Connect with us

Published

on

The California-based federal judge overseeing the trio of antitrust lawsuits that could reshape college sports will weigh in for the first time Thursday on a proposed new model for paying athletes.

Judge Claudia Wilken will ask questions and gather information from plaintiffs, defendants and other parties to decide whether to grant preliminary approval for a proposed settlement between the NCAA, its five power conferences and a class of former and current Division I athletes.

Her approval would be the next, but not last, step toward implementing a system that would bring an unprecedented level of change to major college sports. Wilken does not have to decide from the bench Thursday — a ruling could come days or weeks later — but the hearing provides the first chance to gain insights about whether she feels the deal is a fair and adequate system for compensating college athletes for the next 10 years.

“I don’t think it’s possible to overstate how important this could be in the grand scheme of things for college sports. We are closer than ever to an entirely new era,” said Gabe Feldman, director of the sports law program at Tulane University and an expert in NCAA legal issues. “Part of what we’re looking for is to see if Judge Wilken has concerns about the settlement.”

The NCAA and conferences agreed in May to pay roughly $2.7 billion in damages to athletes who say their earning potential while in college was illegally restrained by the association’s rules. The parties also agreed to a forward-looking system that will allow schools to directly pay athletes via name, image and likeness deals up to a limit, which is expected to be between $20 million and $23 million per school next year and rise on an annual basis. In exchange, the NCAA would have far more leeway to enforce rules it says are designed to protect a competitive balance between schools and preserve what makes college sports unique.

Since the two sides submitted terms of their agreement in July, five groups have responded to the court with formal objections, and several other groups have raised concerns via public statements. The objectors say the deal unfairly restricts future athletes or too broadly addresses NCAA issues that don’t fall within the scope of the three cases they are agreeing to settle, among other concerns.

One group of athletes, led by former Colorado football player Alex Fontenot, argues that the settlement would unfairly eliminate their separate, pending antitrust case challenging the NCAA’s limits on what schools can pay players directly. The settlement also undervalues the potential damages that athletes could receive from the Fontenot complaint, his lawyers wrote in their objection.

A separate group of former and current women’s rowers filed an objection claiming that the settlement’s plans to distribute the overwhelming majority of the $2.7 billion in damages to football and men’s basketball players is unfair to women athletes.

As for the forward-looking terms of the settlement, multiple groups argued that the 10-year length of the settlement would bind future college athletes — some still in grade school — to the terms of a revenue-sharing deal in which they have no say. Those athletes would have the ability to object to the revenue-sharing terms but would need to convince Judge Wilken to reconsider the terms in order to create change.

Lastly, Fontenot’s attorneys argue that having the same parties negotiate the past damages and the future revenue-sharing model creates a potential conflict of interest — one in which the plaintiffs’ attorney could make concessions on the future revenue-sharing plans in an effort to make sure the lucrative damages agreement is completed. The attorneys argued that Wilken should deny the proposal and assign different groups of attorneys to represent the different classes of athletes involved in the case.

Steve Berman, co-lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the settlement, said the objections were “silly.”

“This is an extraordinary settlement, something I didn’t think we’d be able to achieve when I started the case,” Berman told ESPN. “For all these Monday morning quarterbacks to come in and say that it’s not enough or it’s not perfect, it’s just misconceived. They’ve lost sight of the big picture.”

The NCAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wilken can ask questions of the formal objectors during Thursday’s hearing and raise their concerns to Berman and the other lawyers who negotiated the terms. Wilken, who has ruled on a series of major NCAA-related lawsuits in the last decade, is also free to broadly consider how the deal might impact the college sports industry moving forward.

Legal experts say it’s rare for a judge to deny preliminary approval in an antitrust settlement case. Tulane’s Feldman said the volume of objections is not unusual or surprising, especially in a case that affects such a large and disparate group. However, some antitrust experts say the proposed settlement is novel and broad enough that it might invite extra scrutiny from the judge.

Marc Edelman, a law professor at Baruch College and an expert in sports antitrust issues, said the parties are, in effect, attempting to use the settlement to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with a salary cap (like those that exist in professional sports) without input from a players’ union. Several objectors noted that antitrust law prohibits any industry-wide cap on compensation unless it’s negotiated by a formal union.

The settlement could increase athlete compensation, Edelman said, but the deal is still a cap that could violate the law. While the settlement doesn’t prevent athletes from filing future antitrust claims, the financial incentive for lawyers to pursue those cases would be drastically reduced by the settlement’s terms. Edelman said that, in practice, the deal could stymie the types of legal challenges that have been the main catalyst for most major changes to the college sports industry in the last decade.

“This is backward, not forward,” Edelman said. “Even if the settlement in many ways is an important step in the right direction, at the same time it makes it more difficult to gain further reforms while imposing a new salary cap that reasonably still violates antitrust law.”

If Wilken does grant preliminary approval, current and former Division I athletes will have a window to opt out of the deal or raise further objections before it’s finalized. Berman said the plaintiffs have asked the judge for 60 days to prepare information for athletes and another 90 days to give athletes the chance to learn about the terms and raise concerns. On that timeline, the settlement would not be finalized until February at the earliest.

The settlement states that if enough athletes opt out, the deal is no longer valid. The specific number of opt outs needed to kill the deal is redacted in public court documents.

Multiple organizations with the potential to rally large groups of athletes have publicly disapproved of the current terms of the settlement. While none has started any efforts to urge players to opt out, leaders of those organizations say they will be watching Thursday’s hearing closely and will decide their next steps based on Wilken’s ruling.

The National College Players Association, which has spearheaded an ongoing National Labor Relations Board case in Los Angeles aimed at helping some college athletes achieve the right to form unions, issued a statement last week saying the settlement could give schools legal protection to create rules that would decrease the money and scholarships currently flowing to athletes.

The organization’s founder, Ramogi Huma, said he’s concerned that the settlement would allow conferences to set limits that are more restrictive than the proposed NCAA-wide spending cap. Unlike professional sports’ collective bargaining agreements, the settlement does not mandate schools share a minimum of their revenue with athletes, which Huma says creates a ceiling for athlete pay without creating a floor. The settlement also aims to eliminate a large portion of the money that currently flows to athletes from booster-led NIL collectives, which has served as a de facto salary for players over the past several years.

When combined, Huma said, those elements could lead to athletes earning less money than they do now in the NIL-driven market.

“Our hope is that [Wilken] rejects the preliminary settlement and hits the reset button on this process where the parties can go back to the drawing board and come up with something that’s fair for players,” Huma said.

Berman said he is confident that schools will want to pay players as much money as possible to remain competitive, and that Huma’s concerns were “not grounded in the economic reality of what’s out there.”

The settlement received a vote of support from Athletes.org — another organization building a players’ association for college athletes. The organization issued a statement Wednesday saying that the deal was an “important step in the right direction” but “not the end of the road for college athletes.” The group, which says it has more than 3,000 current athlete members, says the only sustainable way forward for the college sports industry is for athletes to have a voice in a “true partnership” with their schools. Their leaders are hoping that the settlement will be a catalyst for the next stage of that process taking place on individual campuses, where athletes can have a say in the resources and benefits they receive from the school.

While the settlement terms do not prohibit athletes from collectively bargaining for more benefits if they win the right to unionize, the NCAA and its schools are lobbying Congress to write laws that would block college athletes from being employees of their school, and thus the ability to form a union. College sports leaders, including NCAA President Charlie Baker, have said they hope the settlement will convince federal lawmakers to act.

Russ White, who heads a trade association of booster collectives, said rather than filing objections to the settlement, his group has been focused on lobbying Congress against the NCAA’s requested federal law. The NCAA is also asking Congress for a limited antitrust exemption, which would give the association more power to limit how much collectives are allowed to pay athletes.

Without a new federal law, White said he thinks it will be impossible for the NCAA to enforce limits on booster spending without facing further lawsuits. White said his organization has had some conversations with player advocacy groups about organizing a large opt out from the settlement if necessary. The group currently has members from 42 schools, which gives them an open line of communication with roughly 28,000 athletes.

“We could provide access to those athletes pretty quickly if needed,” White said. “Everything is on the table, but we’re waiting to see how the judge rules and where it goes from there.”

Continue Reading

Sports

First impressions from the Athletics’ new home opener

Published

on

By

First impressions from the Athletics' new home opener

A local television news crew was stationed outside the Sawyer Hotel in downtown Sacramento on Sunday night, ready to catch every nuance of the magical moment the bleary-eyed Chicago Cubs stepped off their bus to enter the lobby. This was the first time a major league baseball team had arrived in Sacramento to play a legally sanctioned regular-season game, and no story was too small. If you ever wondered what Ian Happ looks like walking toward a hotel and being surprised by the presence of a camera and a reporter, CBS-13 was the channel for you.

“That was different,” Cubs pitcher Matthew Boyd said. “But it’s the first time a big league team has come to Sacramento, and they’re excited. Baseball’s that cool thing that brings everyone together.”

It was quite a week for Sacramento — more specifically, West Sacramento, the place with the street signs declaring it “The Baseball Side of the River.” It got to host the first three games of the Athletics’ expected three-season interregnum between Oakland and Las Vegas, and it got to call a big league team its own, even if the team has decided to declare itself simply the Athletics, a geographically nonspecific generic version of a Major League Baseball team.

It’s tough to explain the vibe at Sutter Health Park for the first series. It looked like big league baseball and sounded like big league baseball; it just didn’t feel like big league baseball. The crowds were mostly sedate, maybe because there’s room for only about 14,000 fans, and maybe because the Athletics were outscored 35-9 over the course of the three games, the first and third of which could have been stopped for humanitarian reasons.

This is a team that is supposed to be better this season, and three games shouldn’t change that expectation. It spent some money nobody knew it had on a free agent contract for Luis Severino and extensions for Brent Rooker and Lawrence Butler, moves that assured a payroll high enough to abide by the revenue-sharing rules of the collective bargaining agreement, but moves that improved the team nonetheless. (You’ve got to spend money to make money is an adage that, for the first time, appealed to owner John Fisher.) The A’s have a universally respected manager in Mark Kotsay, several promising young players from recent drafts and the confidence that came from playing really good baseball over last season’s second half. There is a creeping suspicion that they could be building something that could make West Sacramento proud.

It’s a long, maybe even interminable season that will contain every iteration of peak and valley. Three games can end up being the equivalent of one breath over the course of a lifetime. But still, it’s impossible to deny the Athletics brought back a lot of their old classics for their Sacramento debut: They walked 10 batters in Monday night’s home opener; they kicked the ball around enough for four unearned runs in three games; they walked seven more Wednesday afternoon. The crowds were mostly quiet; the numerous Cubs fans were noisy until it felt mean, but the A’s fans, when they found something cheer-worthy, reacted as if they were cheering for someone else’s kid at a piano recital. As first impressions go, it could have been better.

The A’s players, in their defense, are going through an adjustment period. When I asked closer Mason Miller how he likes Sacramento, he starts counting on his fingers and says, “I’ve literally spent five nights here.” They’re young, wealthy and accustomed to living in a new place every season as they progress through the minor leagues, and they’re trying to view their new home as an opportunity to bond over experiencing something together for the first time.

“We’re all new here,” rookie second baseman Max Muncy says, “so even though I’m a rookie, I can earn some cred if I find a good restaurant and let everyone know.” I mention the toughest reservation in town, a Michelin-starred, fixed-price restaurant less than 2 miles away.

“That sounds like a two-month wait,” he says.

“Not if you tell them who you are,” I joke.

“Yeah, I can’t imagine doing that,” he says. “Besides, if I say, ‘Max Muncy,’ when I show up they’ll say, ‘Oh great, we got this one.'”

The A’s bigger concern is playing the next three seasons in a minor league ballpark and sharing it with a minor league team, the Triple-A Sacramento River Cats. It’s kind of like a senior rooming with a freshman; the senior has dibs on just about everything, but he still has to deal with the roommate. For the A’s, that means wondering how the field will hold up over the course of the 155 games it’ll wear this season, and figuring out how to cope with having a clubhouse beyond the outfield wall, disconnected from the dugout.

Severino made his first home start for the A’s on Tuesday night, and he had to tweak his routine to account for the new reality: Once he left the clubhouse, there was no going back. It was cold and windy, so he had to make sure his jacket made it to the dugout with him. The notes he likes to reference during the game had to be there, too. His usual practice of popping into the clubhouse to watch the game on television while his team hits (“It looks easier and more fun on TV,” he says with a laugh) is on hold for home starts for the foreseeable future. He had to sit there with his teammates whether he pitched well or not — on Tuesday: not — and know that every one of his emotions would be picked up by at least five cameras.

“You just have to stick it out,” Severino says. “You can’t have all the stuff you have in a normal stadium. When you go out there, you have to bring everything with you. You have to try to stay warm and find out a different routine. It’s not the same, but the thing is, it doesn’t matter because it’s happening, and we need to get used to it. Just treat it like spring training, because it feels like spring training.”

Players coming off the bench to pinch-hit or play defense have nowhere to get loose. In any other park, they’d jump into the cage behind the dugout and take some swings or stretch out and run a few sprints. Here, they have to do whatever they can do within the confines of the dugout. “Just do some arm circles and maybe run in place,” Cubs infielder Jon Berti says. “Make it old-school.”

Just one of the three games sold out, an unexpected development after months of civic backslapping and grand proclamations about Sacramento cementing its status as a major league city. Tickets for Wednesday’s game, which drew 9,342 fans, were selling on the secondary market for $20 about 30 minutes before first pitch. The A’s have the highest median ticket prices — $181 — in baseball, according to data compiled by the ticket app Gametime. The idea was to employ the time-honored scarcity=demand concept to seize maximum profits from minimal opportunities, but one sellout — the opener, which also included roughly 2,000 comped tickets — in the first three games shows the A’s remain capable of straining even the most fundamental economic concepts.

It’s probably not fair to judge Sacramento’s worth as a baseball town based on its willingness to support a team that won’t be identified by the city’s name during its time here. And it’s definitely not fair to judge a region based on the number of fans eager to hand money to an owner who pulled the team out of Oakland after 57 years and is on his way to Las Vegas.

In the days after Kings/River Cats owner Vivek Ranadive joined with Fisher to bring the A’s to Sacramento, someone identified to me as “as Sacramento as it gets” sent a text that illustrates the conflict that lives within the Sacramento sports fan:

So many thoughts as I’ve been following this:

1) I hate it in that we are just bailing out Fisher

2) I hate that we are basically acting as Seattle a decade ago with regards to the Kings and poached the A’s away from Oakland. That’s an awful feeling I wish on no one

3) I am interested to see if this actually goes anywhere other than just bailing out Fisher for 3 years while he waits out whatever magic is gonna happen in LV

4) Reeeeeally wish Vivek read the room on this one

5) We could buy $30 lawn seats and catch a ball from Mike Trout or even better, [Austin] Slater, on a Wednesday night in Sac. That would be wild

The A’s are quick to point out that there weren’t many crowds of 10,000 on Tuesday nights in Oakland. (There was just one last year, during the final homestand of the season.) Still, Sacramento is a city attempting to use this three- to four-year run to audition for its own big league team. And if the A’s can’t sell out a minor league stadium in an area with established fans of the team, what does that foretell for their eventual move to Las Vegas, where the team is forecasting sellout crowds, including nearly 5,000 tourists per game — in a 33,000-seat stadium in an area with no connection to the A’s?

But that’s someone else’s problem, some other day. Three trips this week to Sutter Health — Sunday for the River Cats, Monday and Wednesday for the A’s — was a chance to watch big league baseball in a quaint, intimate ballpark. I thought it might be like venturing back in time, maybe what it felt like to watch a Philadelphia A’s game in 1907 at Columbia Park if Columbia Park had a state-of-the-art video screen that looks like an 86-inch television hanging from the wall of a studio apartment. This would be baseball back when games were just games and big league ballparks didn’t feel obligated to stock luxury suites with $300 cabernet and fist-sized prawns. Back to when every concession stand sold pretty much the same thing (at Sutter Health, each vendor has a set menu and one or two “specialty” items, like the pizza at Pizza & Pints) and fans could bring a chair or sit on the grass out in right field and dream of Mike Trout or Austin Slater.

Its charms are undeniable, but sustainable? The workers in the ballpark are all genial and helpful, thrilled with having major league baseball in their humble yard, but maybe we should check back in August. At the River Cats’ game Sunday, I spoke with an employee working in the team store who laid out the process of turning it from a River Cats’ store to an Athletics’ store over the course of roughly 24 hours. Starting at 5 p.m. Sunday, three overlapping shifts worked through the night and well into Monday, folding and packing and hauling out all the minor league gear, storing it somewhere she isn’t privy to, while hauling in all the big league gear, unpacking it, unfolding it and displaying it nicely enough that someone might feel compelled to forfeit $134.99 for an authentic JJ Bleday jersey.

As she detailed the process, and the time constraints, knowing this River Cats-to-A’s and vice versa conga will take place roughly every 10 days to two weeks over the next six months, I was beginning to feel stressed just looking at every cap, sock, T-shirt, bobblehead, Dinger the mascot doll and performance men’s half-zip pullover sweatshirt that awaited their attention.

“Will it get done?” I asked her.

She laughed.

“I guess it has to,” she said, “but I’m off tomorrow.”

And poof, just as there was no sign of the A’s on Sunday, there was no sign of the River Cats on Monday. Everything brick red and gold was replaced by something kelly green and gold. Even the sign proclaiming Sacramento’s Triple-A championships was replaced by one proclaiming the A’s nine World Series wins, five in Philadelphia and four in Oakland. But, like everything else involving the 2025 Athletics, there is no geographic designation. As the A’s know better than most, you are where you are until you’re where you want to be.

Continue Reading

Sports

What are torpedo bats? Are they legal? What to know about MLB’s hottest trend

Published

on

By

What are torpedo bats? Are they legal? What to know about MLB's hottest trend

The opening weekend of the 2025 MLB season was taken over by a surprise star — torpedo bats.

The bowling pin-shaped bats became the talk of the sport after the Yankees’ home run onslaught on the first Saturday of the season put it in the spotlight and the buzz hasn’t slowed since.

What exactly is a torpedo bat? How does it help hitters? And how is it legal? Let’s dig in.

Read: An MIT-educated professor, the Yankees and the bat that could be changing baseball


What is a torpedo bat and why is it different from a traditional MLB bat?

The idea of the torpedo bat is to take a size format — say, 34 inches and 32 ounces — and distribute the wood in a different geometric shape than the traditional form to ensure the fattest part of the bat is located where the player makes the most contact. Standard bats taper toward an end cap that is as thick diametrically as the sweet spot of the barrel. The torpedo bat moves some of the mass on the end of the bat about 6 to 7 inches lower, giving it a bowling-pin shape, with a much thinner end.


How does it help hitters?

The benefits for those who like swinging with it — and not everyone who has swung it likes it — are two-fold. Both are rooted in logic and physics. The first is that distributing more mass to the area of most frequent contact aligns with players’ swing patterns and provides greater impact when bat strikes ball. Players are perpetually seeking ways to barrel more balls, and while swings that connect on the end of the bat and toward the handle probably will have worse performance than with a traditional bat, that’s a tradeoff they’re willing to make for the additional slug. And as hitters know, slug is what pays.

The second benefit, in theory, is increased bat speed. Imagine a sledgehammer and a broomstick that both weigh 32 ounces. The sledgehammer’s weight is almost all at the end, whereas the broomstick’s is distributed evenly. Which is easier to swing fast? The broomstick, of course, because shape of the sledgehammer takes more strength and effort to move. By shedding some of the weight off the end of the torpedo bat and moving it toward the middle, hitters have found it swings very similarly to a traditional model but with slightly faster bat velocity.


Why did it become such a big story so early in the 2025 MLB season?

Because the New York Yankees hit nine home runs in a game Saturday and Michael Kay, their play-by-play announcer, pointed out that some of them came from hitters using a new bat shape. The fascination was immediate. While baseball, as an industry, has implemented forward-thinking rules in recent seasons, the modification to something so fundamental and known as the shape of a bat registered as bizarre. The initial response from many who saw it: How is this legal?


OK. How is this legal?

Major League Baseball’s bat regulations are relatively permissive. Currently, the rules allow for a maximum barrel diameter of 2.61 inches, a maximum length of 42 inches and a smooth and round shape. The lack of restrictions allows MLB’s authorized bat manufacturers to toy with bat geometry and for the results to still fall within the regulations.


Who came up with the idea of using them?

The notion of a bowling-pin-style bat has kicked around baseball for years. Some bat manufacturers made smaller versions as training tools. But the version that’s now infiltrating baseball goes back two years when a then-Yankees coach named Aaron Leanhardt started asking hitters how they should counteract the giant leaps in recent years made by pitchers.

When Yankees players responded that bigger barrels would help, Leanhardt — an MIT-educated former Michigan physics professor who left academia to work in the sports industry — recognized that as long as bats stayed within MLB parameters, he could change their geometry to make them a reality. Leanhardt, who left the Yankees to serve as major league field coordinator for the Miami Marlins over the winter, worked with bat manufacturers throughout the 2023 and 2024 seasons to make that a reality.


When did it first appear in MLB games?

It’s unclear specifically when. But Yankees slugger Giancarlo Stanton used a torpedo bat last year and went on a home run-hitting rampage in October that helped send the Yankees to the World Series. New York Mets star Francisco Lindor also used a torpedo-style bat last year and went on to finish second in National League MVP voting.


Who are some of the other notable early users of torpedo bats?

In addition to Stanton and Lindor, Yankees hitters Anthony Volpe, Austin Wells, Jazz Chisholm Jr., Cody Bellinger and Paul Goldschmidt have used torpedoes to great success. Others who have used them in games include Tampa Bay’s Junior Caminero, Minnesota’s Ryan Jeffers and Toronto’s Davis Schneider. And that’s just the beginning. Hundreds more players are expected to test out torpedoes — and perhaps use them in games — in the coming weeks.


How is this different from a corked bat?

Corking bats involves drilling a hole at the end of the bat, filling it in and capping it. The use of altered bats allows players to swing faster because the material with which they replace the wood — whether it’s cork, superballs or another material — is lighter. Any sort of bat adulteration is illegal and, if found, results in suspension.


Could a rule be changed to ban them?

Could it happen? Sure. Leagues and governing bodies have put restrictions on equipment they believe fundamentally altered fairness. Stick curvature is limited in hockey. Full-body swimsuits made of polyurethane and neoprene are banned by World Aquatics. But officials at MLB have acknowledged that the game’s pendulum has swung significantly toward pitching in recent years, and if an offensive revolution comes about because of torpedo bats — and that is far from a guarantee — it could bring about more balance to the game. If that pendulum swings too far, MLB could alter its bat regulations, something it has done multiple times already this century.


So the torpedo bat is here to stay?

Absolutely. Bat manufacturers are cranking them out and shipping them to interested players with great urgency. Just how widely the torpedo bat is adopted is the question that will play out over the rest of the season. But it has piqued the curiosity of nearly every hitter in the big leagues, and just as pitchers toy with new pitches to see if they can marginally improve themselves, hitters will do the same with bats.

Comfort is paramount with a bat, so hitters will test them during batting practice and in cage sessions before unleashing them during the game. As time goes on, players will find specific shapes that are most comfortable to them and best suit their swing during bat-fitting sessions — similar to how golfers seek custom clubs. But make no mistake: This is an almost-overnight alteration of the game, and “traditional or torpedo” is a question every big leaguer going forward will ask himself.

Continue Reading

Sports

St. Pete to spend $22.5M to fix Tropicana Field

Published

on

By

St. Pete to spend .5M to fix Tropicana Field

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The once and possibly future home of the Tampa Bay Rays will get a new roof to replace the one shredded by Hurricane Milton with the goal of having the ballpark ready for the 2026 season, city officials decided in a vote Thursday.

The St. Petersburg City Council voted 7-1 to approve $22.5 million to begin the repairs at Tropicana Field, which will start with a membrane roof that must be in place before other work can continue. Although the Rays pulled out of a planned $1.3 billion new stadium deal, the city is still contractually obligated to fix the Trop.

“We are legally bound by an agreement. The agreement requires us to fix the stadium,” said council member Lissett Hanewicz, who is an attorney. “We need to go forward with the roof repair so we can do the other repairs.”

The hurricane damage forced the Rays to play home games this season at Steinbrenner Field across the bay in Tampa, the spring training home of the New York Yankees. The Rays went 4-2 on their first homestand ever at an open-air ballpark, which seats around 11,000 fans.

Under the current agreement with the city, the Rays owe three more seasons at the Trop once it’s ready again for baseball, through 2028. It’s unclear if the Rays will maintain a long-term commitment to the city or look to Tampa or someplace else for a new stadium. Major League Baseball has said keeping the team in the Tampa Bay region is a priority. The Rays have played at the Trop since their inception in 1998.

The team said it would have a statement on the vote later Thursday.

The overall cost of Tropicana Field repairs is estimated at $56 million, said city architect Raul Quintana. After the roof, the work includes fixing the playing surface, ensuring audio and visual electronics are working, installing flooring and drywall, getting concession stands running and other issues.

“This is a very complex project. We feel like we’re in a good place,” Quintana said at the council meeting Thursday.

Under the proposed timeline, the roof installation will take about 10 months. The unique membrane system is fabricated in Germany and assembled in China, Quintana said, adding that officials are examining how President Donald Trump’s new tariffs might affect the cost.

The new roof, he added, will be able to withstand hurricane winds as high as 165 mph. Hurricane Milton, one of the strongest hurricanes ever in the Atlantic basin at one point, blasted ashore Oct. 9 south of Tampa Bay with Category 3 winds of about 125 mph.

Citing mounting costs, the Rays last month pulled out of a deal with the city and Pinellas County for a new $1.3 billion ballpark to be built near the Trop site. That was part of a broader $6.5 billion project known as the Historic Gas Plant district to bring housing, retail and restaurants, arts and a Black history museum to a once-thriving Black neighborhood razed for the original stadium.

The city council plans to vote on additional Trop repair costs over the next few months.

“This is our contractual obligation. I don’t like it more than anybody else. I’d much rather be spending that money on hurricane recovery and helping residents in the most affected neighborhoods,” council member Brandi Gabbard said. “These are the cards that we’re dealt.”

Continue Reading

Trending