Super Bowl economic impact is a mystery

by Blair Lovern

I hope Dallas gets the Super Bowl. Er, sorry. I hope Arlington does. The only reason I can come up with is that it would give me a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing I live in the same town that is hosting a Super Bowl. Er, sorry. Near the town that is hosting one.

Now, I could improve my 25.1 40-yard dash and metamorphosize into the second coming of Vince Papale, plus become infused with either divine intervention or eternal damnation after selling my soul to the devil (this site tells you how to do that, but they say it's "Moderately challenging"), which then latches me onto one of the teams in Super Bowl XLV. But let's just say that for the sake of the argument all of that does not happen. The Super Bowl produces zero consequences for me.

I am curious what the economic impact would be for DFW. But I'm having a difficult time finding out how much any city in general benefits from hosting one. I don't think anyone actually knows. $0? $1 billion? I've read stories and studies that include those end point numbers, plus just about every other dollar number in between.

Unless I've missed it, Roger Staubach hasn't thrown out any dollar amounts.

A cursory glance at the mainstream sporting media from the past few years often puts the estimate somewhere in the ballpark of A-Rod's salary, give or take Gil Meche's new dumb contract. But is that correct?

In this fun sourpuss essay from The Sport Journal, an assistant professor of economics wrote that before a mega sporting event, the economic predictions "far exceed" the actual results. I don't know if that means every time, many times, sometimes. The way it's written gives the impression that it's definitely not uncommon.

Sometimes the money predictions are ludicrous. I am of the school of thought that believes that if anything is ludicrous, then it is best illustrated by a picture of Ludacris.

In fact, read his lyrics from "Money Maker":

So feel free to get lose and get carried away

So by tomorrow you forgot what you was saying today

Some people might hear that song and think Ludacris is hinting about male/female relationships. To me, Ludacris is a modern-day Nostradamus referring to Super Bowl economic impact figures.

From another economic study, often cited these days:

Our detailed regression analysis revealed that over the period 1970 to 2001, on average Super Bowls created $92 million in income gains for 21 host cities, a figure roughly one-quarter that of recent NFL claims. While this figure, like any econometric estimate, is subject to some degree of uncertainty, statistical analysis reveals that, on average the Super Bowl could not have contributed, by a reasonable standard of statistical significance, more than $300 million to host economies.

Then I'll read something like this, from yet another study:

The aggregation problem might be confused with the “policy interpretation, partial vs. general equilibrium error,” whereby it is falsely presumed that the demonstration of a positive net economic impact from any one project is a sufficient condition for potential public sector investment without first comparing the rates of return from alternative uses of such funding.

I don't know what the hell that means.

Jacksonville, for example, apparently to this day has no clue what kind of economic impact Super Bowl XXXIX brought to that town in 2005. The big news so far is that they got noticed by people. How adorable. Hi, Jacksonville! Didn't see you over there. Thought you were part of Costa Rica, I feel like a defective moron.

Houston has some nice stuff as a result of Super Bowl XXXVIII in 2004. It only cost them $4.5 billion to get the nice stuff. But it's there. Somewhere in Cyberland, a study examined what happened in Houston with the Super Bowl and MLB All-Star game. I found it once a while back but have not been able to find it since. Curious if anyone knows where it is.

Regarding the city of Dallas, what I find most amusing is: if City Council members get behind a Super Bowl bid for Arlington, they want to know what's in it for them? The city didn't want the new stadium, but they'll sure hop on the gravy train.

I'm also kind of embarrassed for Dallas Council member Mitchell Rasansky, who, according to the DMN, "questioned how the Super Bowl would affect Dallas' convention business, as Super Bowl-related activities would presumably monopolize the Dallas Convention Center in the weeks before the game."

Oooof. Man. Which of the following conversations would you rather be in, come February 2011.

Example A

Example B

(A football fan can be a fluid dynamics convention fan, too, you know.)

But landing the mother of all conventions trumps anything even the most incredible fluid dynamics person in the world could bring to the table. Yes? Depends on who you talk to? Not sure? Want some cheese and crackers while you think it over?

Like I said, I hope Dall-la-la-la, I've got to keep catching myself - Arlington gets the Super Bowl. Just don't expect it to be like winning the Great Nigerian and/or Netherlands email lotteries. Or, comparatively speaking, the piddly Texas one.

Staff
Verified User
Anonymous

noleman, says:

"The city" didn't opt not to pursue the stadium, madame mayor made that choice. I think it's valid to question what contribution we should now be asked to make considering our lack of benefit. BTW Plano was never in the running for XLV, so I don't think 'your' city had much of a chance.

Anonymous

2 years, 10 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Blair Lovern, says:

Correct, it is valid for Dallas to question many things. And correct, my city - the city that is, indeed, mine - had no chance to hold a Super Bowl.

I'm a big sports fan, I love the NFL. But I think it's wise to not to wildly speculate about monetary benefits, as <a href="http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_040190616.html"> CBS11 is doing</a>, for example.