This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
May 03, 2010
NFL dangles Super Bowl as Santa Clara stadium reward
The NFL did that thing the NFL does on Friday, promising a Super Bowl for Santa Clara if the city builds a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. Or rather, promising to "support and encourage a Super Bowl bid," which isn't quite the same thing, though it works the same for generating headlines.
Meanwhile, the San Francisco Examiner examines what the 49ers have meant to San Francisco (economically, not emotionally), and comes up with this list:
- They pay $5.5 million a year in rent, but the Recreation and Park Department spends $4.1 million on stadium upkeep.
- San Francisco gets about $2.4 million a year in taxes from the team.
- Some jobs are created, but mostly they're only ten days a year, as the team's full-time staff is already located in Santa Clara.
- The city gets free exposure when images of San Francisco landmarks appear on national TV broadcasts, but probably still would even if the team moved, as Santa Clara doesn't have any landmarks.
Thus having downplayed the 49ers' economic value, the Examiner nonetheless insists that a new stadium would be "play a crucial role in stimulating the economy," citing "business and tourism officials" and a 1997 report that bringing a Super Bowl to town would "generate $300 million for The City." Do we really have to go over this again?
The "super-inflated" figure of $300 million, that was provided by the NFL, has been refuted by many economists. In fact, most concur the likely figure of the economic impacts, that a Superbowl brings to a host city, is 10% of what's been opined by the NFL.
Posted by Juan Pardell on May 3, 2010 10:01 AM
The one thing that needs to be clarified ... the money goes to the COUNTY and City of San Francisco - big difference. The majority of any tax money that may be produced by a SC Stadium goes to Santa Clara COUNTY and the City of Santa Clara will get 1% of the money. Yet another example of how the CITY of Santa Clara is getting hosed! As the 49ers keep boosting ... the "region" gets lots of benefits -- we get crumbs!!
VOTE No on Measure J ... Santa Clara Just cannot afford to support the "region"
Posted by Santa Clara on May 3, 2010 11:16 AM
Both the Super Bowl - and any "2nd Team" claims - are pure hype until the parties actually sign on some dotted line.
None of that hype makes a public subsidy of $114M + $330M = $444M a good deal for Santa Clarans.
Subsidizing the 49ers' stadium for them means only this: Deplorable job creation, a $67,000,000 loss to our city's General Fund, and a powerless and struggling Stadium Authority barely able to raise money and pay off its debts.
And, as we learned from the exact words in the NFL's own "non-announcement," we're not even guaranteed any Super Bowl.
This is about the money - it certainly isn't about the football.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
Meanwhile here in Indianapolis, home for the 2012 Super Bowl, we learn that we need to provide a practice facility for the teams. The cost for this new facility, 11.2 million. What other demands will the NFL make and require Indianapolis to provide for this one day event and what are the hidden costs of these demands? Strange how the NFL doesn't advertise how much it will cost to host a Super Bowl but will always quote that nebulous 300 million dollar benefit!
Posted by IndyRes on May 7, 2010 08:21 PM
Meanwhile here in Indianapolis, home for the 2012 Super Bowl, we learn that we need to provide a practice facility for the teams. The cost for this new facility, 11.2 million. What other demands will the NFL make and require Indianapolis to provide for this one day event and what are the hidden costs of these demands? Strange how the NFL doesn't advertise how much it will cost to host a Super Bowl but will always quote that nebulous 300 million dollar benefit!
Posted by IndyRes on May 7, 2010 08:22 PM