The following is an analysis from the University of Illinois Springfield Center for State Policy and Research.
When people think of the National Football League they think of iconic teams like the Dallas Cowboys, the Green Bay Packers, and of course, the Chicago Bears. How about the “Hammond Hams”?
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker sounded the alarm last week when he warned Illinois residents would be upset if the Chicago Bears did as they have threatened to do; move across state lines to Hammond, Indiana in search of greener pastures and a new stadium.
For their part, the Indiana Chicagoland suburbs argue they have made an attractive offer to the Bears to offset the costs of a new stadium complete with an entertainment district that will make the area across both state lines a destination for major sporting events.
The Chicago Bears (originally in Decatur) have moved before. However, in 1970 the Bears moved to the city-owned Soldier Field and have been on the Near South Side ever since. Soldier Field is leased to the Bears by the city with a contract signed until 2033.
Questions around the Bears’ departure for a new stadium have been around for some time but have never materialized like they have now. Could the Bears actually leave the city they have called home for the last century-plus? What efforts should be made to retain them? Maybe the suburbs have always been an option, but moving to another state? What do the people of Illinois think?
To get at these questions, we asked 1,000 Illinois residents their opinions on the Bears’ predicament. The residents came from all parts of the state and were representative of Illinois’ population when it comes to characteristics like gender, race, political party, and urban/rural living. Our survey was fielded in March of 2026 after Indiana’s offer to the Bears became public.
We first asked residents how important it is that the Bears continue to play their home games in Illinois on the four-point scale depicted in the table above. The two extremes were the most popular responses, with 28.9% of residents saying, “it’s very important to me” and 30.3% saying “it’s not important to me at all”. When we combine the top two levels of importance, we see that just under half of Illinois residents consider the Bears’ home field what we call a “salient issue” --- that is, they think it warrants the attention of Illinois and Chicago politicians.
As with many issues in Illinois, there is a stark divide in attitudes based on the region of the state where respondents live. The figure below displays the net importance of the issue by the five regions of the state. Net importance is the percentage of residents that consider the Bears’ home state as an important issue minus the percentage that do not think it is important at all. Positive numbers indicate regions that care a lot about the issue, negative numbers, not as much.
The closer residents are to Chicago, the more important the Bears’ location is. City residents care the most by far with a 41.9% net importance rating followed by the Chicago suburbs and then Northern Illinois. Central Illinois residents are somewhat indifferent with an importance rating of -4.6% and Southern Illinois residents are downright apathetic with a rating of -29.0%.
Having a sense of how much Illinois residents care about the Bears staying in-state is relevant to understanding how leaders in Springfield and Chicago should engage with the Bears in their desire for a new stadium.
We asked residents this question directly and offered four options: (1) try to force the Bears to see out their contract at Soldier Field (2) offer the Bears a deal equal to that proposed by Indiana for a new stadium in Illinois (3) offer the Bears a better deal than that proposed by Indiana (4) allow the Bears to break their contract at Soldier Field but offer no public funds for a new stadium.
As shown in the table above, Illinois residents were most enthusiastic about letting the Bears leave Soldier Field but not providing any taxpayer money for a new Illinois stadium (i.e., forcing the team to pay for the new stadium). This was followed by offering a deal equal to Indiana and attempting to force the team to honor their existing contract.
The least popular option is the one reports suggest Illinois leaders are considering, offering the Bears a deal with more public funding than that proposed by Indiana. Interestingly, these results hold throughout the regions of Illinois with one exception: Chicago residents want the Bears to stay at Soldier Field far more than other residents (indeed, it is their most preferred outcome).
The Bears are certainly not the only professional sports team interested in a new stadium. From Denver to Buffalo, organizations across the United States have sought taxpayers’ money to aid in the creation of new stadiums. In fact, a similar bi-state faceoff took place last year when the Kansas City Chiefs announced they were leaving their long-time home in Missouri to take advantage of public funds offered by neighboring Kansas. And recently the Chicago Fire privately funded a brand new stadium along the Chicago River.
This trend has led fans and taxpayers to consider how new stadiums should be funded in 2026. We asked Illinois residents what type of funding should be used in the building of new stadiums or in major renovations to existing stadiums.
Our results suggest that residents want these projects funded mostly or entirely by the teams that will use the stadium. In the aggregate (the first column of the table below), more than 69% of residents want the majority of funds to be private, 16% would prefer a 50/50 split between the team and taxpayers, and only 14% would prefer a structure with more public funds.
You might expect to observe differences across residents’ political party, as Democrats usually prefer a broader use of public funding, but as illustrated in the table above the differences in party support for different types of funding are modest. None of the differences are what we would call “statistically significant”, or so great as to not be due to random chance.
The talks between Illinois leaders, Indiana leaders, and the Chicago Bears will continue in the coming months. In the meantime, you can find all sorts of predictions for what deals will eventually be struck between the team and a state government.
Further, will Illinoisian attitudes change once they know what the final offer from Illinois looks like? All we can say for now is that Illinois residents will be watching closely, with an eye on the taxpayer coffers.
It’s worth paying attention to though because what happens next may not just determine where the Bears play next, but what other teams and governments do going forward.
Though, we think we’re confident in saying at the very least the Bears won’t become the Hams any time soon.
