Skip to content

Study finds Super Bowl contributed $333 million to South Florida

A study released today reported that the Super Bowl’s economic impact to South Florida was $333 million. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that $333 million is a significant drop from the $463 million the 2007 Super Bowl brought to South Florida’s economy. Despite the drop, however, the study is being used as evidence that public money should be used to renovate Sun Life Stadium and make it an attractive venue for future Super Bowls.

“Every major city in America wishes they had a Pro Bowl and Super Bowl on their books for February 2010. We were fortunate to have that kind of business,” host committee chairman Rodney Barreto said, per the Sun Sentinel. “It was business that was needed. . . . Hey, it’s better than zero.”

Yes, it’s “better than zero.” But “better than zero” probably isn’t going to be enough to convince taxpayers to spend millions of dollars to renovate the stadium.

Dolphins CEO Mike Dee says the team will need to convince the taxpayers to pitch in, because the team can’t do it alone.

“There has to be a public-private component to this,” Dee said. “There has to be some participation if we’re going to finish the job.”

Permalink 25 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
25 Responses to “Study finds Super Bowl contributed $333 million to South Florida”
  1. ravensos says: Jun 21, 2010 8:42 PM

    I think this a no-brainer for Miami, it’s not like building Olympic Stadium in Montreal, they are frontrunners year after year to get the superbowl.

  2. morm3993 says: Jun 21, 2010 8:47 PM

    Those numbers are total crap. They are concocted, without a basis, by economic henchmen. After the 2006 Detroit Super Bowl, local sales receipts showed that the economic impact from hosting a Super Bowl isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

  3. CaneMatador says: Jun 21, 2010 9:07 PM

    haha! They will never rebuild!
    The whole CITY OF MIAMI is so corrupted!!

  4. Mark0226 says: Jun 21, 2010 9:15 PM

    They should start a collection and all of those businesses that benefited from that $333 million should chip in. Does the study mention how much tax revenue that generated? Florida has a 6% sales tax, but I’m assuming not all of that money was taxable and some of it was in hotel taxes, which is also 6% if the Miami-Dade gov site is correct. Let’s just go with 6% and say that the tax revenue was $20 million, so unless they plan to use public money as an investment for local businesses, then they should not spend more than $20 million on improvements and even less if they want a return on their investment.

  5. 8man says: Jun 21, 2010 9:27 PM

    I know this. I live in Baltimore and every year, Yankee and Red Sox fans come into town, stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, pay cab fare, see the sights, tip the strippers, etc.
    So sporting events can make a significant contribution to your local economy.
    Who knows what the actual value is, but none of the bar owners I talk to seem to mind.

  6. BCGreg says: Jun 21, 2010 9:28 PM

    Still far behind what the drug activity brings into the state.

  7. WingT says: Jun 21, 2010 9:46 PM

    I agree with George Visger. It is ridiculous how the NFL and NFLPA continues to turn their backs on the retired players.
    Surely in a 8 Billion dollar industry there is a way to properly compensate retired players.
    I don’t think it should all be on the owners to fund it but I do think they should pay the lions share.

  8. forthelove says: Jun 21, 2010 10:12 PM

    Mark0226 hit the nail on the head. $333 million is a flashy number, but assuming that all of that is taxable it’s only about $20 million to public funds. This is peanuts when it comes to stadium remodels.

  9. dabarber says: Jun 21, 2010 10:49 PM

    Those numbers are BS–they always are overstated.

  10. Deb says: Jun 21, 2010 11:16 PM

    Are the Dolphins planning to relocate without a stadium renovation? These are hard times for Floridians–and probably getting much harder thanks to BP. I can’t fathom expecting taxpayers from any part of the state to fund pie-in-the-sky projects right now. Mark0226 is right–only a small percentage of that $333 million benefits the community as a whole. Those who don’t own hotels, restaurants, bars, and strip clubs get little, if any, of the trickle-down benefit. So why should they help bear the costs?
    @George Visger …
    Most fans are oblivious to the game-related health issues plaguing many former players–or the overwhelming financial burdens those health problems cause. It’s obscene that such a wealthy industry ignores the needs of the veterans that made the game what it is. And how can the NFLPA continue allowing unproven rookies to pull down astronomical salaries while retirees are left empty-handed? Surely most voting members–who don’t make top-tier salaries–must realize they could be the ones needing those retirement benefits some day.
    Is any effort underway to promote a retirement fund? What action can fans take to encourage the NFL to set up such a fund?

  11. Drat says: Jun 21, 2010 11:22 PM

    This item is right on target. This is what counts. This is what drives the NFL. Sorry to say it, but there you go. I wish it was something else, but it’s not. Big business rules.
    I was always surprised that Florio didn’t go right to the heart of things. He’s a lightweight, more interested in players showing up for mandatory/not-mandatory/voluntary/not-voluntary/ exciting/not exciting/ love-boat/not love-boat types of things. Florio has the power and contacts to get down to the core stuff. One hundred-million-dollar issue relatd to the big NFL cats is worth endless player contracts of a million here, a million there. Maybe Florio is now seeing the light.
    Florio spends too much time on ridiculosities like whether or not Zygi re-finances his outstanding debt to the league. Florio has talent, but spends it on idiocities.

  12. Observer1 says: Jun 21, 2010 11:46 PM

    If this is true, why doesn’t it show up as increase sales tax collection. When Tampa hosted the SB, the sales tax collections were the same as the year before. Especially in Florida, you are trading one tourist dollar for another. You have thousands of people that avoid the host city due to the SB being in town.
    As much as I love pro sports, there is no economic benefit to having a team or hosting a big event. Local government gets stuck with all the hidden costs.

  13. Wellsee says: Jun 22, 2010 12:24 AM

    The problem here is that the average taxpayer contributes but gets nothing in return. Those that benefit – the hotels and other tourism & football related businesses – should be the ones contributing. In that case it would be called “investing”. Of course, they’d rather leech. Let the NFL shake down the others that benefit.

  14. Kevin from Philly says: Jun 22, 2010 6:39 AM

    I don’t know how you can argue that money from future Super Bowls make fixing the stadium a good investment. Besides the arguments in previous posts about how modest the return to the taxpayers was, you’ve got to consider that there are so many other towns competing for the SB than there were years ago. I mean, any team that builds a new stadium is almost guaranteed to host one, and now outdoor stadiums in the north are in the mix. Even if they fix it up, Miami might not get a SB for another ten years.

  15. SomeFans says: Jun 22, 2010 7:37 AM

    Dolphin stadium is fine as it is. When Goodell was stupid enough to let noo jersey have one WITHOUT A ROOF then Miami shouldn’t waste a dime more on any remodel.
    The game will be back. Goodell should be replaced. I mean, hundreds of million were spent several year ago already. Goodell is a knob.

  16. The Real Shuxion says: Jun 22, 2010 7:46 AM

    Deb says: June 21, 2010 11:16 PM
    Are the Dolphins planning to relocate without a stadium renovation? These are hard times for Floridians–and probably getting much harder thanks to BP.
    ——————————————————
    Although if the Obama Administration just let people clean the damn thing up in the first place it wouldn’t be reaching Florida, but yeah just blame BP.
    Never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose.

  17. DolFan Dan says: Jun 22, 2010 8:20 AM

    Goodell’s argument as to why the Fins should renovate was that a partial roof over the stands would make the fans more comfortable, protecting them from the rain/heat. That argument no longer applies now that he has awarded a Superbowl to New Jersey’s new open air stadium.

  18. pftfanboy says: Jun 22, 2010 8:47 AM

    and how bad is the weather late january or february in miami?
    the dolphins stadium gets a good amount of heat going by this site.
    is it that bad?

  19. Topher says: Jun 22, 2010 9:48 AM

    the “Spend-$300m-so-we-can-bring-$300m-to-the-area” argument really isn’t very convincing.

  20. SomeFans says: Jun 22, 2010 11:22 AM

    and how bad is the weather late january or february in miami?
    the dolphins stadium gets a good amount of heat going by this site.
    is it that bad?
    No, just some business pantywaists whining. Miami in Feb. is beautiful with 70ies but not hot temps. For as many time the SB has been hosted by Miami it rained 1 time. Big deal.
    Goodell was trying to strong arm the area to spend more money when it is not nessessary.

  21. jcjets says: Jun 22, 2010 11:22 AM

    maybe they should get the taxpayers to chip in for legal fees for all the dolphin players that have been arrested this offseason.

  22. Slow Joe says: Jun 22, 2010 11:58 AM

    “There has to be a public-private component to this,” Dee said. “There has to be some participation if we’re going to finish the job.”
    No, there doesn’t. Pay for your own Goddamn stadium. Why does the public ever have to be involved?!? The Dolphins and the NFL are a private business! Do you share the profits with the general public?

  23. texasPHINSfan says: Jun 22, 2010 1:09 PM

    well, how much of that $333M went *back* to the taxpayers? I’m guessing unless you own the vending at the stadium, a restaurant nearby, or one of the hotels nearby, not much.
    I don’t think it’s fair to ask the taxpayers to pay for upgrades to a stadium they won’t reap the benefits back from. Let the local business owners pay for it in conjuction with the team.
    This whole idea of it bringing money back into the area is really misleading – as a former resident & taxpayer, I don’t remember seeing any benefits come back to me from Superbowl hosting there.
    Slow Joe – THANK you. The owners are all millionaires (and in one case, a billionaire). We don’t share in their profits, why should we share in their costs? I don’t like this idea at all.

  24. lawdjayee says: Jun 22, 2010 1:26 PM

    In addition to the problems noted by other posters, the study assumes that the costs of the event to the NFL, the stadium, and the city are “spending.” They do this because the audience for this study is owners of businesses in tourism and related industries. The numbers are ridiculous, intentionally so. Economists who actually study this stuff rather than produce propaganda have never found any good evidence of significant measurable economic impact.

  25. Deb says: Jun 22, 2010 6:34 PM

    The Real Shuxion says:
    Deb says:
    These are hard times for Floridians–and probably getting much harder thanks to BP.
    ——————– ————–
    Although if the Obama Administration just let people clean the damn thing up in the first place it wouldn’t be reaching Florida, but yeah just blame BP. Never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose.
    ———————————————
    I made a valid comment about the financial resources of Floridians relating to a request for public funding of a stadium project. And I don’t like talking politics on a football site. But …
    For you to say Obama PREVENTED BP from addressing the oil leak immediately has to be THE stupidest bit of stone-throwing EVER. Yeah … the president called out the National Guard and held off BP’s genius clean-up squads. If he hadn’t, they’d have capped that leak and sucked up all the oil. You bet. (She rolls her eyes.)
    Want to play the blame game? There’s PLENTY to go around: FOUR decades of Republican AND Democratic administrations promising but failing to look for fossil-fuel alternatives … “Drill, baby, drill” advocates refusing to weigh potential costs vs. benefits of offshore drilling … irresponsible British oil conglomerate playing fast-and-loose with drilling operations worldwide … U.S. regulatory agencies playing parteeee w/people they were supposed to regulate … U.S. giving reckless oil companies only cursory inspections … arrogant oil company failing to plan for disaster … U.S. government failing to plan for disaster … BP repeatedly LYING about scope of disaster … BP failing to act in timely and effective manner … U.S. government repeatedly ignoring warnings about scope of disaster … U.S. government failing to intervene in timely and effective manner.
    Yes, the government–going back more than 40 years–and the Obama Administration bear some blame for this mess. But the lion’s share goes to BP. It’s an OIL COMPANY. They did what oil companies do: They put profits ahead of safe practices and created the biggest environmental disaster in history. As a result, they’ll likely bankrupt tourism, fishing, and their support industries throughout the Gulf region–states already hard hit by hurricanes and recession. And their subsequent stock crisis is bankrupting the pension funds of millions of Britons. But their execs will probably make out like bandits. They always do.
    Don’t you “poor lil BP” me.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!