The NFL claims that the "lucky" city that hosts the Super Bowl will see a $400, $500, or as much as $650 million boost to the local economy. With potential revenues that high, it would be a no-brainer to host a Super Bowl in your city, even if it means building a new stadium. The Super Bowl is a mega-event so it isn't hard to imagine the event bringing in that kind of money on a national scale. But sadly, the validity of the NFL's claim is probably just not accurate as it relates to just the host city. Nobody has been able to prove that the NFL lied or distorted the actual value of a super bowl, simply because it is next to impossible to track where every dollars is spent and where it goes.
As a city considers hosting a Super Bowl it is important to look at the physical dollars it can bring in, but also the things you can't measure e.g., future tourism and an improved national image. Three years before Hurricane Katrina was the last time New Orleans had hosted the Super Bowl. After a long recovery from a decimated city, New Orleans reemerged strong, bigger, and better than ever before. The best way to showcase this improvement is by hosting the biggest game in football. Last weekend 100+ million Americans were able to see these changes. The city of New Orleans proved to the nation on Sunday that it was back (well...besides the power outages) and ready to be a destination for good food, an exciting atmosphere, and a place everyone should visit!
You can't put a dollar sign on that.
I think you are right in saying that hosting a Super Bowl is mostly just about showing that you can host a Super Bowl. Especially considering that almost all of the stadiums they are playing in aren't paid off yet.
ReplyDeleteI think as both of you note the "so what?" question is an important one when dealing with the cost issue? Even if hosting does cost money, so what? Isn't there some amount of money that is worth it? Now maybe one could argue that it is unfair to non-sports fans to impose a cost on them. Maybe it is, but that's a separate issue it seems.
ReplyDeleteI do think that it would be slightly more honest, as you both indicate, to simply treat it as an expenditure on a special event. The problem then is not the cost, but rather the misleading sense that it may be a big benefit. The question is, is this worth it even if there is no benefit?
I think Dr. Herron's point is interesting that there is a gap between the money earned by bringing the Super Bowl to town and the money lost by hosting it. This net number then is very interesting. Since many people who could care less about the Super Bowl have to pay the price of their city hosting it, how, if at all, are they reimbursed that money? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how cities actually distribute any profit they may make and whether the only benefit is for football fans in the city or if everyone at least comes out even.
ReplyDeleteThere is a high cost associated with it if you live in the city. I mean if you really don't care about football then living near the Super Bowl host site would be like living near an airport, just a lot of noise. However, the 2012 PGA Championship was hosted in Charleston, and as a huge golf fan I was in heaven, but I know a lot of people that didn't really enjoy golf went for the social aspect. Going to a round of golf is a lot different than going to a single football game, as going to a round at the PGA Championship is a all day event and you are walking around. However, many of the people who lived near the course did not enjoy the extra traffic.
ReplyDelete