Bengals, Bears could (in theory) come together and pay for a stadium in Chicago

New York (OK, New Jersey) has two teams. Los Angeles has two. If London ever has one, it likely will have two.

What about Chicago?

The market currently supports two teams in the sport that used to be America's pastime. And with the Bears getting nowhere when it comes to finagling taxpayer funding for a new stadium, the solution could come from having a second team play there.

Instantly, the inventory of games would double, from 10 to 20. It would become much easier for the Bears (and possibly the other team, unless it's just a tenant) to pay for the building with minimal public assistance.

Enter the Bengals. They're less than three months away from the final countdown to the expiration of their lease at Paycor Stadium. During the league meetings this week, executive V.P. Katie Blackburn said the quiet thing out loud — after 2025, the Bengals can go wherever they want to go.

It's easy to come up with a list of cities that currently have no NFL teams. But the best outcome for the Bengals, and the Bears, could be to partner up in a new Chicagoland stadium. Lakefront or Arlington Heights. Wherever. The revenue from 20 NFL games each year, along with everything else that could be hosted in a fixed-roof building, should be able to pay for the building.

The chances of ths actually happening are low. In theory, it's possible. And with the political winds blowing more and more strongly against subsidies for football teams worth upwards of $10 billion or beyond, it might take brash creativity to solve the current stadium situations for the Bears.

And the Bengals.