D.C. strikes $3.7 billion deal to bring Commanders back to RFK Stadium

It was almost 30 years ago that the Washington Commanders left D.C. for a suburban Maryland stadium, but the team has now signed a deal worth $3.7 billion to return to what team officials call its “iconic spiritual home” on the site of the former RFK stadium.

The deal signed Monday by Mayor Muriel Bowser and team owner Josh Harris – which still requires approval by the D.C. Council – would return the Commanders by 2030 to a new 65,000-seat roofed stadium, surrounded by a mix of hotels, parks, housing, retail, a new indoor sports facility, and 8,000 parking spots. 

“It’s a fantastic deal, a win-win-win for the city, the team, and the fans,” said Bowser at a rowdy presentation on Monday morning alongside Harris and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. 

Under the terms of the proposed deal, the Commanders would pay at least $2.7 billion to build the new stadium, in what team and city officials call the “single largest private investment” in D.C.’s history. For its part, the city would invest some $1.1 billion in taxpayer funds over a decade, including $500 million to prepare the 174-acre site for development; $202 million for infrastructure, including a study on a possible new Metro station; $181 million for parking facilities; $89 million for a new indoor sportsplex for public use; and a later $175 million that would be reinvested in additional parking

“We are thrilled to welcome the Commanders home,” said Bowser. “We said that we could do it all – Commanders, housing, park space, recreation, retail, entertainment, and more – and together that’s what we are delivering.”

D.C. officials say that much like what Nationals Park did for Navy Yard (the $670 million price of which  was almost fully paid for by taxpayers), a new Commanders stadium would both anchor and fuel development on the entire site – which the city got expanded control over earlier this year after gaining congressional approval. 

The proposed deal envisions a plaza district just west of the stadium, where the team could host game-day events. There would also be two areas of the site, the Riverfront District and Kingman Park District, where much of the housing and retail would be focused, as well as a 30-acre stretch along the Anacostia River that would remain undeveloped and used for public access. The sports fields currently located on the site would remain. 

D.C. officials estimate that the site could eventually boast 5,000 to 6,000 new homes – enough to house some 10,000 people – with 30% set aside for modest-income residents. They also say that it could produce tens of thousands of temporary and permanent jobs, bring additional tax revenue to the city, and serve to reorient the local economy amidst a shrinking federal government footprint. 

“Right now, as our economy is shifting, this is something we really need, because we need jobs and we need growth,” said Bowser.

But significant questions remain about D.C.’s investment in the stadium deal, especially since it comes as the city faces challenging finances in years to come – and immediate spending cuts spurred by the House of Representatives’ inaction on fixing a $1 billion hole it created in the city’s current budget. 

While the Commanders would become the master developer of the site – including the parcels where retail and residential development will occur – it isn’t yet clear whether D.C. will have to invest additional costs in actually building those out. Moreover, D.C.’s investment will only study whether a new Metro station is needed to serve the site – if one is, building it would require more funds.

Questions like these are bound to drive criticism of the deal, including among members of the D.C. Council, some of whom have already asked whether any public money should be used at all. (They were not involved in negotiating the deal.)

“I support a stadium and welcome the return of our football team, but without the investment of public dollars. The devil is in the details. Is this really going to cost us close to $1 billion? What capital programs, if any, are being displaced from our budget? The council will look at these questions carefully,” said Council Chairman Phil Mendelson last week. 

But lawmakers won’t have much time: the deal signed by Bowser and Harris requires the council to act by July 15, adding a significant amount of work to a two-month period that will already include consideration of the city’s 2026 budget and a vote on a revised budget for the current years that incorporates the spending cuts caused by Congress.

“I think that you can both be a fan of the Commanders and love football and realize this is a bad deal for D.C. and for taxpayers,” says Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen, who has argued against putting a stadium since at least 2023. “It will be the second highest public subsidy for an NFL stadium since 2009. They're not going to headquarter here. It's more than 8,000 parking spots, no investment in Metro, and we're giving the Commanders all the rights to develop the land for I think $1 a year.” 

There will also be outside pressure, including a proposed ballot initiative that would prohibit the RFK site from being used for a stadium. A coalition of opponents to public financing known as No Billionaire’s Playground will be hosting a public event on Tuesday to outline their case against the proposed deal. 

Ed Lazere, a spokesman for the coalition and former council candidate, says that without a stadium the RFK site could accommodate up to 15,000 new homes. “A stadium at RFK would mean giving up the chance for 10,000 housing units, including 3,000 affordable, at a time when DC is not funding any new affordable housing construction,” he said.

D.C. officials are keenly aware of the potentially negative optics of using public funds to build a football stadium for a team owned by a billionaire, and say the deal is structured to put more of the onus on the team. (The deal comes less than a year after D.C. agreed to invest $515 million in keeping the Capitals and Wizards at the Capital One Arena.)

City officials say a large part of the city’s investment – $500 million – will come from repurposing an existing tax on businesses that was used to pay for Nationals Park, with $181 million for parking coming from Events D.C., the city’s sports and convention authority. Additionally, they say $175 million for parking will come after 2032, and be funded by tax revenue from the stadium and new development. As for the $202 million for infrastructure, they say they would have to spend that regardless of what goes on the site.

In a presentation, D.C. officials said the city’s public investment would be 24% of the total cost of the project – less than what taxpayers are putting into similar football stadiums in Buffalo, Jacksonville, and New Orleans. They are also pledging to use the stadium and the surrounding area far more than is often the case for the NFL: 10 to 20 additional large-scale events a year, with 200 overall “activations” of the site annually.

At the event on Monday morning, Bowser said the new stadium would serve the critical role of shifting the city’s economy away from the federal government, where the city is estimated to lose some 40,000 jobs.

“Our job is to replace economic activity for 40,000 people. If we don’t make some changes, they may not have jobs, they may not live here,” she said. “It starts with a catalytic investment at RFK. When you need to add revenue, you can’t leave [174] acres vacant. If you need to add jobs, you cannot wait for an anchor to show up to start developing there. When you want to attract business, you have to be about business.”

Allen, though, believes that RFK could be developed as a neighborhood without a stadium.

“Walk through The Wharf, walk through NoMA, walk through Mount Vernon Triangle, walk through Union Market," he says. "Any number of neighborhoods that we have been very intentional about helping build to create new homes, new businesses, thousands and thousands of jobs. You don't need a stadium. None of those neighborhoods have a stadium as an anchor. You don't need the stadium to be an anchor. The stadium is a luxury item."

While it remains to be seen how councilmembers break on the deal – some were only learning of the details on Monday – at least four seem initially onboard: At-Large Councilmembers Kenyan McDuffie and Anita Bonds, Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto, and Ward 7 Councilmember Wendell Felder. The deal will need seven votes to pass the council.

When asked whether he backed the deal for the RFK site, which is in his ward, Felder made it plain: "Unequivocally."

"Ward 7 is the only ward in the District that has no anchor. If this deal passes, that will have an immeasurable impact on Ward 7, the growth of the ward, and it will signal it's a new day for residents."