Sign up for one of our email newsletters.
Updated 59 minutes ago
The biggest trick play for this year's Super Bowl in Houston might have been the original prediction that the event would provide a $500 million economic boost to the host city, according to sports economists.
The Houston Super Bowl Host Committee, which did not return messages, has since dialed back that prediction to $372 million, but several economists think that number is still too high.
“Generally speaking, take whatever they're telling you and move the decimal point one space to the left,” said Victor Matheson, an economics professor at Massachusetts' College of the Holy Cross who specializes in studying the impact of hosting so-called mega-sporting events such as the Super Bowl.
The Steelers submitted paperwork to the NFL nearly two years ago indicating the team's interest in hosting the 2023 Super Bowl. Formal bids are due next year. The Steelers are being tight-lipped about whether they will actually go through with the application.
“We are still looking at what needs to be done, and we have a ways to go on that front,” Steelers President Art Rooney II said.
The team declined further comment. An NFL spokesman did not return messages.
“The city still supports the bid by the Steelers to host a future Super Bowl,” said Tim McNulty, spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto. “Heinz Field and the city are used to big games and would be ready and willing to host the biggest game of all.”
Last year's Super Bowl drew 167 million television viewers around the world.
The Steelers previously said they formed an advisory board to study regions similar to Pittsburgh that hosted the Super Bowl.
Thing is, there really aren't comparisons.
The Super Bowl, in its 51st iteration, has been held in snow-prone northern cities just five times. Each time, the game was played in a stadium that was no older than 10 years; in 2023, Heinz Field would be 22 years old.
Since 2000, only three Super Bowls have been held in older stadiums: Super Bowl XLVII in the Superdome in New Orleans, then 38 years old, where seven Super Bowls have been held; Super Bowl XLIV in what is now Miami's Hard Rock Stadium, then 23 years old, home to five Super Bowls; and Super Bowl XXXVII in San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium, then 36 years old, home to three Super Bowls.
Heinz Field, which has 68,400 seats, also would be among the smaller stadiums to host a Super Bowl. The last time fewer people went to the big game was in 2006, when 68,206 people watched the Steelers beat the Seattle Seahawks in Detroit's Ford Field.
Teams played in domed stadiums in four of the five Super Bowls in northern cities. When New York hosted the game three seasons ago, it became the first northern city without a roof on the football stadium.
The game went off without a hitch, with the temperature hovering around 50 degrees when the game started, but a blizzard hit the region the following morning, stranding some Super Bowl travelers.
The NFL considers numerous other factors, including stadium capacity, the number of hotel rooms nearby, local airports' ability to handle an onslaught of passengers and private jets, and the number of restaurants and space for parties and other functions in the days leading up the big game.
Host cities also are expected to meet a series of demands by the NFL, generally at the city's expense. The league sent Minneapolis officials more than 150 pages of demands when they bid for the 2018 game, including free police escorts for team owners, all-expense-paid “familiarization” trips to the city for 180 league officials and free use of golf courses, bowling alleys, billboards and 35,000 parking spaces, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.
“Most numbers I've seen, cities are on the hook for at least $50 million to host these things,” Matheson said, noting that doesn't include hundreds of millions of dollars that some places have spent to build new stadiums or improve existing ones, often with the help of public money. Houston's host committee is operating on a $63 million budget, including money from donations, corporate sponsorships and state funding.
Matheson said his research shows that Super Bowls tend to have a true economic impact of $30 million to $130 million.
“That's an amount Pittsburgh should never turn down,” Matheson said, adding that the region would reap additional benefits from media exposure should Pittsburgh ever land a Super Bowl.
Brad Humphreys, a sports economist at West Virginia University, also thinks Pittsburgh is a long-shot to host a Super Bowl. He said Pittsburghers shouldn't lose any sleep if they don't get one.
“There's no evidence that hosting a Super Bowl has any tangible economic benefits. It's an event that lasts for a weekend and a few days, but it takes years of planning. For a vibrant economy of Pittsburgh's size, it wouldn't make that much of a difference,” Humphreys said. Pittsburgh's gross domestic product equaled about $136 billion in 2014, federal data show.
“There is no question that the advertising effect is there, but really, who hasn't heard of Pittsburgh?” Humphreys said. “That benefit is pretty short-lived. How many people remember who hosted the Super Bowl three years ago? I'm guessing not many.”
Tom Fontaine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7847 or tfontaine@tribweb.com.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
