I live in Indianapolis, and the city as a whole made very little, if anything significant. The revenue lost because the NFL paid no taxes on anything they sold or leased, and increased police cost, and costs to the CIB mean we were lucky to break even. Stop perpetuating lies about how fantastic the Super Bowl is economically for the host city. If it was, wouldn’t Miami be Shangri-la right now?

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120212/NEWS11/202120361/City-s-Super-Bowl-spending

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120211/NEWS11/302120003/Super-Bowl-2012-Most-outlying-areas-didn-t-see-spending-splash

http://money.msn.com/taxes/news.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20120202&id=14751265

http://www.ibj.com/cib-expects-to-lose-money-during-super-bowl/PARAMS/article/31969

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/sports-stadiums-and-economic-development-a-summary-of-the-economics-literature/
“There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums.”

http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html
“Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy,” Humphreys and Coates wrote in a report issued last month by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.”

http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/finance_tax/Sports_Stadiums.pdf
“…independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.”

The problem with your study is again, it is only looking at the sport revenue associated purely with the team(s) playing in said stadium. If that’s ONLY what you are looking at, OF COURSE you have a negative effect, especially since most of your draw is people who live within 30 minutes travel of the venue (although they will spend money on other things both benefiting the local team/venue and restaurants/grocery stores for pre and post game activities like tailgating). It’s the auxiliary events that are going to be the source of your income and local economic stimulation. Again, ask Indy how much impact the recent Super Bowl had there, and again check to see where your local Hoteliers and the like stand on the issue. That should tell you everything you need to know.

“txbearmeat says:
Feb 17, 2012 9:29 PM
Please let the Purple Hornies go down to LA. It would finally shut their stupid fans up. I hate that team. I hate their fans.”

txbear, this has nothing to do with your hate, this has everything to do with your fear.
—————————————

Uh, no I don’t fear a 4-12 team with a terrible HC, the worst secondary in the history of the NFL…
I could go on, but I don’t need to.

The Vikes are awful. They’ve never won a single title in the history of their franchise. The organization is a dysfunctional, corporate mess. Their history of player behavior is, um….. despicable.

And yet, their fans suffer from repeated delusions of grandeur and a sense of Packer envy apparent to anyone with two good eyes. They are obnoxious, mouth breathing tools. I want to see that franchise move for that reason above all else.

M/SP has always been a Twinkies town, and it always will be. If the Vikes left town, within 10 years Minny would be Packerland again.

I don’t know if it is financially worthwhile for the taxpayers of Minnesota or not but sometimes the the sum is greater than all the parts. I am happy for Vikings fans this has been one long drawn out charade in which politicians both for and against have a lot to answer for.

I don’t want the Vikings to leave. Both teams fight to the end when they play each other, whether one team has more talent than the other, or not.

But please….when the stadium finally gets built, don’t start up with how superior your stadium is than anyone else’s. Please. Minneapolis is already inhabited by persons with the worst superiority complexes as it is….don’t confirm it.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 3—Summer 2000 —Pages 95–114

Time series studies confirm the cross-section results. Baade and Sanderson
(1997), for example, found no perceptible net increase in economic activity or
employment in 10 cities that acquired new sports teams between 1958 and 1993
after factoring out other economic trends affecting each area. They did observe a
reordering of leisure expenditures within the cities that acquired new teams, but
there was no evidence that the new sports teams brought output or employment
growth to the local area. A more recent study, by Coates and Humphreys (1999),
finds that new stadiums and sports teams actually reduce per capita income in the
host communities. This result is consistent with a higher (negative) multiplier for
the displaced leisure expenditures than for the expenditures on a new team or in
a new stadium because the latter likely involve substantial leakages from the local
economy to the remote residential locations of some players and team owners.
The conclusion that sports teams and facilities do not stimulate economic

Wow … hey Minnesota, will you buy me a football team?

———

Ah, bitchin about the reason stated above.

txbear, this has nothing to do with your hate, this has everything to do with your fear.

 ——————————-

Wow, how sad, you must be so empty inside.

ten years ago i lived in KY and gas was 89cents a gallon. no joke