Colorado state Sen. Jordan Carter said Tuesday that Virginia should make its own decision on stadium financing for the proposed Northern Virginia Stadium Act, while also arguing that the Dynamic Football League has a broader problem with how its franchises are distributed across the country.

In a press release issued from Denver, Carter said he was not urging Virginia lawmakers to copy Colorado’s approach to stadium policy. Instead, he said the Commonwealth should decide for itself how to handle future requests, particularly because Virginia already has four DFL franchises.

Carter, identified in the release as a Democratic senator from Denver and the Minority Leader of the National State Legislature, pointed to Colorado’s earlier handling of its own stadium issue. He said Colorado included protections for small businesses in its legislation, including setting aside 35% of contracts for Colorado small businesses, a local vendor right of first refusal, clawback enforcement, and annual public reporting.

According to the release, Carter said those provisions were “the right call for us,” but added that Virginia’s situation was Virginia’s to decide. He framed his comments less as a recommendation on the pending bill itself and more as a warning that the standard Virginia sets now could shape how later financing requests are handled.

“With four franchises already in the Commonwealth, Virginia's legislature should think decisively about how it handles stadium financing requests, because this bill won't be the last one,” Carter said in the statement. He added that whatever standard is established should be applied evenly if the state’s other teams seek similar support in the future.

The comments come two days after Governor Short introduced the Northern Virginia Stadium Act, according to the recent issue timeline provided with the release. No additional details about that bill were included in Carter’s statement.

Carter then separated the Virginia policy question from a larger critique of the league’s footprint. In the release, he said the DFL has “a real geography problem,” arguing that major population centers and media markets remain unrepresented while four teams are concentrated in one state.

He specifically pointed to the absence of teams in California, New York, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest. Those regions, he said, represent some of the country’s largest potential fan bases and media markets. By contrast, he argued, the current concentration of four franchises in Virginia shows that the league is “leaving a lot of the map on the table.”

Carter did not call for any specific immediate action by the league, and his statement said the question belonged to the commissioner’s office and prospective ownership groups rather than to Virginia lawmakers. His remarks appeared aimed at highlighting a strategic business issue for the DFL as much as a political issue around stadium financing.

The release did not indicate any response from Virginia officials, the league office, or team owners. It also did not describe any active expansion proposal in the markets Carter named.

Carter represents Denver’s Capitol Hill district in the Colorado State Senate. His biography describes him as a progressive lawmaker with a focus on enforcement language and accountability provisions in legislation. In the release, that same emphasis was reflected in his discussion of Colorado’s contract rules, clawback measures, and reporting requirements tied to stadium policy.

While the statement did not attempt to intervene directly in Virginia’s legislative debate, it placed Carter among the out-of-state lawmakers publicly commenting on the implications of the Northern Virginia Stadium Act. His argument was twofold: that Virginia should adopt a clear and consistent financing standard for all of its DFL teams, and that the league itself may face longer-term questions about whether its franchise map matches the country’s biggest markets.

For now, Carter’s comments add another political voice to a discussion that reaches beyond one stadium bill. In the release, he cast Virginia’s decision as a state matter, but suggested the broader conversation could eventually force scrutiny of how the DFL balances local deals with national reach.