jonhasglasses t1_j6tq9he wrote on February 1, 2023 at 8:43 PM

Reply to comment by JamminOnTheOne in TIL The Super Bowl can generate anywhere from $230 million to $475 million in economic impact for host cities. by BrainInYourButt

That’s a fair point but I’d argue that the short term benefits are outweighed by the long term negative externalities of a stadium. First of all it seems that the short term benefit of the Super Bowl is only about a quarter of what the NFL says it is. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/super-bowls-affect-businesses-62826.html. Most of the reports I’ve seen about the impact of a Super Bowl count public sector jobs (police, emts, public transportation workers, city maintenance worker etc.) as part of the job growth, which the budget for that comes from the public budget. And you would think that the extra tax revenue from the event would balance that public investment out, but I find that dubious as the NFL and the people who own teams/build stadiums have some of the highest tax subsidies of any industry. That’s all assuming a Super Bowl comes to your city. I find reports that say the Super Bowl is a benefit to local economies are being willful ignorant of the long term impact of stadiums and sports teams.

JamminOnTheOne t1_j6ui1uv wrote on February 1, 2023 at 11:43 PM

Of course. I'm just saying that you moved the goalposts. This wasn't a discussion about public subsidies for stadiums. You argued against the economic impact of a Super Bowl by linking to an article on a different topic.

jonhasglasses t1_j6uzclg wrote on February 2, 2023 at 1:50 AM

If you look back at my original comment I wasn’t conflating the two. I was making a comment how the use of impact is an interesting choice because as I know it (and as Stanford has published) sports teams and stadiums don’t have a positive impact on local economies. I didn’t spell it out further but I felt that was a relevant piece of information to the discussion of the economic impact of the Super Bowl.