That gets me too.
Years ago, most cities had one stadium which was shared by both the major league baseball and NFL teams. And in some cities, major college football teams played there too.
Then, somewhere along the way, it was decided that each team needed their own stadium. I don’t know who decided that this has to be that way, but in recent years, separate stadiums have been built for baseball and football almost everywhere.
I think Oakland is the only remaining stadium used for both major league baseball and NFL football. The Raiders are planning to move out anyway, so then there will soon be none.
I think that, if a city is in the stadium business, IF they choose to be involved, then it makes the most sense to have one stadium and have all your outdoor sports teams play there. That way, the stadium is used regularly from early April to early January, when occupied by baseball and football teams. How does it make sense, dollars and sense, to have a football stadium used once a week for only a few months out of the year??
On the other hand, if teams finance their own stadiums, none of us can say anything if public money isn’t involved.
“Years ago, most cities had one stadium which was shared by both the major league baseball and NFL teams. And in some cities, major college football teams played there too.”
—
You are going waaaay back,I guess.
Separate stadiums and,or baseball fields are needed IMHO.
Actually, most cities started out with separate venues for football and baseball, such as in Chicago, which has two baseball and one football stadium. Then, sometime in the late. 50s or early 60s, certain cities started to build multi-use stadia, such as Three Rivers Stadium and its equally ugly sister in Cincinnati.
As these stadia aged, owners threatened to move if they didn’t get single-use venues, and cities & states capitulated to the owners’ demands, even when the citizens vote no, as what happened in Pennsylvania.