Frequently Asked Questions

Last updated: March 2004

Q. What? They want to get rid of Fenway Park?

A. The team's former owners wanted a new baseball stadium built across Yawkey Way from the current park. According to their plans, the land would be taken by eminent domain and all of Fenway Park would have been demolished with the land sold to developers.

New owners named in December 2001, led by John Henry and Tom Werner, have stated that they would prefer to renovate Fenway Park rather than build a new stadium. They have been reviewing all options, including the possibility of building a new stadium, however. A final decision has been pushed back several times while the team conducted structural studies and now continues to make changes to the park.

Q. Don't the Sox already have their new stadium approved and ready to build?

A. Although the Massachusetts legislature approved $100 million in July 2000 for related infrastructure for a stadium in the Fenway neighborhood, the Red Sox’ former ownership failed to secure private financing for stadium construction work and the team was put up for sale.

The Red Sox also needed a two-thirds majority vote from the Boston City Council to approve city funding and forced land takings by eminent domain. In October 2001 the Boston City Council voted 7-6 to oppose any eminent domain land takings in the Fenway for a new stadium.

Furthermore, recent decisions in Massachusetts courts have questioned the constitutionality of using the extraordinary government powers of eminent domain for privately-owned sports stadiums.

Overcoming all of these obstacles could prove to be very difficult for current or future Red Sox ownership should they decide to build a new stadium.

Q. Don't the Red Sox need a new stadium to stay competitive with the rest of the League?

A. The Red Sox are competing quite well in the current Fenway Park. They have the second-best record in all of baseball since the advent of free agency in 1975, and were able to sign Manny Ramirez to the second-largest contract in baseball history at the time. Their payroll is second to the Yankees’ and they ranked 4th in total stadium revenues according to information released by Major League Baseball during Congressional hearings in December 2001. Their earnings are projected to rise to second in the league this year.

Game attendance is at an all-time high at Fenway as other stadiums, including the new ones, are faced with declining attendance. In this off-season (2003/4) the Sox broke their own pre-season ticket sales record.

It seems that historic Fenway is becoming more and more popular with fans each year as a unique and authentic baseball venue. It is also a mistake to think that a new stadium automatically translates into team success. In 2001, Fenway Park was more profitable than Camden Yards, Jacobs Field, Pac Bell Park, Turner Field, Coors Field, Enron Field, the Ballpark in Arlington, Miller Park, Bank One Ballpark, PNC Park and Comerica Park according to the data released to Congress.

With the implementation of revenue sharing in Major League Baseball, a new stadium could also become a monumental risk with no upside. On the one hand, if the new stadium debt is too high and attendance slacks off, the debt could choke the team's finances. On the other, if the stadium were successful, the team would have to give up as much as 75% of its increased revenue to league revenue sharing programs.

Q. What about competing with the Yankees?

A. As television revenues increase, the importance of stadiums to the financing of team payrolls dwindles. For this reason, the Yankees, who play in America’s largest and most lucrative media market, will always have more team revenue than the Red Sox and everybody else. Even so, in 2001, due to the strong revenues brought in by Fenway Park, the Red Sox had the highest payroll in baseball.

Q. Why would you want to save Fenway Park? Its seats are way too small, there aren't enough rest rooms, and the paint is flaking.

A. Fenway Park is a national treasure, with a rich history. It is the top tourist attraction in Massachusetts, and it is currently enjoying record attendance levels even following dramatic ticket price increases. For true fans, it is the best place in the world to watch a baseball game.

At the same time, we understand that Fenway Park has some inadequacies. That's why we are promoting a ballpark renovation that meets fan demands for better amenities as well as team revenue needs. And the all-new seats in a renovated Fenway Park would keep fans much closer to the action than they would be at any proposed new stadium, or any stadium built in the last decade.

Q. What would a renovated Fenway Park feature?

A. The new owners have made good on their promise to make the park more comfortable. Expanded concourses at Gates B and C in right field and at Gate E have allowed for increased concession stands, a picnic area and more restrooms. More seating has been added on the field and on the right field roof. But by far, the most exciting change of all is the addition of seats on top of the Wall in left field. (See the ‘In the Media’ section for links to articles.)

Q. Wouldn't renovation cost more than building a brand-new stadium?

A. Studies by stadium architects and engineers have shown that a renovated Fenway Park could cost hundreds of millions less than the previously proposed new stadium. Estimates for renovation range from $165 to $300 million, while the new stadium's cost was recently estimated at over $700 million. Renovation does not require the expensive and unpopular land-takings and public subsidies that would come with the proposed new stadium.

Q. Where would the Red Sox play while they renovate Fenway Park?

A. As shown by the tremendous changes to the park during the off-season and when the team is on the road, play can continue at Fenway without affecting fan comfort. More dramatic changes could take place in future off-seasons while other renovations could allow the team to continue to play at Fenway with reduced seating for one or two seasons. Reduced revenues during the years of renovation are easily made up because renovation would be completed years sooner than a new stadium would be, bringing more new revenues faster.

Q. The ticket prices at Fenway Park keep going up. Won't a new stadium help make ticket prices more affordable?

A. There is no reason to believe that ticket prices would decrease in a new stadium. Ticket prices have skyrocketed at every new stadium built over the past decade, and the huge expense of building a new stadium for the Red Sox would require the team to maximize any potential revenue opportunity. This could mean personal seat licenses, luxury box fees, parking taxes outside the stadium, and ever more expensive Fenway Franks and other concessions, as well as higher ticket prices.

Q. So, with all the work done on the park, isn’t it saved?

A. Until the “Harrington Plan” (the plan to build a new stadium in the Fenway neighborhood) is declared dead, there is still a great threat to the ballpark. Terrific changes have been made to the experience of a game at Fenway this season; the park is popular and the team is winning. The Red Sox have a unique product in a market flooded with imitations and hype. They have fans that know baseball and who don’t need gimmicks to lure them to the park. Fenway is the Red Sox’ home and has proved itself both as a financial engine and emotional touchstone for the team and its fans. Between the recent improvements and the ideas for its future, Fenway can last well past its 100th anniversary. But we still need to speak for it, and need your help to do so.