News Archives

MetLife Stadium Nearly Had Retractable Roof, but New York Giants/New York Jets Passed Due to Price

February 2nd, 2013 at 6:30 AM
By Dan Benton

Super Bowl XLVIII is still more than a year away, but it's been shrouded in controversy since day one due to MetLife Stadium, home of both the New York Giants and New York Jets, being an outdoor stadium. Many fear NFL's biggest game will suffer because of cold temperatures and potential inclement weathers. Some have even gone as far as to call it "retarded."

'New Meadowlands Stadium' photo (c) 2010, section215 - license:

It's a concern that was taken into account while building the new Meadowlands stadium. Giants co-owners John Mara and Steve Tisch sat down with Jets owner Woody Johnson and the collective group considered a retractable roof. However, Tisch revealed on Friday that plan was scrapped due to the immense cost of said roof. It, alone, would have cost an additional $500 million to build.

At a cost $1.71 billion as of January 2013, MetLife Stadium was already the most expensive stadium ever built. The roof would have pushed it over the $2.2 billion mark.

Diehard fans would probably have hated a roof, but in this "Hey! Down in front!" era of Giants football, there's also likely a large contingent that would have loved it. However, New York/New Jersey football is meant to be played outside, so that was probably the best $500 million never spent.


Tags: Football, John Mara, MetLife Stadium, New York, New York Giants, New York Jets, NFL, Steve Tisch, Woody Johnson

4 Responses to “MetLife Stadium Nearly Had Retractable Roof, but New York Giants/New York Jets Passed Due to Price”

  1.  Dirt says:

    Haha I waited all day for this and he delivered as expected:

    Krow says:
    February 2, 2013 at 4:52 AM
    Have you seen those shirts? I mean … c’mon. I’d hate to see Cruz go, but if it means no more Young Whales then you have to consider it.

  2.  Hanshi says:

    I don’t understand the problem with a retractable roof. Football could still be played outside by simply opening the roof. The stadium could have been used much more by have year round events with the roof closed. Using the stadium more means increased revenue. Also, we would have had a chance at more Suoer Bowls without the idea being called retarded.

  3.  Dirt says:

    I’ve gone back and forth on the roof. If I were the owner I would have done it, and hosted Super Bowl and Final Four after Super Bowl and Final Four. But I love that it’s not there.

    It’s funny seeing comments on national articles on the Super Bowl next year. So many people seem upset. You know who’d be thrilled to go to such a game? The same people who’d be thrilled to host a Championship Game two weeks prior – fans in Green Bay, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New England, etc.

    And quite frankly, having a cold weather Super Bowl is all about fairness. Not to the owners, but to the fairness of play. These northern teams that play in these elements need to contruct teams to win their division in these elements. And then they often face the prospect of playing a fair weather team on their terms for the championship. Why shouldn’t it be the other way around sometimes?

    Weather is the reason, by the way, I bet the proverbial house on Baltimore over Denver a few weeks back. There was simply no way Peyton Manning was going to play like the normal Peyton Manning at home in January in his new digs.

    •  Dirt says:

      I forgot to say that since I’m not the owner, I’m glad there’s no roof. (Bonus for me is that my seats are now covered by the stadium’s solar panels!)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: