Sunday, February 7, 2016

Well, at Least Super Bowls aren't as Expensive as the Olympics!

If you ask economists, Super Bowls can bring anywhere from significant to negative economic impact to a region.  If you ask me, they can have a small-to-moderate impact (nowhere near what the league claims) to some business owners for the 50,000-or-so out-of-towners they bring to your local hotels and restaurants.

The problem is, if you remember this outstanding journalism from the Star-Tribune, the NFL expects some damn much from local communities that host the game, that many of the public benefits of the game are negated by the borderline-absurd costs.

For a great summary, check out Neil deMause's "Super Bowl Windfall Myth."   Or the Wall Street Journal.  We also saw similar disappointments from some in Dallas, New York, Glendale, etc.

The Glendale case is particularly interesting, because it wasn't so much that there wasn't positive economic impact; it's that Phoenix captured it all, while Glendale (45min away) paid for the events!

That's why I was actually happy to see the story last week of San Francisco was reimbursing Santa Clara for approx. $4.8 million in Super Bowl 50 costs.

Tampa Bay actually saw a similar cooperation during the RNC, where Tampa shared some of the federal security dollars with St. Petersburg for an event at The Trop.  Maybe - just maybe - it would be possible for a regional collaboration on something baseball-related too, in order to minimize any negative financial impact across a larger pool of people????   (I won't hold my breath)

Anyway, if you're looking for a little more reading before tonight's billion-dollar commercial, here are some of this blog's other top Super Bowl posts over the years:





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

6 comments:

  1. UnknownFebruary 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM

    Again, shabby journalism with no factual proof of Super Bowl economics, just like his buddy Neil's artical...
    Again, it's not hard to grasp, 1 million people (http://www.wired.com/2016/01/govs-plan-keep-super-bowl-safe-massive-surveillance/), spending an average of $1k in town, take out corp profits & security, etc, how much out-of-town $ stays around?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noah PranskyFebruary 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM

      1M visitors to town is ludicrous.

      And you want factual proof? There's plenty to dispel all the pie-in-the-sky projections and claims from the leagues.

      Why do you trust economist paid by leagues over the independent ones?

      Sure, you can say this stuff, Dufala...but it doesn't make it true.

      Delete
    2. UnknownFebruary 12, 2016 at 11:49 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. UnknownFebruary 13, 2016 at 12:00 AM

      Sorry, but your "opinion" doesn't hold water...
      Wired estimated 1 mill, San Jose paper estimated 1/2 mill, CNBC estimated 1 mill. I, like most, would believe CNBC over you...
      And great rebuttal w/ still NO substance or facts...
      And I don't think asu is paid by the league, $700+ mill counted...
      https://azsuperbowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Economic-Study-2.pdf

      Delete
    4. Noah PranskyFebruary 17, 2016 at 5:46 AM

      Those weren't estimates; they were people lazily repeating the same crap claim.

      As for your crap study, did you read it?
      "Commissioned by the Arizona Commerce Authority in partnership with the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee"

      Delete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2016 at 3:07 PM

    Fact: Tampa reneged on some of its commitments to reimburse St. Petersburg for Romney-fest.

    Not a good selling point for regional cooperation.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)