WASHINGTON, D.C. — Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau, D-Ward 1, issued the following statement regarding the proposed RFK stadium deal negotiated with the Commanders.
Updated July 31, 2025
I have opposed, from the start, the use of taxpayer dollars to support a stadium for a private organization, owned by billionaires, that will make them billions of dollars. The more the deal is analyzed, the more resolved I am in my position.
We have learned that subsidies are not needed to make this private venture viable.
We learned that the $4.4 billion we are being asked to spend on the stadium over 30 years will return only $1.3 billion to the city. And that the city would take in more tax revenue over 30 years by developing the entire parcel for mixed-use rather than dedicating 16 percent of it to parking garages and a stadium.
And we learned that without the stadium, the land would support nearly double the number of housing units – 5,000 more than the anticipated 6,000 in the current deal. This at a time when D.C. faces a housing crisis and an affordable housing crisis.
The deal still does not include a guaranteed timeline to build that housing. Without the guarantee of expedited housing development, there is no economic advantage to a stadium.
None of this is surprising – every piece of evidence, including decades of studies around the country, shows that football stadiums are net revenue losers for cities, as counterintuitive as that may seem.
Meanwhile, the massive development would sit alongside a beautiful and recovering section of the Anacostia River and protected lands on its edge. What happens at the site will impact the river and the environment for decades. But the plan lacks guarantees for sustainable and green development worthy of a world-class stadium project, and assurances about stormwater management, energy efficiency, and more.
And while the Commanders have agreed to a Project Labor Agreement on the stadium itself and on one hotel, there is much to be desired in commitments to labor for the rest of the project.
This is not an “either/or” – adding to labor protections but not housing or environmental guarantees would not be enough to make this a good deal for the residents of the District. Housing guarantees are essential, but without the other two, still insufficient.
The Council took six months to negotiate a solid deal with the Nationals back in 2004. Now, on a deal that is five times bigger, we are being asked to approve a massive proposal in less than three months, and vote on the latest version of it a week after it was revealed, and two days after more than 400 residents signed up to testify. All while the Council has been working on a challenging budget and a significant piece of housing legislation.
I love that the team is under new leadership, righting past management and cultural issues, and rebuilding the team with a winning record. The team wants to be in D.C. and will do very well financially without handouts from D.C. taxpayers. The city does not owe it to this private organization to subsidize its profits with residents’ money. Even the Washington Post editorial board said as much this morning.
The Council will vote tomorrow on the RFK stadium deal and I’ll be voting ‘no.’ The city does not owe it to this private organization to subsidize its profits with residents’ money.
###