Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company has commenced construction of certain new theme park attractions and other projects under contracts with various third parties. At December 31, 2020, excluding certain amounts related to the License Agreement with Sesame Workshop as described below, additional capital payments of approximately $72.0 million are necessary to complete these projects. The majority of these projects are expected to be completed in 2021 or 2022. License Agreements Pursuant to a license agreement (“License Agreement”) with Sesame Workshop, the Company pays a specified annual license fee, as well as a specified royalty based on revenues earned in connection with sales of licensed products, all food and beverage items utilizing the licensed elements and any events utilizing such elements if a separate fee is paid for such event. The Company’s principal commitments pursuant to the License Agreement include, among other items, the opening of a second stand-alone park (“Standalone Park”) no later than mid-2021 and minimum annual capital and marketing thresholds. After the opening of the second Standalone Park (counting the existing Sesame Place Standalone Park in Langhorne, Pennsylvania), the Company will have the option to build additional Standalone Parks in the defined territory within agreed upon timelines. The License Agreement has an initial term through December 31, 2031, with an automatic additional 15-year extension plus a five year option added to the term of the License Agreement from December 31st of the year of each new Standalone Park opening. As of December 31, 2020, the Company estimates the combined remaining obligations for the License Agreement commitments could be up to approximately $45.0 million over the remaining term of the agreement. In October 2019, the Company announced that it will convert Aquatica San Diego into its second Sesame Place Standalone Park in the spring of 2021. While construction began in the fall of 2019, it was temporarily paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company currently expects to open this park in 2022. As a result, depending on governmental restrictions in the state of California, the Company expects to reopen its Aquatica San Diego park in 2021 for its operating season. ABI has granted the Company a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the Busch Gardens trademark and certain related domain names in connection with the operation, marketing, promotion and advertising of certain of the Company’s theme parks, as well as in connection with the production, use, distribution and sale of merchandise sold in connection with such theme parks. Under the license, the Company is required to indemnify ABI against losses related to the use of the marks. Legal Proceedings Securities Class Action Lawsuits The Company received final court approval of settlement of a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 and August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC). The settlement required the Company to pay $65.0 million for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses. The settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $32.1 million of legal settlement charges, net of insurance recoveries, related to this case. The full settlement amount was funded during the year ended December 31, 2020. On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-01276-L-BLM, was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s former and present executive officers. The plaintiffs, which are investment funds managed by a common adviser allege, among other things, that the Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws and Florida common law, regarding the impact of the film Blackfish on SeaWorld’s business. The complaint further alleges that such statements were made to induce Plaintiffs to purchase common stock of the Company at artificially-inflated prices and that Plaintiffs suffered investment losses as a result. The Plaintiffs have indicated to the Company they believe the damages are in the range of $30 million to $35 million before considering interest. On October 19, 2018, Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the complaint. On February 7, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Florida state law claims as well as federal securities law claims based on the Company’s second quarter 2013 earnings statements. On May 1, 2019, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. The parties are in the process of completing discovery and will then have the opportunity to file any summary judgment motions per a scheduling order the Court issued which contemplates briefing into the summer and the fall. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. While there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, the Company believes that any potential loss would not be material. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit The Company received final court approval of a settlement of a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437 that was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the then Chairman of the Company’s Board, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company was a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company received $12.5 million of insurance proceeds from its insurers and adopted certain corporate governance modifications. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company recorded a legal settlement gain of $12.5 million related to insurance proceeds received in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income. Consumer Lawsuit On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW. The putative class consisted of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleged causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. The complaint sought restitution, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was dismissed and refiled in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification. The case was prosecuted by certain plaintiffs for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the plaintiffs’ standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all claims against the Company. The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took place in March of 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Court ruled that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs have elected not to appeal this decision and the time to do so has passed. Other lawsuits On or about October 9, 2018, the Company received a demand letter from attorneys representing 19 former employees who claim that the terms of their respective separation agreements entitle them to certain favorable modifications made to certain performance-vesting restricted shares issued under the Company’s 2013 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). The parties attended non-binding mediation on October 27, 2020. The claims were not resolved. On November 9, 2020, the Company filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware an action for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the threatened claims of the former employees are time-barred and without merit. In response, the defendant former employees filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay and compel arbitration. The parties are currently discussing participation in an arbitration. In terms of potential exposure, the value of the total shares at issue for these 19 former employees depends largely upon the Company’s current share price, which fluctuates daily. Approximately 300,000 shares are at issue. The Company believes that the former employees’ claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously its positions. While there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes that any potential loss would not be material. Other Matters The Company is a party to various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to audits, inspections and investigations by, or receives requests for information from, various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal-OSHA”), the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (“FWC”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In September 2018, the Company reached a settlement with the SEC relating to a previously disclosed SEC investigation. In connection with the settlement, without admitting or denying the substantive allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company agreed to the entry of a final judgment ordering the Company to pay a civil penalty of $4.0 million and enjoining the Company from violation of certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and certain rules thereunder. The settlement is recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2018 in the Company’s consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income. Other than those matters discussed above, from time to time, various parties also bring other lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. At this time, management does not expect any such known claims, legal proceedings or regulatory matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has commenced construction of certain new theme park attractions and other projects under contracts with various third parties. At December 31, 2020, excluding certain amounts related to the License Agreement with Sesame Workshop as described below, additional capital payments of approximately $72.0 million are necessary to complete these projects. The majority of these projects are expected to be completed in 2021 or 2022.

License Agreements

Pursuant to a license agreement (“License Agreement”) with Sesame Workshop, the Company pays a specified annual license fee, as well as a specified royalty based on revenues earned in connection with sales of licensed products, all food and beverage items utilizing the licensed elements and any events utilizing such elements if a separate fee is paid for such event. The Company’s principal commitments pursuant to the License Agreement include, among other items, the opening of a second stand-alone park (“Standalone Park”) no later than mid-2021 and minimum annual capital and marketing thresholds. After the opening of the second Standalone Park (counting the existing Sesame Place Standalone Park in Langhorne, Pennsylvania), the Company will have the option to build additional Standalone Parks in the defined territory within agreed upon timelines. The License Agreement has an initial term through December 31, 2031, with an automatic additional 15-year extension plus a five year option added to the term of the License Agreement from December 31st of the year of each new Standalone Park opening. As of December 31, 2020, the Company estimates the combined remaining obligations for the License Agreement commitments could be up to approximately $45.0 million over the remaining term of the agreement. In October 2019, the Company announced that it will convert Aquatica San Diego into its second Sesame Place Standalone Park in the spring of 2021. While construction began in the fall of 2019, it was temporarily paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company currently expects to open this park in 2022. As a result, depending on governmental restrictions in the state of California, the Company expects to reopen its Aquatica San Diego park in 2021 for its operating season.

ABI has granted the Company a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the Busch Gardens trademark and certain related domain names in connection with the operation, marketing, promotion and advertising of certain of the Company’s theme parks, as well as in connection with the production, use, distribution and sale of merchandise sold in connection with such theme parks. Under the license, the Company is required to indemnify ABI against losses related to the use of the marks.

Legal Proceedings

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

The Company received final court approval of settlement of a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 and August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC). The settlement required the Company to pay $65.0 million for

claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses. The settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $32.1 million of legal settlement charges, net of insurance recoveries, related to this case. The full settlement amount was funded during the year ended December 31, 2020.

On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-01276-L-BLM, was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s former and present executive officers. The plaintiffs, which are investment funds managed by a common adviser allege, among other things, that the Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws and Florida common law, regarding the impact of the film Blackfish on SeaWorld’s business. The complaint further alleges that such statements were made to induce Plaintiffs to purchase common stock of the Company at artificially-inflated prices and that Plaintiffs suffered investment losses as a result. The Plaintiffs have indicated to the Company they believe the damages are in the range of $30 million to $35 million before considering interest. On October 19, 2018, Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the complaint. On February 7, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Florida state law claims as well as federal securities law claims based on the Company’s second quarter 2013 earnings statements. On May 1, 2019, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. The parties are in the process of completing discovery and will then have the opportunity to file any summary judgment motions per a scheduling order the Court issued which contemplates briefing into the summer and the fall. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. While there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, the Company believes that any potential loss would not be material.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

The Company received final court approval of a settlement of a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437 that was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the then Chairman of the Company’s Board, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company was a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company received $12.5 million of insurance proceeds from its insurers and adopted certain corporate governance modifications. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company recorded a legal settlement gain of $12.5 million related to insurance proceeds received in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income.

Consumer Lawsuit

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW. The putative class consisted of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleged causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. The complaint sought restitution, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was dismissed and refiled in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification. The case was prosecuted by certain plaintiffs for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief.

The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the plaintiffs’ standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all claims against the Company. The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took place in March of 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Court ruled that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs have elected not to appeal this decision and the time to do so has passed.

Other lawsuits

On or about October 9, 2018, the Company received a demand letter from attorneys representing 19 former employees who claim that the terms of their respective separation agreements entitle them to certain favorable modifications made to certain performance-vesting restricted shares issued under the Company’s 2013 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

The parties attended non-binding mediation on October 27, 2020. The claims were not resolved. On November 9, 2020, the Company filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware an action for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the threatened claims of the former employees are time-barred and without merit. In response, the defendant former employees filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay and compel arbitration. The parties are currently discussing participation in an arbitration. In terms of potential exposure, the value of the total shares at issue for these 19 former employees depends largely upon the Company’s current share price, which fluctuates daily. Approximately 300,000 shares are at issue. The Company believes that the former employees’ claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously its positions. While there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes that any potential loss would not be material.

Other Matters

The Company is a party to various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to audits, inspections and investigations by, or receives requests for information from, various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal-OSHA”), the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (“FWC”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

In September 2018, the Company reached a settlement with the SEC relating to a previously disclosed SEC investigation. In connection with the settlement, without admitting or denying the substantive allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company agreed to the entry of a final judgment ordering the Company to pay a civil penalty of $4.0 million and enjoining the Company from violation of certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and certain rules thereunder. The settlement is recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2018 in the Company’s consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income.

Other than those matters discussed above, from time to time, various parties also bring other lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. At this time, management does not expect any such known claims, legal proceedings or regulatory matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.