This week, apparently bored by the lack of action on field in East Rutherford, we saw an outpouring of coverage for "the true benefit" of a Super Bowl.
From Meghan Barr with the Associated Press:
Kate Martin, general manager of the Hotel Chandler in midtown Manhattan, said the hotel was only 50 percent booked during Super Bowl weekend, with fewer than usual bookings lined up for the week preceding the game.From Crain's New York:
"All of the anticipation and the hype about what this was going to bring for hotels in New York City has not materialized," she said....
"You can't say that a Super Bowl is going to put New York on the map," he said.
“The Super Bowl probably didn’t generate the $500 million in economic activity that the host committee claimed based on a study that wasn’t credible enough to be released.”From Neil deMause on Sports on Earth:
[T]he state of New York alone will spend $5 million on advertising for Super Bowl-related events, leaving the only benefit as … advertising New York City as a place that's brutally cold in the winter?Neil, don't forget all the free advertising New Jersey got for its transit problems! Oh good, you didn't.
Oh, and turns out hard look at the tangible effects of a major event works for the Olympics too. NPR posted a couple of interesting stories on the post-Olympic ugliness in Athens and London:
"Most countries end up with a lot of debt, a lot of white elephants, and quite a bit of infrastructure investment that is not ideal for the type of development needs that the city has," says Andy Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College in Northampton, Mass.
Zimbalist says this is a direct result of the way Olympic bidding works.
The International Olympic Committee pits one city against another. In each city, construction and architecture firms that stand to profit from the games push local leaders to make higher bids and more ambitious plans.