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:
- Look Out, Tampa's Chasing Another Super Bowl
- New York Hosts a Much Better Super Bowl Than Tampa*
- The NFL's Secret Super Bowl Demands
- You Can Make an Economic Impact Report Say Anything
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook