The fallout of the Rays’ decision to walk away from the deal to build a $1.3 billion stadium contains many more questions than answers, and plenty of tough choices ahead for the MLB club, the league, and Tampa-area political leaders. 

Foremost among those questions following the collapse of the ballpark deal is what happens to the Rays. There are several primary potential paths for the club, each of them riddled with complications. Here are the leading options.

A New Stadium Deal in Tampa Area

The Rays suggested a desire to construct a revised pact that “serves the best interests” of all involved. MLB, similarly, said in a statement that commissioner Rob Manfred “will continue to work with elected officials, community leaders, and Rays officials to secure the club’s future in the Tampa Bay region.” The league has long been reluctant to give up on a growing locale that has become the No. 11 U.S. media market in Nielsen rankings. 

There’s immediate resistance to a new stadium pact, however, from local leaders, who in multiple cases likened the split with the Rays to exiting a bad marriage. “Why would I go back to the same [ownership] group and trust them this time?” said St. Petersburg (Fla.) Mayor Ken Welch. “That bridge has been burned.” Other area leaders such as Tampa Mayor Jane Castor struck a cautious tone, and she said any new ballpark proposal in that city “has to make sense for our taxpayers and community.”

Sell the Team

There’s already growing pressure for Rays owner Stu Sternberg to do exactly that, with some within MLB growing more frustrated with the ongoing delays and drama. Welch, for his part, said he would restart the stadium talks with a different owner. “If there’s a new ownership group, I’m perfectly willing to have those conversations,” he said.

The Rays, though considering potential sales of minority club positions, insist they are not parting with a controlling stake.

“The team’s not for sale,” Rays president Matt Silverman said on WDAE-FM. “I think Stu gets a bad rap, because he is the only guy for the last 20 years who has defended Tampa Bay, who has stood up for this market, who says we need to figure something out here.”

Those sentiments haven’t stopped a growing collection of prospective bidding groups from forming and publicly expressing their interest in buying the Rays.  

Relocate: Orlando? Nashville?

There have been only two MLB club relocations since 1971: the Expos moving from Montreal to Washington in late 2004 to become the Nationals, and the ongoing, two-stage shift of the A’s from Oakland to Sacramento and ultimately Las Vegas.  

An Orlando-based group, the Dreamers, has quietly sought an MLB club for several years but are amplifying their pitch for the Rays to move by just about 100 miles. The group announced Friday it has private commitments of more than $1 billion toward a $1.7 billion domed ballpark. Baseball Hall of Famer Barry Larkin recently joined the Orlando effort as an ambassador.

Numerous other cities such as Nashville, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, Montreal, and Charlotte have either made formal pitches for an MLB club or have been discussed as potential market candidates. A club relocation, however, could complicate long-term league expansion plans, and outside of Orlando, would also likely require a sizable recalibration of MLB’s territorial map and local media footprint—an issue that complicated the Nationals’ situation for 20 years.

Do Nothing

The Rays will play this season at George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, the spring training home of the Yankees, and want to return to hurricane-damaged Tropicana Field in 2026. It’s not yet certain, however, whether that repair timetable is possible. Even if it is, the team’s lease there expires after the 2027 season. 

Striking even a short-term extension for additional seasons at the city-owned Tropicana Field is problematic. Without an ownership change, St. Petersburg could be reluctant to approve another lease deal, and regardless of who owns the club, the revenue-generating ability of the facility is limited at best. 

Cheryl Miller feels for Caitlin Clark. She understands the feeling of being “hated” for on-court success.

Miller, a three-time College Player of the Year from 1984 to 1986, dominated the women’s basketball scene at a time when the WNBA did not exist. Women’s basketball was only starting to gain its footing, joining the Summer Olympics in 1976. But her skill warranted detractors.

“I know what it’s like to be a Black woman and hated because of my color. I can’t imagine this young lady. I don’t want to use ‘hate,’ but ‘despised,’” Miller told Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson on the All the Smoke podcast.

The Caitlin Clark Effect

Clark’s arrival in the WNBA has driven record ratings and attendance to the league:

• Viewership: up 113% on ESPN, up 133% on Ion vs. 2023 season
• Attendance: up 47% vs. 2023 season
• Expansion: 16 teams by 2028 (12 last season)

This growth has put the players in position to ask for a significant wage increase in their next collective bargaining agreement that starts in the 2026 season. But it has also brought more hate, both for Clark and against her peers. 

Miller called out those who have a problem with the attention the young star has received.

“Is she getting hyped? Yes. But she was in the backyard. She was putting in the same time, sometimes maybe more than you were. I can’t fault her for what she was given. … You big dummies. You [are] getting paid now, right? Everybody now has an opportunity to pull up their chair and have a seat [at the table],” Miller said.

Miller, who coached both Clark and Angel Reese at the 2024 WNBA All-Star Game, said the two “got along so well” as teammates. She recognized that the two are being pitted against each other—in part because of their race differences—but thinks it’s good for the league.

“They never got caught up into it. And those two are the foundation of the great stories and narratives coming out of the NCAA now flooding the [WNBA], which helps the [WNBA],” Miller said. 

Last year, WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert spoke about the rivalry between the two and, like Miller, compared it to the NBA’s classic rivalry between Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.

“It is a little of that Bird-Magic moment, if you recall, from 1979, when those two rookies came in from a big college rivalry, one white, one Black. And so we have that moment with these two. But the one thing I know about sports, you need rivalry,” Engelbert said.

But Engelbert received backlash for her comments, including from top WNBA stars and WNBPA executive director Terri Jackson.

The International Olympic Committee is about to select its next leader, but it’s U.S. politics as opposed to the organization’s own that are driving much of the process. 

The U.S. is assuming an even more dominant position in the Olympic movement with Los Angeles set to host the 2028 Summer Olympics, Salt Lake City to stage the 2034 Winter Olympics, and the Philadelphia-based Comcast this week extending its rights deal that funds much of the competition. 

Because of that, IOC president candidate Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr. says forging ties with Donald Trump is critical—even as the U.S. president is sparking global angst, including in many sectors of sports, through a heightened trade war with competing tariffs. 

“It has to be a priority,” Samaranch told the Associated Press. “The United States is today one of the most, if not the most, important partner.”

Trump’s current term will include the upcoming Games in Los Angeles. 

Different Generations, Different Sentiments

Samaranch, the son of the late former IOC president of the same name, is one of seven candidates to succeed the resigning incumbent Thomas Bach, and a selection is due to be made next week at scheduled committee meetings in Greece. Samaranch’s openly pro-U.S. stance, however, is a notable departure from his father. 

More than a generation ago, the elder Samaranch frequently clashed with U.S. politicians, particularly late Arizona Sen. John McCain, following the bribery scandal surrounding the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City. The U.S. Senate ultimately called Samaranch to Capitol Hill to testify about the issue, and what was viewed as harsh treatment there was later cited by the then–U.S. Olympic Committee as a factor derailing a Baltimore-Washington joint bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics.

The younger Samaranch, however, sees an opportunity to align with Trump around the unifying power of the Olympics. 

“We are a beam of hope for humanity. That is how I feel,” he said. “We were very much alone before President Donald Trump took office. Our message is more powerful than ever.”