Chicago Bears dilemma: stay in Illinois or move to Indiana?

An exciting and memorable season came to an end Sunday night at historic Soldier Field. As the Chicago Bears were rightfully cheered off the field by more than 61,000 freezing, loyal fans, it was time to turn the page.

For one of the NFL’s founding franchises, the real work now begins — not on the field, but in the boardroom. At their headquarters in Lake Forest, the Bears’ focus shifts to a decision that could redefine the organization’s future: remain in Illinois or cross the Skyway into neighboring Indiana.

Before offering opinions on what the Bears should do during this pivotal moment, it is important to understand one fundamental truth — one I have shared repeatedly in interviews and conversations over the years.

The Chicago Bears, like companies such as Kellogg’s (formerly Kellanova), AON, and McDonald’s, are businesses.

While their product is played on a football field, the Bears are ultimately a profit-driven corporation obligated to act in the best interests of their long-term financial sustainability.

In fact, the Bears have always been a business.

In 1921, George Halas — later known as “Papa Bear” — received $5,000 from the Staley Starch Company and permission to move the team to Chicago. That transaction laid the foundation for what would become one of the most iconic sports franchises in American history.

So who can blame the Bears for “shopping around”?

Remaining at Soldier Field — a city-owned venue — significantly limits revenue opportunities. The profit margins are far lower than those enjoyed by other franchises that control their own stadiums and surrounding developments.

Just look a few miles north at Wrigley Field.

The Chicago Cubs and the Ricketts family transformed not only a stadium, but an entire neighborhood. Through the creation of a mixed-use development, Wrigleyville became one of the earliest and most successful examples of how sports, entertainment, real estate, and tourism can function together as a powerful economic engine.

The Bears’ longtime rivals, the Green Bay Packers, followed a similar blueprint.

By modernizing historic Lambeau Field and creating the Titletown District, the Packers developed a year-round destination that generates revenue far beyond eight or nine home games. In 2025, the organization reported revenues exceeding $700 million, allowing continued reinvestment into both football operations and the surrounding community.

This mixed-use model — first envisioned in Arlington Heights and now being explored in Northwest Indiana — is exactly what the Bears are seeking.

A potential move across state lines should not surprise anyone.

This is not new in professional sports.

The New York Giants did it in 1976 when they built their stadium in New Jersey. More recently, the Kansas City Chiefs made national headlines by announcing plans to move from Kansas City, Missouri, to Kansas City, Kansas.

The motivation? A domed stadium and a massive mixed-use district — with the state of Kansas offering to cover up to 70% of the total cost.

Under that proposal, the Chiefs would retain stadium revenue, naming rights, and year-round event income. It’s a deal that reflects how states like Kansas — and now Indiana — are thinking long-term.

Yes, the public investment is substantial. But the return can be transformative.

A professional franchise does not bring only eight or nine NFL games per year. It brings concerts, Super Bowls, college football championships, bowl games, international soccer matches, conventions, tourism, hospitality jobs, and permanent commercial development.

As a Chicago resident and homeowner, I strongly believe Illinois must make a serious effort to keep the Bears here — not solely out of civic pride, but because retaining the franchise makes sound economic sense.

This isn’t just about football.

It’s about business.