Connect with us

News

It’s been a rollercoaster few years for Six Flags. Can Travis Kelce help?

Published

on

It’s been a rollercoaster few years for Six Flags. Can Travis Kelce help?

Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce says he grew up going to Six Flags parks and wants to help make them special for the next generation of families.

Reed Hoffmann/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Reed Hoffmann/AP

Travis Kelce, the Kansas City Chiefs tight end and fiance of Taylor Swift, sparked jokes and hopes this week when he announced his investment in the embattled amusement park company Six Flags Entertainment.

The football star, alongside two corporate executives, teamed up with JANA Partners to purchase a combined stake of about 9% of Six Flags’ shares, making them one of its largest shareholders, according to Tuesday’s news release.

JANA Partners is an activist investment firm, meaning it buys a substantial stake in a company’s equity in order to push for changes — both operational and managerial — it believes will benefit that company.

Advertisement

“Couldn’t pass up the opportunity to continue the tradition and make Cedar Point and Six Flags even more special for the next generation of families!” Kelce wrote on Instagram. “So crazy to even imagine this is real, but you gotta love it when life comes full circle.”

Kelce also shared home video clips of himself as a child enjoying the rides at Cedar Point, the 364-acre amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio, that he and his brother (and retired pro footballer) Jason grew up going to every year, as the two enthusiastically reminisced in an episode of their New Heights podcast. Kelce, who grew up in a suburb of Cleveland, calls himself a “lifelong Six Flags fan.”

Cedar Point’s former operator, Cedar Fair, merged with Six Flags in 2024 to become the largest amusement park operator in North America, touting 42 parks across the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

At the time, many amusement parks — and Six Flags especially — were struggling to increase attendance in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Park analysts and enthusiasts hoped the merger would lower ticket costs, raise revenue and make it more competitive against industry heavyweights like Disney and Universal.

But that hasn’t been the case, says Dennis Speigel, CEO of the consulting firm International Theme Park Services.

Advertisement

“As this merger occurred, I think the due diligence was probably done a little too quickly and it had a lot of flaws in it,” he told NPR. “And then it was also impacted by what I call the external factors: weather, economy, uncertainty of what’s happening in geopolitical areas.”

Six Flags now has $5.3 billion in debt. Its CEO, Richard Zimmerman, is set to step down by the end of the year, after it reported a net loss of $100 million for the second quarter of 2025 and combined attendance down 9% year-over-year. It is shuttering one of its parks — Six Flags America in Bowie, Md. — in early November and is expected to close another in Santa Clara, Calif., in 2027.

Speigel is hopeful the new shareholders will get Six Flags back on track. And while he was initially surprised to learn of Kelce’s involvement, he says it makes sense because “he’s at the zenith of his career in football … and in love.”

“Having a name like that be associated with Six Flags at this point in time, when they’ve gone through quite a few years recently of negativity, speaks well to their future and what they’re looking to do,” he says. “Obviously, he’s a younger person. He speaks to the teens, the young adults and the young adults with families. And that’s the Six Flags audience.”

Kelce’s fame — and high-profile love story — have boosted businesses before. Swift is credited with increasing female NFL viewership and ticket sales as their relationship unfolded. And, in recent days, his social media announcement has been flooded with fans’ pleas for a Swift-themed park, or at least a rollercoaster.

Advertisement

Six Flags’ rocky ride 

Six Flags opened with the “Six Flags Over Texas” park in 1961, and for years was one of America’s most iconic theme park companies (along with Disney). But for the last decade, Speigel says, it has been “a ship at sea without a captain.”

“I would have to say [out of] the top five or six operators during the last couple of years, Six Flags has suffered the most,” he says.

Six Flags has had four CEOs since 2015.

It shifted its pricing strategy in 2022 to target a more affluent demographic, confusing and alienating core customers in the process. And in recent years, a number of high-profile ride malfunctions have stranded and even injured visitors. This year, extreme temperatures and economic uncertainty drove attendance down even further.

“To see Six Flags have fallen off the precipice and down to where it is now, it’s sad,” Speigel says. “And everybody in the industry, competitors and alike, are all rooting for their return and their comeback.”

Advertisement
Visitors dance under a "Welcome Back" sign at Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia, Calif. in 2021.

Visitors arrived to a “Welcome Back” sign at Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia, Calif., when it reopened after the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021.

Jae C. Hong/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Jae C. Hong/AP

Advertisement

What might change? 

JANA Partners said in its announcement that it plans to engage with Six Flags’ management and board of directors “regarding opportunities to enhance shareholder value and improve the guest experience.”

NPR has reached out to Jana Partners for more information about its goals but did not hear back by publication time.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the investment firm wants to “modernize technology, refresh leadership and evaluate a potential sale as ways to boost the company’s share price.”

In a statement shared with NPR, a Six Flags spokesperson said it appreciates the perspectives of shareholders and takes their feedback seriously.

Advertisement

Speigel says Six Flags’ debt could force the new investors to take “some drastic measures,” like selling some of its parks, either to commercial real estate or even private equity groups. And he stresses that foot traffic is key in the industry.

“We live on repeat visitation, and repeat visitation is driven by capital improvements, new rides and attractions, dark rides, the new technologies,” he says. “So we have to hopefully see the growth from that.”

Speigel says even though U.S. amusement parks may not be experiencing the same rate of growth that they did several decades ago, they still attract some 400 million visitors each year — most of whom don’t care who owns a park as long as their experience is clean, fun and safe.

He hopes JANA recognizes Six Flags, and the industry in general, as “the last real bastion of family fun in the United States, in fact globally, where a family can go as a total unit. And I hope they put their capital behind that and lift it out of the ashes where it is now.”

Advertisement

News

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Published

on

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict. 

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.” 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Advertisement

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Advertisement

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.” 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.” 

“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.” 

“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.” 

Advertisement

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.

There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority. 

“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Published

on

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Advertisement

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending