My initial reaction as a local is "please god no" just because of how badly it affects traffic and how terribly our stadium is located (and it's complete lack of parking). That said, this city...
My initial reaction as a local is "please god no" just because of how badly it affects traffic and how terribly our stadium is located (and it's complete lack of parking).
That said, this city functions on these kinds of events, so it'd probably be a boon for us. I don't see it happening though. The super bowl suddenly having a "home" where a team is located no less (even if they aren't likely to play it) doesn't strike me as remotely likely.
My first impression is that this would be a good idea. Hosting a Super Bowl is typically unprofitable for cities, but Las Vegas may be one city that is set up well to profit off an influx of...
My first impression is that this would be a good idea. Hosting a Super Bowl is typically unprofitable for cities, but Las Vegas may be one city that is set up well to profit off an influx of wealthy tourists.
The Super Bowl is a cool event, but it doesn't seem to spur an investment in public infrastructure the same way hosting the Olympic does or how previous World's Fairs have.
My city made a killing when it hosted the Super Bowl a few years ago, but even if it hadn't, there's something to be said about injecting a bunch of new cash into the state regardless. The city...
My city made a killing when it hosted the Super Bowl a few years ago, but even if it hadn't, there's something to be said about injecting a bunch of new cash into the state regardless. The city may have spent $X to prep, but that money largely continues circulating in the state. On top of that, the $Y brought in from tourists is new money that enters circulation for a while. It's obviously more complicated than that, but there are other benefits besides strictly profit/loss.
Don’t all those huge sporting events (World Cup, Olympics, Super Bowl) cost host cities millions and millions of dollars? I remember both FIFA and the Olympic Committee getting some amount of...
Don’t all those huge sporting events (World Cup, Olympics, Super Bowl) cost host cities millions and millions of dollars? I remember both FIFA and the Olympic Committee getting some amount of blowback for accusations of decimating local economies (and environments).
That said, when I went to a city that was hosting a Super Bowl several years ago, magically the roads had drastically improved, the medians were cleaner, overpasses painted, and all sorts of municipal things were improved.
That doesn’t seem like the right answer- for cities to essentially have to clean up to host like my sister at Thanksgiving, AND eat whatever costs are associated, but what do I know…
I do like the idea of cities telling these massive “leagues” and committees to kick rocks if it’s not going to be in the region’s best interest at the bottom line. Too often the public gets sold a crappy deal because it’s propagandized to hell and back for corporate profit.
I can see why the World Cup or Olympics would result in considerable expenses for a city, since they need to build out multiple stadiums and multi-day hosting for athletes from around the world....
I can see why the World Cup or Olympics would result in considerable expenses for a city, since they need to build out multiple stadiums and multi-day hosting for athletes from around the world. But wouldn't the Super Bowl just be a single event, with existing capacity in an existing stadium? Yeah, the city might need to accelerate infrastructure improvements that they should probably be doing anyway. How are they actually losing money for a single football game, though?
I did some looking around for an answer and left not fully satisfied. This article: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hosting-super-bowl-worth-cities-000059204.html Touches on some things - earmarks...
I did some looking around for an answer and left not fully satisfied. This article:
Touches on some things - earmarks to the NFL, increased police and transit costs, and an overvaluation of how much business it brings.
There also seems a possible connection between building new stadiums and then getting to host a Super Bowl, but that seems to me more just a correlation.
My bias might just be showing here because I just don’t like the NFL. What they’ve done regarding player health is the definition of toxic greed, IMO. If a player gets to the NFL, they should never have another medical bill. Ever.
I heard on a podcast last week that the NFL had at least attempted to negotiate payouts on head trauma for black players to be less for eugenic reasons, why wouldn’t I assume they are swindling cities?
I'm not going to dive into the healthcare topic because that's not related to the original topic of where to host the Superbowl, but I agree that the NFL should provide lifetime healthcare...
I'm not going to dive into the healthcare topic because that's not related to the original topic of where to host the Superbowl, but I agree that the NFL should provide lifetime healthcare coverage much like the MLB does for their players.
But from the article:
Matheson said in the video that the true economic impact is actually a fraction of that — more like $30 million to $130 million.
That's still a net benefit to cities. Obviously, that benefit is in the negative if the city is building a stadium just for this event, but I'm not sure how often that actually happens for the Superbowl. In this year's case, they played at an existing facility that was built for the Raiders. I didn't look back super far, but it seems that most of the stadiums that host the Superbowl are existing NFL stadiums.
In any case, the original thread is about whether Las Vegas should continue to host the Superbowl yearly. While I think that Vegas is well-suited for events that draw tens of thousands of spectators for a weekend, it's nice for other cities to be able to showcase themselves for stuff like this.
Yeah- I shouldn’t have conflated the two issues. Thanks for not letting this derail the topic. My bad. A more relevant way to talk about it might be to look at who is at the negotiating table- on...
Yeah- I shouldn’t have conflated the two issues. Thanks for not letting this derail the topic. My bad. A more relevant way to talk about it might be to look at who is at the negotiating table- on one side are city governments and on the other is the NFL - who has a long detailed (kept secret) financial history of what the SB brings in and costs and a record of being very profitable. I would not want to be on the local’s side trying to negotiate with a black box.
(First 2 edits were for clarity and a typo- this one is an add)
Arguably, this might be one of those areas where a legitimate argument could be made for large cities to collectively bargain for greater public transparency in league finances. This is kind of an interesting idea. (Read: utter fantasy)
My initial reaction as a local is "please god no" just because of how badly it affects traffic and how terribly our stadium is located (and it's complete lack of parking).
That said, this city functions on these kinds of events, so it'd probably be a boon for us. I don't see it happening though. The super bowl suddenly having a "home" where a team is located no less (even if they aren't likely to play it) doesn't strike me as remotely likely.
My first impression is that this would be a good idea. Hosting a Super Bowl is typically unprofitable for cities, but Las Vegas may be one city that is set up well to profit off an influx of wealthy tourists.
The Super Bowl is a cool event, but it doesn't seem to spur an investment in public infrastructure the same way hosting the Olympic does or how previous World's Fairs have.
My city made a killing when it hosted the Super Bowl a few years ago, but even if it hadn't, there's something to be said about injecting a bunch of new cash into the state regardless. The city may have spent $X to prep, but that money largely continues circulating in the state. On top of that, the $Y brought in from tourists is new money that enters circulation for a while. It's obviously more complicated than that, but there are other benefits besides strictly profit/loss.
Don’t all those huge sporting events (World Cup, Olympics, Super Bowl) cost host cities millions and millions of dollars? I remember both FIFA and the Olympic Committee getting some amount of blowback for accusations of decimating local economies (and environments).
That said, when I went to a city that was hosting a Super Bowl several years ago, magically the roads had drastically improved, the medians were cleaner, overpasses painted, and all sorts of municipal things were improved.
That doesn’t seem like the right answer- for cities to essentially have to clean up to host like my sister at Thanksgiving, AND eat whatever costs are associated, but what do I know…
I do like the idea of cities telling these massive “leagues” and committees to kick rocks if it’s not going to be in the region’s best interest at the bottom line. Too often the public gets sold a crappy deal because it’s propagandized to hell and back for corporate profit.
I can see why the World Cup or Olympics would result in considerable expenses for a city, since they need to build out multiple stadiums and multi-day hosting for athletes from around the world. But wouldn't the Super Bowl just be a single event, with existing capacity in an existing stadium? Yeah, the city might need to accelerate infrastructure improvements that they should probably be doing anyway. How are they actually losing money for a single football game, though?
I did some looking around for an answer and left not fully satisfied. This article:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hosting-super-bowl-worth-cities-000059204.html
Touches on some things - earmarks to the NFL, increased police and transit costs, and an overvaluation of how much business it brings.
There also seems a possible connection between building new stadiums and then getting to host a Super Bowl, but that seems to me more just a correlation.
My bias might just be showing here because I just don’t like the NFL. What they’ve done regarding player health is the definition of toxic greed, IMO. If a player gets to the NFL, they should never have another medical bill. Ever.
I heard on a podcast last week that the NFL had at least attempted to negotiate payouts on head trauma for black players to be less for eugenic reasons, why wouldn’t I assume they are swindling cities?
I'm not going to dive into the healthcare topic because that's not related to the original topic of where to host the Superbowl, but I agree that the NFL should provide lifetime healthcare coverage much like the MLB does for their players.
But from the article:
That's still a net benefit to cities. Obviously, that benefit is in the negative if the city is building a stadium just for this event, but I'm not sure how often that actually happens for the Superbowl. In this year's case, they played at an existing facility that was built for the Raiders. I didn't look back super far, but it seems that most of the stadiums that host the Superbowl are existing NFL stadiums.
In any case, the original thread is about whether Las Vegas should continue to host the Superbowl yearly. While I think that Vegas is well-suited for events that draw tens of thousands of spectators for a weekend, it's nice for other cities to be able to showcase themselves for stuff like this.
Yeah- I shouldn’t have conflated the two issues. Thanks for not letting this derail the topic. My bad. A more relevant way to talk about it might be to look at who is at the negotiating table- on one side are city governments and on the other is the NFL - who has a long detailed (kept secret) financial history of what the SB brings in and costs and a record of being very profitable. I would not want to be on the local’s side trying to negotiate with a black box.
(First 2 edits were for clarity and a typo- this one is an add)
Arguably, this might be one of those areas where a legitimate argument could be made for large cities to collectively bargain for greater public transparency in league finances. This is kind of an interesting idea. (Read: utter fantasy)