Chicagoland, straight
Side-by-side Bears stadium concepts for Hammond, Indiana and Arlington Heights, Illinois
Chicago Landmarks

Arlington Heights or Hammond: where the Bears stadium deal stands

The Bears say Hammond is their only focus, but Illinois is weighing an Arlington Heights plan. Here's where each side stands and the dates to watch.

By Hellgin7 min read

You're at a tailgate, or on the couch on a fall Sunday, and someone asks the question that has followed this team for years: are the Bears really moving to Indiana? As of October 8, the honest answer is "not decided." The Bears say Hammond is their only focus. In Springfield, though, lawmakers are discussing a new plan that could bring the old Arlington Park site back into play. Here's where each side stands and which dates to watch before Thanksgiving.

Where it stands today

The team's public position hasn't changed since summer. At an August 13 press conference at Halas Hall, Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren said, "Our sole focus at this point in time is working on a world-class stadium and mixed-use development in Hammond, Indiana."

Illinois hasn't given up, though. ABC7 Chicago and BearsTalk both reported on October 6 that Illinois lawmakers are weighing a new approach: a stadium authority would own a new Bears stadium in Arlington Heights, and the Bears would pay to build it on land they already own there.

That's a proposal and nothing more. No bill has passed, and nothing is settled. The Bears haven't said anything publicly that walks back Warren's August statement. Hammond is still the team's stated plan, and Arlington Heights is still the team's land. For now the stadium question is a contest between the two states, and the next round happens in Springfield.

The new Illinois idea didn't come out of nowhere. It's an attempt to fix the problems that sent the Bears looking across the state line.

How we got here

The Arlington Heights story started in September 2021. That's when the Bears agreed to buy the former Arlington Park racecourse from Churchill Downs. The $197 million deal for 326 acres closed in 2023. A year before it closed, in September 2022, the team showed off a plan for an enclosed stadium and surrounding development that NFL.com put at nearly $5 billion.

What the Bears wanted from Illinois was tax certainty: a clear agreement on what they'd owe on the property for years to come. The vehicle for that became a "megaprojects" bill, HB910. The Illinois House passed it 78-32 in April 2026, but the Bears said it still needed changes. The House then adjourned on May 31 without voting on a version that gave the team what it wanted.

The Bears moved quickly after that. On Friday, June 5, the team's board of directors voted to advance a stadium project in Hammond. The exact site hadn't been chosen yet.

Gov. JB Pritzker, as FOX 32 reported, has said the Bears' changing position over six years has slowed progress. He has also said he wants the team to stay in Illinois. That tension, a frustrated governor who still wants the deal, sits under everything happening now.

Indiana, meanwhile, had been preparing for months.

The Hammond side

Indiana passed its law before the Illinois session ended. Gov. Mike Braun signed Senate Enrolled Act 27 on February 26, 2026. It created the Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority, which can buy land, issue bonds and finance a stadium. The law doesn't require the Bears to move. It sets up a structure so a deal could happen quickly.

The reported financing goes like this: about $1 billion from Indiana and at least $2 billion from the Bears. The state would own the stadium and the team would lease it. Part of the money would come from new local taxes, including a 12% admissions tax on stadium events. The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported some local opposition.

There are two possible sites. As of the team's August 13 update, the Lost Marsh site had passed due diligence. A second site, Wolf Lake Terminal, was still being studied, and the Bears said the two might be combined. FOX 32 cited Chicago Tribune reporting that the Wolf Lake area sits on a slag heap, which raises environmental questions that still need answers.

Some other details from that August press conference:

  • Chairman George McCaskey said the team would remain the Chicago Bears in either location.
  • Warren gave no date for a groundbreaking.

So Hammond has a law, a funding framework and a site that's been vetted. It doesn't have a shovel in the ground or a signed lease. That gap is the reason Illinois still sees a chance.

The Arlington Heights side

The Bears still own the 326 acres off Route 53. What's new is how Illinois might handle them.

ABC7 reported that under the stadium-authority model being discussed, a public authority would own the stadium and lease it back to the team. The Bears wouldn't pay property tax on the stadium itself, but they would pay it on the development around it. Chicagoans already know a version of this setup: the White Sox ballpark, Rate Field, is owned by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.

Part of the groundwork already exists. A Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Bill Cunningham would let qualifying municipalities create stadium authorities. It passed the Illinois Senate but never got a hearing in the House.

The other big issue is infrastructure. A team consultant report from fall 2025 estimated that Arlington Heights would need roughly $855 million in state-paid infrastructure (NFL.com described it as "up to $855 million"). The Bears say they'd put in $2 billion of their own money, and they maintain that there's no workable site in Chicago.

The latest development came from the league office. According to ABC7, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell met with Pritzker and legislative leaders the week before its October 6 report. Sports business consultant Marc Ganis told the station he read the meeting as a sign the league wants a deal that keeps the Bears in Illinois. That's his interpretation, not something the league has said.

What to watch next

Illinois lawmakers go back to Springfield in November, and the fall veto session ends December 3. If a stadium-authority bill is going to move this year, it has to happen in that window.

Ganis told ABC7 that December 3 should be treated as the deadline. Otherwise, he said, not much would happen until late May, and he doesn't expect Indiana to wait that long. That's one consultant's opinion. Neither state has set an official deadline.

Questions to keep an eye on between Halloween and Thanksgiving:

  • Does a bill get a House hearing? The Cunningham approach has already passed the Senate once.
  • Who pays for infrastructure? The roughly $855 million estimate is the biggest number Illinois would have to answer.
  • What about the neighbors? BearsTalk lists taxes and costs to surrounding communities among the open issues.
  • Do the Bears respond? Their last public word is still "sole focus" on Hammond.
  • Does Indiana make a move? A final site decision or lease would change everything.
Sources (10)