The Proposed Downtown Albany Soccer Stadium: Potential Risks and Benefits

Developers have proposed building a soccer stadium as part of a redevelopment of an underutilized section of Albany’s downtown, Liberty Park, near the MVP arena, often called “the parking lot district.” The proposal would include a 7,500-seat stadium, along with commercial development and up to 1,000 new housing units. Although details of the project proposal have not been made available to the public, one report indicates that the project sponsors are seeking $150 million in public support from the state, city, and county towards the $600 million project.

In this post, I take a closer look at the proposal, with its potential impacts, benefits, and risks. In it, I examine the financial viability of the proposal.

What is Being Proposed?

Sponsors of the project are:

• United Sports Development Partners (USDP): Formed by partners who worked on Centreville Bank Stadium in Pawtucket, RI, USDP would be the majority owner of the stadium and real estate development. They have a partnership with the United Soccer League (USL).
• Local Developers: Local investors, including developer Jeff Buell and Ed and Lisa Mitzen of Business for Good, are minority owners in the project.
• Kewsong Lee: Albany native and financier Kewsong Lee, a major investor in USDP through his firm Belltower Partners, has also invested in the USL and joined its board as vice chair.

The stadium and teams

• Capacity: A 7,500-seat outdoor stadium designed for professional soccer, expandable to accommodate up to 13,000 for concerts and other events.
• Architectural design: The global design firm Populous was hired to create the master plan and stadium design. Renderings show a modern facility anchoring a park-like setting.
• Usage: The stadium is envisioned for year-round activity. Sponsors claim the facility would host more than 100 events annually, including soccer, concerts, lacrosse, rugby, and an outdoor winter skating rink.
• Soccer tenants: The plan is for the stadium to host a men’s USL League One team and a women’s USL Super League team. USDP would be the majority owner of the stadium, while local investors would be minority owners of both the stadium and the teams. 

Mixed-use development

• Housing: The proposal includes approximately 1,000 new housing units to be built on the site and within a five-block area over five years.
• Historic preservation: Part of the plan includes the rehabilitation of eight landmark buildings within the development area, including the 1728 Van Ostrande-Radliff House.
• New construction: Two new mixed-use buildings would also be constructed as part of the project.
• Amenities: The development is planned to include retail and restaurant space to serve both residents and event-goers. 

Financial and lease arrangements

• Total cost: The overall project is estimated to cost around $600 million.
• Funding request: The developers have sought public funding, with one report suggesting a request of approximately $150 million. According to an article by Chris Churchill that appeared in the Albany Times-Union, “That number is … are you sitting down?… about $150 million, plus or minus a tenner or two. Most of that sum would be for the stadium, while about $30 million, Buell said, is needed for Liberty Park infrastructure work.” The developer’s proposal has not been officially released to the public.
• Ground lease: A key component of the financial model is a proposed 99-year ground lease with Capitalize Albany Corp., which allocates 3% of top-line revenue to the lease fee and a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT).
• Infrastructure investment: The developers have committed to investing over $25 million in infrastructure upfront, regardless of who develops the site. 

Related Public Financing Resources

In Governor Hochul’s 2025 State Budget, $400 million is provided for the “Championing Albany’s Potential” initiative. The proposal includes $200 million for planning and implementing projects to boost commercial corridors, strengthen small businesses, promote housing growth, and revitalize underutilized real estate and open spaces. Developers have met with public officials to secure funding through the Governor’s initiative to support the proposed development.

If the reported $150 million in state funding requested for the stadium is accurate, it raises concerns. The developers are apparently requesting $150 million out of a total initiative of $200 million. This project will primarily benefit the private entities that own the franchises, leaving little funding for other crucial revitalization efforts, such as infrastructure improvements, housing, and commercial development across various areas.

The Factors That Make Downtown Albany a Less Attractive Location

Downtown suffers from a shortage of new or converted housing aimed at young professionals, creatives, and mobility-oriented residents. Many buildings are older commercial stock or partly vacant. Large-scale conversion incentives targeting office-to-residential transitions, fast-track permitting, small-unit, artist-friendly housing, and live-work spaces could help.

The Hudson River waterfront and the ribbon of downtown facing it remain under-activated — they lack continuous mixed-use, lively ground floor/retail, good pedestrian/bike connectivity, and destination programming. Active waterfront spaces attract residents, events, and tourists; they also improve quality of life, raise property values, and make the city more competitive for significant investments. While the state is considering alternatives to improve I-787, the strategy should encourage the creation of mixed-use waterfront blocks, a continuous public realm walk/bike link, pop-ups/festivals, and water-oriented venues (e.g., an outdoor amphitheater, kayak launch, riverfront dining).

Downtown has fewer new economy spaces (co-working, maker spaces, creative studios, local food halls) than might be optimal for attracting younger talent and boosting foot traffic in non-traditional hours. These uses extend activity beyond business hours, fill gaps between major anchor events, and make downtown more resilient. The strategy should incentivize the conversion of underused commercial buildings into creative/office hubs, provide small-business storefront grants for ground-floor retail, and incubate hospitality/entertainment businesses.

Mobility remains oriented toward cars, and downtown parking remains a cost/risk. For major event circuits (sports + concerts), efficient transit, pedestrian access, and multi-modal parking are critical. If access is poor, attendance suffers, peripheral venues get skipped, and downtown feeding cycles (retail, hotel, dining) don’t maximise. Albany should consider launching a mobility hub near the stadium/event district that integrates park-and-ride, shuttle, bike share, and converting some surface parking into mixed-use, and improving bus/rail links for event nights.

Analysis of the Stadium Proposal

The proposal raises significant questions that need to be addressed before the project is funded:

First, the proposal as reported requests far more public funding than is typical for similar stadium projects. Public contributions to comparable projects were less than $60 million, with most below $ 40 million.

Second, the claimed benefits of the proposed minor league soccer franchise for Albany are uncertain. The history of local professional sports teams shows a pattern of failure.

Why Professional Sports Franchises Have Failed in Albany

Small media market: The Capital Region is a relatively small media market, which can make it difficult for minor league teams to generate sufficient revenue through ticket sales, sponsorships, and media deals.

Divided loyalties: The Capital Region is geographically close to several major sports cities, including Boston and New York City. The loyalties of many sports fans are already committed to franchises like the New York Yankees, New York Giants, or Boston Red Sox, leaving less dedicated support for local minor league teams.

Market saturation: Several minor league teams competing in the same sport at the same time may have split the fan base. For example, the Albany Choppers, Capital District Islanders, and Adirondack Red Wings were all minor league hockey teams competing simultaneously in the 1990–1991 season.

Affluent, white-collar demographics: The Capital Region’s population is more white-collar, while the traditional minor league sports fan base has typically been more blue-collar. The region’s higher average income also makes day trips to see major league teams in New York or Boston a reasonable alternative for fans. 

Business and financial instability

Cost of operation: Teams have cited financial issues as a reason for relocating. When the Albany Devils left in 2017, their parent club reported seven-figure losses operating the team, partly due to the high cost of doing business in New York State.

League and ownership instability: Many of Albany’s former teams were part of leagues that experienced financial instability and folded, taking the local franchise with them. This was the case for both the Arena Football League and its second-tier league, af2, which both collapsed after having successful franchises in Albany.

Unstable ownership: Some teams, such as the Albany Empire, failed due to poor ownership. In 2023, majority owner Antonio Brown was unable to pay league fees and fines, leading to the team’s mid-season expulsion and dissolution.

Although United Soccer League (USL) teams have performed better than other professional teams in Albany, there is a meaningful possibility of failure. Examples are the San Diego Loyal and RGV Toros, which ceased; Fresno FC and Austin Aztex folded; Harrisburg City Islanders/Penn FC went dark. The league itself has undergone several reorganizations, most recently in 2019.

Third, the developer’s estimate of stadium usage on 100-plus dates is unrealistic. Men’s soccer teams might use up to 17 home dates if a USL Championship league is located here. A women’s team in the USL Super League would have 14 home games, totalling 31 dates. The current average attendance at USL games is about 2,500.

There is Strong Competition from Existing Entertainment Venues

There is very little data available on the number of concerts at comparable stadiums. One venue that has published data available is Segra Field in Leesburg, Virginia, which reported five dates in 2023.

Big tours prefer amphitheaters with 25k+ capacity lawns, fixed rigging, and Live Nation/AEG routing. A 7,500-seat soccer stadium can host shows, but shows will skew toward mid-scale artists, multi-artist package nights, and festivals—unless stadium owners invest in turnkey staging, power, loading, and quick field protection.

Concerts at the proposed soccer stadium would face intense competition from existing venues in the area. The Saratoga Performing Arts Center hosts over 100 performances annually and is a major stop for major tours. Additionally, the MVP Arena is another significant venue, generating more than $28 million in annual sales. Moreover, outdoor concerts in the region are limited to May through September due to climate constraints. While there are opportunities for other types of events, such as high school games and local festivals, competition from these established venues, along with the 31 possible soccer dates, makes it unlikely that the stadium would reach 100 event dates.

Other Events

The developers have proposed several potential uses for the facility, leading to a realistic estimate of 55 to 90 days of usage per year.

A hypothetical model based on reasonable assumptions suggests that the facility’s financial viability is unlikely at 65 event days per year. The model projects an annual operating loss of $1.2 million. To improve the chances of the stadium operating at break-even or achieving profitability, several measures would need to be implemented: ticket sales and/or prices would have to increase, facility fees would need to be established, more events would need to be secured, and sponsorship revenue would have to grow.

Funding Recommendations

1. Public subsidies should be capped to reduce risk to public dollars and to reflect the fact that stadium benefits would primarily accrue to the soccer franchises. Public contribution for stadium construction should be modest relative to total cost — e.g., no more than 15-25% of total stadium cost. This aligns with best-practice guidance, for a $75 million stadium like the one proposed for Albany, a $15 million subsidy could be justified.
2. Public support should be contingent on Performance: Release public funds in tranches tied to milestones — financing closed, construction complete, first full season, minimum event utilisation achieved. Include clawback if the team relocates or fails to operate.
3. Public funds should focus on infrastructure/enabling works, not just the core stadium shell: Public dollars should go toward site clean-up, utilities, roads, transit access, parking, and downtown public realm improvements that benefit the district broadly. The stadium shell and operations are higher-risk and should attract more private capital.
4. The majority of stadium funding should come from private sector developers. The club/owner should commit significant private equity/debt, naming rights/sponsorship deals, and other revenue sources (concerts, high school/college games), and bear downside risk.
5. Transparent public cost/benefit modeling should be used in the decision process and made available to the public: The city/state should publish anticipated incremental tax revenues, occupancy/rental rates, event-day spending, risk scenarios, and contingency planning (e.g., weather, team performance). Multiple independent studies show that stadiums often do not deliver significant public economic benefits.
6. Use tax-increment financing (TIF) or special district revenue rather than a broad general fund: If the stadium is part of a downtown district strategy, capturing incremental tax or surcharge revenues from events/hospitality may reduce the impact on existing taxpayers.

Conclusion

While a soccer stadium in Albany could pose challenges, it could also play a role in a comprehensive redevelopment strategy. However, the proposal shares many similarities with existing entertainment/sports venues. These venues boost local business activity by drawing in visitors, but they do not guarantee a stable local population that consistently spends money in the area.

The primary concern about the proposal, aside from the appropriate level of public assistance, is the relatively high risk of failure for the soccer franchises. Albany has had few sports franchise successes. If the stadium attracts a USL League One franchise, the project is unlikely to be financially viable with reasonable usage estimates. Still, its ultimate success depends on strong private financial backing, effective management, and the development of partnerships to maximize stadium usage.

To effectively support Albany’s redevelopment strategy while minimizing risk to public funds, if a decision is made to support the proposed stadium, the project’s financing should primarily come from private sources. The government’s contribution should be limited to 15-20% of the total stadium development costs and should focus specifically on necessary public infrastructure. Ownership of the stadium should be private to prevent the government from assuming potential deficits or the burden of meeting debt service. Finally, any government support should be contingent upon achieving measurable performance outcomes.