Should San Diego ask the Padres to cover more Petco Park expenses?

San Diego City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera said that he is pushing to slash the city's share of Petco Park expenses while the budget is still in flux.

Elo-Rivera is taking aim at the city's ballpark contract with the Padres. The agreement requires the city to pay for police services outside the venue, event traffic control and 70% of ballpark ownership costs. The Padres pay for game-day venue expenses, police services in the ballpark and traffic control service that exceed the contract's defined baseline.

In the upcoming fiscal year, San Diego expects to spend $18.5 million on Petco Park-related expenses and bring in a little more than $8 million in revenue (the city takes a cut of non-baseball events). Online criticism from fans argued that any change would push the Padres to leave the city.

The San Diego Padres organization argues Petco Park generates $1 billion in economic input, supports more than 13,500 jobs, and has contributed $23 million to the city's general fund through revenue sharing on non-baseball events over the past five years.

It’s unclear if the city can spend less on Petco Park expenses without first amending its agreement with the Padres. Yet a policy analyst with the city hinted that there might be some wiggle room in the agreement when it comes to police services.

Question:Should San Diego ask the Padres to cover more Petco Park expenses?

Economists

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The current budget crisis does not alter the commitments that the city of San Diego made when it entered into a JUMA (joint use and management agreement) with the Padres years ago. Even if some city leaders believe that the terms of JUMA are overly favorable to the Padres, the team is not obligated to absorb more expenses to help the city address its shortfall The Padres are surely going to point out the team's large economic impact on the region.

Ray Major, economist

NO: The city is responsible for Petco Park related expenses and should continue to pay them. This is another example of financial extortion of local businesses to make up for the mismanagement of the city's budget. Petco Park and the Padres are an important economic driver to the regions economy, contributing more than their fair share through interrelated economic activity, supporting 13,500 jobs and generating millions of dollars to the city's general fund each year.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

YES: San Diego should ask, since Petco Park is publicly owned and lease terms give the city some bargaining leverage. But subsidies will likely remain necessary to retain the Padres. Economists are generally skeptical that civic pride benefits justify the costs, but voters consistently reveal a willingness to pay. Stopping the race-to-the-bottom by cities seeking to attract teams would require federal action, such as capping subsidies and tax breaks.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: While proper to re-examine the financial arrangement with the Padres for Petco Park maintenance, the city is obligated to fulfill the terms of the agreement until 2031. Petco Park was built to stimulate and revitalize parts of downtown. The Padres’ successful operations generate considerable economic impact, increasing hotel, restaurant and other visitor revenues for the city. The Padres already pay major costs for maintenance and operations, and not being there would be a significant financial loss to the city.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: But the new contributions should be modest and negotiated in good faith. The city's contract with the Padres calls for the city to cover the costs of police services outside the ballpark. If we unilaterally revoke this, we risk a breach of contract lawsuit. I think it's reasonable to ask the Padres to help cover the unanticipated increases in those expenses. But we should also remember the contribution the ballpark has made to revitalizing downtown.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: A legally binding contract should be 100% honored as written. Only if terms are ambiguous would renegotiation make sense. Measuring the true economic impact of a sports franchise is difficult, and most cities ultimately subsidize teams on the assumption they create jobs. But those jobs are typically low‑wage positions, worsening housing affordability by expanding the pool of workers who struggle to keep up with rising living costs.

Executives

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: The Padres aren't responsible for solving the city's budget deficit. The team operates under a long-standing contract with the city. Instead of targeting a business that creates jobs, drives economic activity and contributes to local revenue, city leaders should focus on fiscal discipline and core services. The city has a spending problem, not a Padres problem, so any necessary cuts should start with city government itself.

Mark Kersey, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

NO: The Padres fund substantial police and public safety costs associated with activity inside the ballpark. The city is responsible for policing public streets and maintaining safety in the surrounding public areas, which are part of the city's contractual obligations and its core duty to public safety. If City Hall is serious about fiscal accountability, it should examine its own spending first, starting with City Council office staffs that have grown by 47% over the past six years.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: With the city facing major budget pressures and the Padres now a multibillion‑dollar franchise, it's reasonable to seek a more balanced cost‑sharing arrangement. This isn't about ignoring or violating the existing contract; the city must honor it. But public‑private agreements are routinely renegotiated when financial conditions change, and asking the Padres to assume more expenses is an appropriate, good‑faith request.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: Petco Park has been an economic success for downtown, but the contract with the city appears overly generous to the Padres, especially given the city's fiscal condition. When San Diego faces persistent deficits, it is reasonable to revisit whether taxpayers should continue subsidizing police, traffic and ownership costs at this level. That does not mean dismantling the partnership. A negotiated adjustment that gradually shifts more operational expenses to the team while preserving the broader economic relationship would be appropriate and fiscally responsible.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: But with a caveat. An agreement is a contract and if both parties negotiated an appropriate and legal contract, it should be binding on both parties. If there is a legal opening in the agreement to renegotiate, both parties should be able to use it as appropriate. Of course, if the Padres wanted to help in this situation, even if temporarily, I’m sure that would be appreciated.

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: The contract negotiated with the Padres ownership was fair to all parties at the time, and San Diego has control over its city budget. Unless the Padres acknowledge any reasons to reopen the contract, then it should stay as is until the renewal date. This is especially true with new ownership coming to town.

Not participating this week:

Gary London, London Moeder AdvisorsAlan Gin, University of San Diego

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published May 28, 2026 at 3:25 PM.