On June 16, mayoral candidate Josh Kraft unveiled an internal document allegedly sourced from City Hall, which revealed staggering projections for the city’s share of the costs associated with the White Stadium rebuild.
These projections suggested costs exceeding $170 million, nearly double the previously estimated figure of $91 million.
In response to Kraft’s revelations, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s office was quick to deny the document’s authenticity, claiming it did not originate from City Hall.
Wu herself echoed this sentiment a few days later, stating she was uncertain about the source of Kraft’s figures and expressed a desire to understand their origin better.
However, the mayor later confirmed that the document did, in fact, come from City Hall but insisted the figures represented a “worst-case scenario” intended solely for contingency planning.
This raises a critical question: If Wu believes there are more accurate projections than those labeled as “worst case,” should she not disclose these figures and the assumptions behind them to the taxpayers responsible for funding the project?
The situation is complicated further by federal economic factors. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump raised the tariff on imported steel and aluminum to 50 percent, alongside other construction material tariffs, which could lead to significant price increases affecting the White Stadium project.
Given this backdrop, expectations of the city’s financial commitment could potentially soar to $170 million or higher.
However, the overall cost is only part of the equation, as major concerns surrounding the viability of the investment are being raised.
First, the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) season restricts the use of the new stadium’s natural grass fields during its run from mid-March to mid-November, which means the stadium would be largely unavailable for Boston’s high school football teams, except for a possible postseason game.
Rocco Zizza, the coach of the Boston Latin Academy football team, expressed this predicament, stating, “That’s always been our home field. We’re basically a team without a home right now.”
Secondly, the proposed lease agreement between the city and Boston Unity Soccer Partners is set for only 10 years, an unusual duration given the typical expectation of a 30-year commitment for a major stadium investment.
In the scenario that the new NWSL team achieves success and chooses to seek a larger venue by 2035, the city could be left with a state-of-the-art stadium to maintain independently or forced to make additional investments down the line to accommodate expansion.
Third, concerns arise regarding the proposed seating capacity of the new White Stadium, which is planned to hold only 11,000 spectators.
If constructed, it would rank as the second smallest in the NWSL, barely surpassing the venue in Cary, North Carolina, which is in talks for a new stadium in downtown Raleigh.
With the current median capacity for NWSL stadiums at 21,100 seats, many argue that Boston, a significant market with a vibrant sports culture, deserves a more appropriately sized facility capable of growth over time.
The new soccer team has already agreed to share Gillette Stadium with Greater Boston’s Major League Soccer team, the Revolution, during its inaugural 2026 season.
Why not consider sharing the new MLS stadium slated for Everett in the future? Nine NWSL teams have successfully shared a stadium with local MLS franchises.
Additionally, sharing with the Revolution would not only provide a venue better suited to promoting women’s soccer in Boston but could also serve as a more financially prudent option for the city.
Fourth, it should be emphasized that the facility needs of Boston Public Schools diverge significantly from the requirements of the NWSL team.
Depending on the necessary features and scale, it should be feasible to construct a first-class field with appropriate amenities for a total cost between $5 million and $30 million.
Fifth, community concerns raised by residents from neighborhoods including Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, Mattapan, and Roslindale highlight the importance of considering environmental impacts, noise, traffic pollution, and parking, issues that remain inadequately addressed in the current proposal.
At the very least, taxpayers in Boston deserve transparency about the potential costs associated with this controversial project.
If Mayor Wu asserts that the $172 million estimate is misleading, she owes it to the public to provide a clearer and detailed figure, along with its underlying assumptions.
Government accountability and transparency in financial matters demand nothing less than full disclosure.
image source from：bostonglobe
