FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Updated: 6/1/2025 – 10:51 p.m.
The roughly $168 to $175 million dollar stadium is alleged to have had up to $700 million in tax subsidies with $48 million sourced from Real Estate Property Taxes.
“The stadium was sold to the voters as a sales tax only burden to be paid through the 30-year Sales Tax. So how did we end up subsidizing the operations of a stadium off the backs of the low and fixed-income property owners? Sheer incompetence, that’s how.” – Commissioner Joshua Wostal.
Tampa, FL/12:58 p.m. — A growing concern among Hillsborough County taxpayers is shedding light on a funding structure surrounding the Raymond James Stadium, home to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Contrary to what was sold to the public during the 1996 sales tax referendum, recent disclosures reveal that property taxes, not just sales tax revenues, have been subsidizing stadium operations for decades.
According to public records published on Facebook by County Commissioner, Joshua Wostal, extending from fiscal year 1999 to 2024, a total of $48,150,685.00 in taxpayer subsidies is a portion of what has supported the stadium and was sourced directly from real estate property taxes, a mechanism that many now argue was neither clearly communicated to voters nor in line with the spirit of the original agreement.
The 1996 Interlocal Agreement
In 1996, Hillsborough County Commissioners and members of the Tampa City Council at the time signed an interlocal agreement intended to fund the new stadium through a 30-year half-cent sales tax. The measure, approved by voters under the belief that it would solely rely on this sales tax, was heavily marketed as a self-contained funding vehicle that would not tap into local property tax revenues.
However, embedded within the interlocal agreement was a financial provision that allowed for real estate tax contributions should the sales tax revenues fall short. This clause has been activated repeatedly over the last 25 years, turning what was once billed as a sales-tax-only burden into a broader taxpayer-funded endeavor.
The Subsidy Breakdown
The subsidies are categorized into two primary forms:
- Operating Subsidies: These cover ongoing operational costs of the stadium.
- Real Estate Tax Subsidies: These have been used to relieve the Sports Authority’s property tax obligations and indirectly support stadium operations.
While more than $48.1 million in subsidies have already raised questions about fiscal oversight, the controversy centers on the real estate property tax contributions. Funds that many taxpayers did not anticipate would be used in this capacity.
Commissioner, Joshua Wostal Speaks Out
County Commissioner, Joshua Wostal has been vocal about what could arguably be describes as a betrayal of public trust. In a recent social media post, Commissioner Wostal stated, “The stadium was sold to the voters as a sales tax only burden to be paid through the 30-year sales tax. So how did we end up subsidizing the operations of a stadium off the backs of the low and fixed-income property owners? Sheer incompetence, that’s how.“
The Commissioner also criticized the original agreement, asserting that the funding mechanism disproportionately benefits wealthy stakeholders, namely the Glazer family, owners of the Buccaneers, at the expense of the county’s most financially vulnerable residents. “The damage: “$48.15 million in expected property tax expenses.” The result: “poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer,” Commissioner Wostal added.
A Poor Deal for the People?
Critics, both past and present, have labeled the deal as one of the worst public-private partnerships in Tampa’s history. The structure effectively shifts financial risk from the franchise owners to taxpayers. This has drawn scrutiny not just for the amount of money involved, but for the principle of using essential public funds — like property taxes — to underwrite private sports operations.
Analysts argue that such subsidies reduce funding available for core public services like education, infrastructure, and affordable housing. The use of property taxes also disproportionately affects low-income and fixed-income homeowners, who may already struggle to meet their tax obligations.
Call for Transparency and Reform
The renewed scrutiny around this issue has prompted calls for more transparency, reform, and possibly legal review of the 1996 interlocal agreement. As more details come to light, advocates are urging county leaders to reexamine existing agreements and ensure that future public-private ventures prioritize taxpayer protections.
The situation also raises broader questions about how municipal governments communicate financial commitments to voters, and whether more stringent oversight mechanisms should be put in place to prevent similar issues in the future.
While Raymond James Stadium stands as a landmark of sports and entertainment in Tampa, the financial architecture behind its existence reveals a more sobering reality — one where promises to voters gave way to long-term financial obligations that continue to burden Hillsborough County residents nearly three decades later.
Media Contact:
The People’s Olive Branch
702-302-6225
info@peoplesolivebranch.com
https://peoplesolivebranch.com
Sources: Interlocal Agreement between Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, and Tampa Sports Authority (1996); Tampa Bay Times archives, 1996–1997; Hillsborough County Budget Office; Florida Department of Revenue.
