Super Bowl 52 is coming to Minnesota

The big news was announced today by the NFL that Minnesota will host Super Bowl 52 in 2018. The Vikings, Saints and Colts gave 15-minute presentations to team owners in Atlanta, Ga. and after the voting the Vikings won the bid. Full details and video at nfl.com.

16 Comments

Dorkus

about 4 months ago

Yes, vicarious, Yay. Regardless of your feelings on the funding of the stadium, a Super Bowl being hosted here is a win for the state.

vicarious

about 4 months ago

How so? Not trolling...just would really like to know. Who wins? Me? You? The crack addicts and prostitutes at Park and Franklin near the new stadium? Who wins, ultimately? Will there a be long-term boon to my bank account? Yours? Did the '92 Super Bowl change the fortune of the average Minnesotan? Honestly, I'm just interested in the rationale behind the grand statements of "winning" when "non-profit" professional sports leagues hold event lotteries.

Paul Lundgren

about 4 months ago

Well, there are obvious economic benefits, and then there are obvious exaggerations of economic benefits. Tim Nelson covers Vikings stadium issues for MPR News. Back in January he reported on the subject of Super Bowl economics, quoting analysis by Victor A. Matheson from his study "Economics of the Super Bowl." Three reasons a Super Bowl might not be worth as much as you think There won't be a boon to the average Minnesotan, but there will be a boon ... though it will be more modest than the prevailing speculation. Anyway, hosting a Super Bowl should be fun at the very least. I mean, who could forget "Winter Magic"?

Aldin

about 4 months ago

Considering what we know now about chronic traumatic encephalopathy we might as well be hosting the world championship of glue huffing.

Dorkus

about 4 months ago

Be warned, wall of text incoming. First, I would like to address your "non-profit" comment. The NFL league office is the only part of the NFL that is "non-profit". Revenue from the NFL is distributed to the individual teams through a revenue sharing system that provides more money to teams that are generating less revenue on their own and less money to teams in large markets like NYC. This revenue is, indeed, taxed. Every cent. Your assumption that the NFL as a whole is tax-exempt is a common one, because people hear that the league office has non-profit status and simply assume the league pays no taxes. The reason the league office has that non-profit status is mostly because of the way the penalizes players for certain infractions and uses said money for charitable purposes. But make no mistake, each team pays their fair share of taxes. I am sure each team has ways of finding tax loopholes like any other large business, but they are not tax exempt. Now, as far as the benefit to the state. It is fairly obvious the most direct benefit to the state is the influx of cash from all the media outlets and football fans from around the world spending almost a week in Minneapolis for the event. This creates far more cash for a northern city like Minneapolis, than it would for a city like New Orleans due to the "Substitution effect." In cities like New Orleans, a Super Bowl would actually displace people who would normally be in the city on vacation in February. This means that any revenue generated by the Super Bowl has to be adjusted to account for the people who would normally be there on vacation. This is why so many people talk about how the Super Bowl does not bring as much money as you think, primarily due to this substitution effect. But in Minneapolis, there are not a lot of people who are interested in traveling to the city in the first week of February. So the substitution effect is far less substantial. In fact, the article that Paul linked that has "Three reasons a Super Bowl might not be worth as much as you think," all three reasons are portions of the substitution effect. The next benefit is the taxes from the players. The Super Bowl winners and losers get a bonus check for the games played, which came out to a total of $8.7 million paid to the players that were involved. Those bonus checks are, indeed, taxed as income by the state. There is also the TV ad revenue which will be taxed by the state as well, since the event is hosted on their soil. You also have to consider the lingering effect of the Super Bowl. It will bring people to the area that wouldn't otherwise visit and that likely will have a cascading effect, causing at least some of the visitors to make return trips if everything goes well. Very difficult to quantify, but certainly a factor. Not to mention the sales tax for the tickets. But, here is where it gets a little sticky, since about the 1990s, most Super Bowl host committees have given tax breaks on the sales tax to the NFL, with some states even footing even more of the bill for security and parking. Take New Jersey, for example, they basically paid about 8 million to the NFL for the luxury of hosting the event. So the question is, what kind of concessions did the Vikings Super Bowl committee have approved by the state? I have not heard of any, and usually there would be complaints about the concessions given almost immediately after the awarding of the event. This is important information that is currently unavailable. To make a long story short, there are benefits and conservative numbers put it in the range of $60-120 million in economic benefit to the state, which is far short of the $600 million that the league likes to trumpet. Sure, I might not see a cent of that money living up here in the northwoods. But anything good for the state is ... well ... good for the state. I don't think you can argue that hosting a super bowl is not good for the state.

brian

about 4 months ago

I raked in about $50 from the Super Bowl in '92. I don't know what strings were pulled, but a friend got about $50 from the Super Bowl for Dan (on the left) and I to stand on Nicollet Mall and "entertain." The hat we put out gave us another $40 or $50 if I remember correctly. So that's some economic impact. The idea was to entertain out-of-towners as they strolled downtown, but we mostly seemed to be just bothering the locals. It was too cold for casual strolling.

Paul Lundgren

about 4 months ago

I demand a reunion concert.

Cory Fechner

about 4 months ago

Dorkus +1 Brian +1000

edgeways

about 4 months ago

From MNPost:

In the PiPress, Doug Belden asks what the tab will be for winning The Super Bowl? “It's still not clear what taxpayers will pay to bring the 52nd Super Bowl to town. Carlson Nelson originally had said the bid proposal would be released publicly after the NFL owners' vote Tuesday, but lawyers for Meet Minneapolis and the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority later said the data was nonpublic and would not be released until after the 2018 Super Bowl is played.” Which is as we’re accustomed.
There are a handful of problems with the NFL model, one of the largest is the reliance on massive public funding with minimal public benefit, of course public spending data is nonpublic, right?

Rae

about 4 months ago

"But anything good for the state is ... well ... good for the state. I don’t think you can argue that hosting a Super Bowl is not good for the state." -- Dorkus I can not agree with this sentiment more enthusiastically. Just because it isn't good for an individual, doesn't mean it's not good for the state as a whole. Also, don't forget there are are millions of football fans in the surrounding states who will now have a (small) opportunity to see the Super Bowl live.

Paul Lundgren

about 4 months ago

If Dorkus is going to go around writing quotable things, he might have to change his handle. It doesn't quite carry the same weight as Confucius.

Dorkus

about 4 months ago

I do agree that the NFL's reliance on public funding is something to be upset about. But it is more a professional sports issue in general than it is just an NFL issue. But like I mentioned in my rambling, incoherent response to Vicarious; it is common for the states to offer concessions to the NFL in order to increase their chances of being awarded a Super Bowl. But even if the state has to shell out $8 million like New Jersey had for the last Super Bowl(which is unlikely), they receive much more than that in return. It may be taxpayer money, but it will be returned to the coffers and then some. And Paul, I kinda like my handle, though it is probably causing my 7th grade social studies teacher to roll in his grave. He didn't like the word "Dork" as you probably know being the west-sider that you are.

Rae

about 4 months ago

Try as I may, I was unable to find anything quotable by Dorkus in that last statement. Original handle may remain as is.

BadCat!

about 3 months ago

I don't have interest in the Super Bowl one way or the other, but those of you who are, may find this article interesting: The NFL's Demands For A Super Bowl Host City Include Lots Of Free Stuff

Leave a Comment

Only registerd members can post a comment , Login / Register Here