortions cannot be prosecuted. Under current Missouri law, doctors who perform abortions deemed unnecessary can be charged with a class B felony and face up to 15 years in prison. Their medical license can also be suspended or revoked.

The lawsuit filed Thursday argues that Amendment 3 illegally includes more than one subject, in part because of its use of the phrase “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.”&nbsp;

The lawsuit argues this phrase is “unlimited in scope” and is “systematically neutralizing all laws, existing or future, that attempt to limit this new, limitless ‘right to reproductive freedom.’” It lays out numerous restrictions on abortion and other laws that could be repealed by Amendment 3 if it were approved by voters, including restrictions on when abortions can be performed and bans on certain stem cell research.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724676157886.png" alt="Students hold up anti-abortion signs at the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption>Students hold up anti-abortion signs at the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>A pair of Republican state legislators and an anti-abortion activist filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a judge to block an abortion-rights constitutional amendment from appearing on the Nov. 5 ballot.&nbsp;State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly and Kathy Forck<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/08/07/gop-legislators-file-lawsuit-challenging-cost-estimate-of-missouri-abortion-rights-amendment/">&nbsp;sued last year challenging the cost estimate for a proposed constitutional amendment</a>&nbsp;rolling back Missouri’s ban on abortion.&nbsp;The campaign behind the proposal ultimately&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">turned in enough signatures to earn a spot on the November ballot</a>, where it is set to appear as Amendment 3.&nbsp;On Thursday, Coleman, Kelly, Forck and Marguerite Forrest, the operator of a shelter for homeless pregnant women in St. Louis County, filed a new lawsuit in Cole Circuit Court arguing that the decision to place the amendment on the ballot should be reversed.The amendment violates the Missouri Constitution, the lawsuit argues, because it illegally includes more than one subject. It also fails to specify the laws and constitutional provisions that would be repealed if it were approved by voters, the lawsuit argues.&nbsp;In a joint statement released to the media, the plaintiffs said Amendment 3&nbsp;is a “direct threat to the lives of Missouri women by erasing the will of voters who chose to protect the safety of women and the child by electing strong pro-life leaders.”Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which is supporting Amendment 3, called Thursday’s lawsuit “yet another baseless and desperate attempt from politicians to silence Missouri voters and prevent them from being heard. We will not let that happen.”Sweet said she is confident the courts will “see through this thinly veiled effort to block Missouri voters and dismiss it swiftly.”Missouri was the first state to ban abortion after the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the constitutional right to the procedure. Since then, abortion has been virtually illegal, with limited exceptions only in cases of medical emergencies. There are no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest.If approved by voters, Amendment 3 would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability, an undefined period of time generally seen as the point in which the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own, generally around 24 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.&nbsp;Such an amendment would return Missouri to the standard of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which also legalized abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Missouri’s amendment also includes exceptions after viability “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”Missouri’s amendment also states that women and those performing or assisting in abortions cannot be prosecuted. Under current Missouri law, doctors who perform abortions deemed unnecessary can be charged with a class B felony and face up to 15 years in prison. Their medical license can also be suspended or revoked.The lawsuit filed Thursday argues that Amendment 3 illegally includes more than one subject, in part because of its use of the phrase “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.”&nbsp;The lawsuit argues this phrase is “unlimited in scope” and is “systematically neutralizing all laws, existing or future, that attempt to limit this new, limitless ‘right to reproductive freedom.’” It lays out numerous restrictions on abortion and other laws that could be repealed by Amendment 3 if it were approved by voters, including restrictions on when abortions can be performed and bans on certain stem cell research.&nbsp;

Lawsuit seeks to knock Missouri abortion-rights amendment off Nov. ballot

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday that he expects the state to put together an aid plan by the end of the year to try to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals from being lured across state lines to new stadiums in Kansas.

Missouri's renewed efforts come after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-royals-new-stadiums-3441b3084c8efab00057f593f4d9b95e">Kansas approved a plan</a>&nbsp;last week that would finance up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums for the professional football and baseball teams.

“We’re going to make sure that we put the best business deal we can on the line,” Parson told reporters while hosting the Chiefs' two most recent Super Bowl trophies at the Capitol, where fans lined up for photos.

“Look, I can’t blame Kansas for trying,” Parson added. “You know, if I was probably sitting there, I’d be doing the same thing. But at the end of the day, we’re going to be competitive.”

The Chiefs and Royals have played for over 50 years in side-by-side stadiums built in eastern Kansas City, drawing fans from both states in the split metropolitan area. Their stadium leases run until 2031. But Royals owner John Sherman has said the team won't play at Kauffman Stadium beyond the 2030 season, expressing preference for a new downtown stadium.

Questions about the teams' future intensified after Jackson County, Missouri,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-royals-kansas-city-stadiums-e9605296b85e91699441e4ba10e83212">voters in April rejected</a>&nbsp;a sales tax that would have helped fund a more than $2 billion downtown ballpark district for the Royals and an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium.

The tax plan faced several headwinds. Some Royals fans preferred the teams' current site. Others opposed the tax. And still others had concerns about the new stadium plans, which changed just weeks ahead of the vote.

The emergence of Kansas as an alternative raised the stakes for Missouri officials and repeated a common pattern among professional sports teams, which often&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/royals-chiefs-stadiums-taxes-public-funding-f1381c8916144371b3037ebc5b2dcc47">leverage one site against another</a>&nbsp;in an effort to get the greatest public subsidies for new or improved stadiums.

Sports teams are pushing a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/stadiums-public-funding-nfl-mlb-70f5054b1e1f6862713ef036cbae2a10">new wave of stadium construction</a>&nbsp;across the U.S., going beyond basic repairs to derive fresh revenue from luxury suites, dining, shopping and other developments surrounding their stadiums. On Tuesday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jacksonville-jaguars-stadium-renovation-9b814a4d0c7527414fe98a3124ee5bc9">the city of Jacksonville, Florida, approved</a>&nbsp;a $1.25 billion stadium renovation plan for the NFL's Jaguars that splits the cost between the city and team.

Many economists assert that while stadiums may boost tax revenue in their immediate area, they tend to shift consumer spending away from other entertainment and seldom generate enough new economic activity to offset all the public subsidies.

Parson said “the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals are big business,” comparing them to large companies that have received public aid such as Boeing, Ford and General Motors. But he added that any deal “has to work out on paper, where it’s going to be beneficial to the taxpayers of Missouri.”

“I think by the end of this year, we’re going to have something in place” to propose for the stadiums, Parson said.

Missouri’s still undefined plan likely would require legislative approval, but Parson said he doesn’t anticipate calling a special legislative session before his term ends in January. That means any plan developed by Parson’s administration in partnership with Kansas City area officials also would need the support of the next governor and a new slate of lawmakers.

Now that Kansas has enacted a financing law, discussions between the sports teams and the Kansas Department of Commerce could start at any time, but the agency has no timeline for finishing a deal, spokesperson Patrick Lowry said Thursday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719519127516.png" alt="“Look, I can’t blame Kansas for trying,” Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said. “You know, if I was probably sitting there, I’d be doing the same thing" />
 <figcaption>“Look, I can’t blame Kansas for trying,” Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said. “You know, if I was probably sitting there, I’d be doing the same thing</figcaption>
 </figure>JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday that he expects the state to put together an aid plan by the end of the year to try to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals from being lured across state lines to new stadiums in Kansas.Missouri's renewed efforts come after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-royals-new-stadiums-3441b3084c8efab00057f593f4d9b95e">Kansas approved a plan</a>&nbsp;last week that would finance up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums for the professional football and baseball teams.“We’re going to make sure that we put the best business deal we can on the line,” Parson told reporters while hosting the Chiefs' two most recent Super Bowl trophies at the Capitol, where fans lined up for photos.“Look, I can’t blame Kansas for trying,” Parson added. “You know, if I was probably sitting there, I’d be doing the same thing. But at the end of the day, we’re going to be competitive.”The Chiefs and Royals have played for over 50 years in side-by-side stadiums built in eastern Kansas City, drawing fans from both states in the split metropolitan area. Their stadium leases run until 2031. But Royals owner John Sherman has said the team won't play at Kauffman Stadium beyond the 2030 season, expressing preference for a new downtown stadium.Questions about the teams' future intensified after Jackson County, Missouri,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-royals-kansas-city-stadiums-e9605296b85e91699441e4ba10e83212">voters in April rejected</a>&nbsp;a sales tax that would have helped fund a more than $2 billion downtown ballpark district for the Royals and an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium.The tax plan faced several headwinds. Some Royals fans preferred the teams' current site. Others opposed the tax. And still others had concerns about the new stadium plans, which changed just weeks ahead of the vote.The emergence of Kansas as an alternative raised the stakes for Missouri officials and repeated a common pattern among professional sports teams, which often&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/royals-chiefs-stadiums-taxes-public-funding-f1381c8916144371b3037ebc5b2dcc47">leverage one site against another</a>&nbsp;in an effort to get the greatest public subsidies for new or improved stadiums.Sports teams are pushing a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/stadiums-public-funding-nfl-mlb-70f5054b1e1f6862713ef036cbae2a10">new wave of stadium construction</a>&nbsp;across the U.S., going beyond basic repairs to derive fresh revenue from luxury suites, dining, shopping and other developments surrounding their stadiums. On Tuesday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jacksonville-jaguars-stadium-renovation-9b814a4d0c7527414fe98a3124ee5bc9">the city of Jacksonville, Florida, approved</a>&nbsp;a $1.25 billion stadium renovation plan for the NFL's Jaguars that splits the cost between the city and team.Many economists assert that while stadiums may boost tax revenue in their immediate area, they tend to shift consumer spending away from other entertainment and seldom generate enough new economic activity to offset all the public subsidies.Parson said “the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals are big business,” comparing them to large companies that have received public aid such as Boeing, Ford and General Motors. But he added that any deal “has to work out on paper, where it’s going to be beneficial to the taxpayers of Missouri.”“I think by the end of this year, we’re going to have something in place” to propose for the stadiums, Parson said.Missouri’s still undefined plan likely would require legislative approval, but Parson said he doesn’t anticipate calling a special legislative session before his term ends in January. That means any plan developed by Parson’s administration in partnership with Kansas City area officials also would need the support of the next governor and a new slate of lawmakers.Now that Kansas has enacted a financing law, discussions between the sports teams and the Kansas Department of Commerce could start at any time, but the agency has no timeline for finishing a deal, spokesperson Patrick Lowry said Thursday.