This certainly didn't get much attention - mainly because the Marlins immediately dismissed the opportunity - but the Marlins had the opportunity to secure the full $420 million for their new, retractable-roof ballpark. An online casino was willing to foot the entire bill in exchange for the naming rights. Here's a quote from the Herald:
Other sources indicated that the site would be willing to foot the bill for the entire project (not just to bridge the gap). I found this link, but I'm unable to view it.
Keep this in the back of your mind the next time the threat of the Marlins relocating to Las Vegas looms. I find it hard to believe that the Marlins would move to Sin City - where not only is gambling legal, but there's also sports wagering (and legalized prostitution in neighboring counties)- when they wouldn't accept a substantial amount of money to fund their new ballpark (in exchange for naming rights) from an online casino. Something doesn't add up here.
Granted, Internet gambling is, at best, quasi-legal. Plus, it sounds like the site that offered the money offers sports gambling. But realistically, any public money that's raised in Las Vegas/Clark County to build a new ballpark is going to include dollars that were at one point used to wager on sports.
Why would the Marlins turn down Internet gambling money to fund a stadium in Florida, but consider moving to the gambling capital of North America?
It's certainly not that they're opposed to casinos in general. Miccosukee Casino ads cover the stadium. Billy the Marlin's air boat race even features their casino and their steak dinner. There's clearly more to the story.