Skip to content

Indy lost more than $1 million hosting Super Bowl, but isn’t complaining

super-bowl-xlvi-marriot Getty Images

The headline popping up throughout Thomas Alva Gore’s invention suggests bad news for Indianapolis.  The city that hosted Super Bowl XLVI lost more than $1 million for its efforts.

But the folks in Indy aren’t complaining.

“If you think about it, to spend a million dollars for the branding and the effort that is generating for us is a pretty good return on investment,” Capital Improvement Board president Ann Lathrop told WISH-TV.

The CIB never expected to make money.  The final deficit ended up being more than the projected loss of $800,000.

Given the very positive impression that Indianapolis made on the rest of the nation during Super Bowl week, it was money well spent.  And they’d surely spend it again — happily — for the privilege to host the game again.

Permalink 34 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill
34 Responses to “Indy lost more than $1 million hosting Super Bowl, but isn’t complaining”
  1. ninersteve says: May 18, 2012 10:36 PM

    Yes Indy the municipality took a loss. However, the businesses (Hotels, Restaurants, Shops, etc..) didn’t the sales tax revenue should hit the books by the end of the year.

  2. daysend564 says: May 18, 2012 10:38 PM

    In a short sighted view, yes they lost money.

    What did they “lose” money to? Primarily employment. There was increased security which resulted in more hours for police officers. Thousands of people picked up jobs for all the events.

    Beyond that, there was Project Indy (or similar) which was in charge of beautification efforts. Because the Superbowl was coming to town, they were afforded to make many significant upgrades to the town they were unable w/o it coming to town.

    A huge portion of the money coming into the city was outside money, giving the city a huge shot in the arm.

  3. rcali says: May 18, 2012 10:40 PM

    Wow, this lady should get a job with JP Morgan Chase if she’s happy about a loss for an event that should make the city money. I don’t think anybody is changing their summer vacation to Indy just because it hosted a Superbowl.

  4. karlton2 says: May 18, 2012 10:49 PM

    The CIB (a government created entity) lost money.

    The city and state brought in more than enough revenue to cover it and then some.

  5. chief67 says: May 18, 2012 10:52 PM

    Hey , that sounds like government spending at it`s finest …

  6. lolb23 says: May 18, 2012 10:54 PM

    Ha. Even Detroit made a ton of money off the Super Bowl.

  7. randallflagg52 says: May 18, 2012 10:57 PM

    I’m sure Indy’s booming tourist industry can more than cover that loss…

  8. botchedextrapoint says: May 18, 2012 11:12 PM

    So the Vikings have one last hurdle to get the stadium built. They need to convince the city to pay up. The carrot is build a stadium get a Super Bowl and make a stack of cash. It would seem loosing cash is what happens when you host a Super Bowl.

  9. ufanforreal says: May 18, 2012 11:27 PM

    check the governor MITCH’S POCKETS

  10. dasmol says: May 18, 2012 11:40 PM

    Not being wise here. What else is there to spend money on in Indy?

  11. randallflagg52 says: May 18, 2012 11:41 PM

    They should have brough Ron Swanson up from Pawnee. They would have had a massive profit with him running the show.

  12. hardate says: May 18, 2012 11:42 PM

    Wish it was a billion.

    Indy sucks and will now for years.

  13. thegreatgabbert says: May 18, 2012 11:54 PM

    Careful with the gratuitous shots at Fat Albert. You will get hit by a lady with a basket full of locally grown produce on a bicycle. Or decapitated by a power generating windmill, or something.

  14. htowntexan says: May 19, 2012 12:24 AM

    They got lucky on weather. The super bowl should only be in the south or southern California.

  15. indyeagle says: May 19, 2012 12:38 AM

    I laugh at all the “Indy sucks” type comments. I thought the same thing when I found out I was being transferred out here from Philly, but I found out pretty quickly how far off base I was.

    Indy is a great city with plenty to do. The national media has raved about it at every event (Final Four, Superbowl, NFL Combine, etc…) but yet the “Indy sucks” comments never get old to some of you.

    Oh, as far as the city “losing” money. I guess, if you don’t understand economic development, sales tax, food and beverage tax or payroll tax then there is no point in even trying to explain the success of this event to the city/county/state.

  16. catchhester23 says: May 19, 2012 12:44 AM

    lolb23
     says:May 18, 2012 10:54 PM
    Ha. Even Detroit made a ton of money off the Super Bowl.

    Well because every fan from Detroit and Cleveland went to the superbowl while it was there. Not like the lions and browns will be playing in it anytime soon. Then you had all the fans of the two teams actually playing in the super bowl there also.

  17. nflpasux says: May 19, 2012 12:45 AM

    Hopefully, Indianapolis is one&done for hosting Super Bowls. Midwestern and northern cities should never be considered for hosting the February event. Even Dallas and Atlanta encountered ice storms.

    The Super Bowl rotation should be limited to the two grown-up Florida cities, New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and San Diego.

  18. hulkhogansays says: May 19, 2012 1:30 AM

    They’re going to be jumping off cliffs when Robert Griffin is a minimum 3x Super Bowl Champion meanwhile Andrew Lea–er Luck is Heath Shulering it up as an attorney in Stanford in 5 yrs time, brother.

  19. schmitty2 says: May 19, 2012 1:51 AM

    htowntexan says:
    May 19, 2012 12:24 AM
    They got lucky on weather. The super bowl should only be in the south or southern California.

    I live in Southern Cali and believe me..there is NO stadium in this state that could host a SB. The next one here will be in the new Niner’s stadium

  20. vikesfansteve says: May 19, 2012 5:39 AM

    Yeah right, that’s the same type of accounting movie studios use when they don’t want to pay points and try to say movies like Titanic actually lost money. Total B.S.

  21. realityonetwo says: May 19, 2012 6:01 AM

    Nine out of 10 fans likely have already forgotten where the Super Bowl was played…

  22. tomsd1 says: May 19, 2012 6:01 AM

    When I was in Indiana for the SC at Nortre Dame game last fall, my host/Regis classmate said the whole state was going to be very proud to host the SB. A million $ spread out over the 6.5 million citizens of the state goes a long way, eh?

    If they have a referendum on hosting it again in say 7 years and it costing a million – bet it would pass overwhelmingly.

  23. knowsfirsthand says: May 19, 2012 6:29 AM

    What they don’t say is how many millions of dollars all the businesses made from the experience of hosting the Super Bowl. Of course the city didn’t make money directly! The NFL doesn’t pay the city to host the Super Bowl, the city pays the NFL for the right to host.

    I was at this years Super Bowl and Indianapolis did a phenomenal job overall as did the NFL. Great experience. If you’ve never been to a Super Bowl add it to your bucket list.

  24. chocopoppy says: May 19, 2012 6:59 AM

    Let’s hear it from the Tea Baggers about how the government should not waste money on functions like this. Fools.

  25. kingfish4242 says: May 19, 2012 7:47 AM

    htowntexan says:
    May 19, 2012 12:24 AM
    They got lucky on weather. The super bowl should only be in the south or southern California.

    ====================================

    You are going to get many thumbs down,but you are right. Awarding Super Bowls to Northern cities is flirting with disaster. Even if the game were held outdoors in a blizzard,the players aren’t the ones who will suffer or be endangered.

    The danger occurs to the people who have to drive in those adverse conditions. During the regular season it’s no big deal because the local residents are used to it. The Big game draws media from around the globe and many of those have never seen Ice or Snow anywhere but pictures. When you have roads filled with people who don’t know how to drive in winter weather it is a recipe for disaster. The city can usually keep the main roads cleared,but the secondary and access roads leading to them is where the real danger lies.

    Remember the SB between the Rams and Titans hosted by Atlanta? A few days before that game,the city was paralyzed by a rare Ice Storm. I’ll never forget the video of the news van sliding downhill and crashing into a building. Fortunately nobody was hurt. If it can happen in Atlanta,the odds are much greater in more northern cities

  26. mistermayhem7 says: May 19, 2012 7:48 AM

    I’m sure your mom does to hardate. Idiot.

  27. maven2222 says: May 19, 2012 8:28 AM

    I went to visit Indy during the spring solely because of the Super Bowl. Never had any desire to go there until the Super Bowl. Quite a nice little city.

  28. porterhouse12 says: May 19, 2012 9:08 AM

    Whether or not you like Indy, the residents showed up crushing super bowl village attendance records. Everything was walkable.

    The CIB loses money on everything. That is not a representation of success or failure.

    For those who rag on Indy, I’m guessing you did not attend the game last year. Let’s focus on the relevant reviews – those based on someone that has an experience to share.

  29. dfeltz says: May 19, 2012 9:10 AM

    Indyeagle –
    Add the 500 to your list for things to do in Indianapolis. That race in person is impressive.

  30. tonyromoisterrible says: May 19, 2012 11:00 PM

    This is going to be the only super bowl talk the colts will have with Andrew Luck playing QB for them for the foreseeable future. The colts will be terrible for years to come.

    HTTR!!!!!!

  31. borisbulldog says: May 20, 2012 1:25 AM

    indyeagle wrote-

    “Indy is a great city with plenty to do”

    —————————————————

    Are you Amish?

  32. kingfish4242 says: May 20, 2012 7:55 AM

    vikesfansteve says:
    May 19, 2012 5:39 AM
    Yeah right, that’s the same type of accounting movie studios use when they don’t want to pay points and try to say movies like Titanic actually lost money. Total B.S.

    ====================================

    It is not BS. Cities that host the Super Bowl will lose money. The prestige from hosting the game is what they really pay for.

    Most of the money generated by the game comes from TV rights to broadcast the game and Ad revenue from commercials aired during the game. Host cities don’t see a dime of that money.

    Unless a Hotel or Restaurant chain has their corporate Headquarters in Indy,that money doesn’t stay there either. The Marriot for example has their HQ in North Carolina. Most of the generated by the Marriot in Indy eventually winds up in NC. The financial windfall garnered by mom and pops and other privately owned businesses doesn’t come close to matching the expenditures by the host city.

  33. hardate says: May 20, 2012 11:06 PM

    mistermayhem7- your Momma!

    Please, go eat some corn and tell me some dry jokes.

  34. spenn80 says: May 21, 2012 4:51 PM

    hulkhogansays says: May 19, 2012 1:30 AM

    They’re going to be jumping off cliffs when Robert Griffin is a minimum 3x Super Bowl Champion meanwhile Andrew Lea–er Luck is Heath Shulering it up as an attorney in Stanford in 5 yrs time, brother.

    Well brother, the super bowl thing remains to be seen, but I think if that happens Luck will probably be spending his time as an architect, not an attorney, since that’s what he’s going to school for — I dunno I could be wrong though and maybe you weren’t being serious.
    P.s. i always liked Macho Man better

Leave a Reply

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