{"id":352554,"date":"2026-06-09T03:33:08","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T03:33:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/352554\/"},"modified":"2026-06-09T03:33:08","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T03:33:08","slug":"how-much-did-super-bowl-earn-bay-area-experts-discount-720m-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/352554\/","title":{"rendered":"How much did Super Bowl earn Bay Area? Experts discount $720M claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"The<\/p>\n

The Bay Area Host Committee issued a news release Thursday claiming Super Bowl\u00a0LX was a financial bonanza for the Bay Area, supposedly boosting the region\u2019s economy by $720 million in a week. Two experts in sports finances\u00a0disputed that figure.<\/p>\n

Santiago Mejia\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n

As Santa Clara prepares to host six World Cup matches starting Saturday, city officials are still tussling over the finances of Super Bowl LX, the previous marquee sporting event at Levi\u2019s Stadium.<\/p>\n

On May 26, nearly four months after Seattle beat New England to earn the NFL championship, the City Council rejected Mayor Lisa Gillmor\u2019s proposal to order a report examining whether the city has been repaid for millions of dollars in security and other costs associated with staging the game.<\/p>\n

The Bay Area Host Committee, a San Francisco 49ers<\/a>-founded nonprofit serving as official host of the Super Bowl and World Cup, is responsible for reimbursing Santa Clara\u2019s expenses. Officials who benefited from millions of dollars in 49ers campaign contributions voted to quash the mayor\u2019s idea.<\/p>\n

Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n

During the council meeting, Gillmor complained the city\u2019s online dashboard detailing Super Bowl finances had not been updated since January. Days later, the dashboard was updated \u2014 and showed costs incurred nearing $7.8 million, almost $1.4 million more than Santa Clara\u2019s earlier estimate. Additional planning and training costs bumped up the total, according to city officials.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Levi\u2019s<\/a>\"Officials<\/a><\/p>\n

Meantime, the host committee issued a news release Thursday claiming Super Bowl\u00a0LX was a financial bonanza for the Bay Area, supposedly boosting the region\u2019s economy by $720 million in a week. Two experts contacted by the Chronicle dismissed the report\u2019s assessment as wildly overstated.<\/p>\n

San Francisco Chronicle Logo<\/p>\n

Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThese numbers are laughable and would never pass peer review,\u201d said Victor Matheson, a Holy Cross College professor who has studied Super Bowl finances for more than two decades.<\/p>\n

Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n

Roger Noll, a Stanford professor of economics emeritus and longtime expert on sports finances, echoed Matheson. Noll noted the report, produced by Boston Consulting Group on behalf of the host committee, highlighted about $100 million in benefits for Bay Area counties beyond San Francisco and Santa Clara, where virtually all Super Bowl-related events were held.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce you see that number (for other counties), you know the methodology is screwed up,\u201d Noll said. \u201cSo there\u2019s no reason to believe any of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mitch Germann, a spokesperson for the host committee, wrote in an email Monday that the group \u201cstands firmly behind\u201d the $720 million estimate.<\/p>\n

The NFL approved the 49ers\u2019 bid to host Super Bowl LX in 2023. Two years later, the City Council agreed to an unusual financing deal to pay for the event.<\/p>\n

Santa Clara officials estimated their Super Bowl costs at $6.4 million, records show, much of it to pay for law enforcement. By local ordinance, the city is prohibited from spending taxpayer funds to underwrite events at Levi\u2019s Stadium.<\/p>\n

Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n

But under the terms of this financing deal, the city agreed to pay Super Bowl costs up front; after the game, the host committee would reimburse the city for its expenses. The committee said it would raise money to pay for the Super Bowl, and the 49ers agreed to make the city whole if the committee\u2019s fundraising fell short.<\/p>\n

The deal requires Santa Clara officials to send invoices to the host committee to get reimbursed, and gives the committee the right to challenge invoices and refuse to pay them. Billing disputes are supposed to be settled in confidential binding arbitration, according to the agreement.<\/p>\n

Gillmor opposed the deal, saying she feared the city would end up saddled with costs it shouldn\u2019t have to pay. Former city attorney Brian Doyle, who was fired at the 49ers\u2019 behest in 2022, called the deal \u201cabysmal\u201d for the city. He argued the 49ers, not the city, should be required to pay up-front costs for the Super Bowl.<\/p>\n

A similar reimbursement agreement covers the upcoming World Cup matches, for which city officials have said they expect a $37 million outlay. To address transparency concerns, the city set up a\u00a0dashboard<\/a> on its website so the public could track spending for both big sporting events.<\/p>\n

But the dashboard went months without being updated. In May, more than three months after the Super Bowl, the dashboard showed the host committee had reimbursed the city only $611,000 for expenses related to the game\u00a0\u2014 less than 10% of the event\u2019s estimated cost.<\/p>\n

Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n

Gillmor cited this lack of information at the May 26 council meeting, when she recommended directing city staff to report on the status of payouts and reimbursements for the Super Bowl and World Cup.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is routine financial oversight,\u201d she told the council. \u201cThe public has waited long enough to get these numbers.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Suds Jain and Kevin Park, two council members elected with the 49ers\u2019 support, said Gillmor wasn\u2019t following proper procedures to put the issue on an upcoming agenda. They ultimately joined two other pro-49ers officials, Raj Chahal and Karen Hardy, in voting against the idea\u00a0\u2014 and the mayor\u2019s plea went down 4-3.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s interesting that the Bay Area Host Committee can do an analysis of the financial impact of the Super Bowl, but the city can\u2019t even figure out how much money they spent on it,\u201d said Doyle, the former city attorney.<\/p>\n

By Friday, the city dashboard had been updated. It showed Santa Clara had been reimbursed for nearly $2.9 million in Super Bowl expenses, leaving about $4.9 million in invoices pending.<\/p>\n

Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n

Gillmor, who viewed the contract\u2019s framework as onerous, now feels like her fears are being realized.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe majority of money has not been reimbursed,\u201d she said, \u201cand I don\u2019t know where it is in the process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Germann, the host committee spokesperson, blamed Santa Clara for the slow payments, saying the city has been \u201csending invoices months late and failing to provide reasonable supporting documentation for its reimbursement requests as called for by the agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite that, the host committee will repay the city for its \u201creasonable and actual Super Bowl services costs\u201d under terms of the deals, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs we\u2019ve pointed out many times, the city has a no-risk, all-reward deal,\u201d Germann wrote in a statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a statement emailed via a spokesperson, City Manager Jovan Grogan said the host committee requested \u201cadditional documentation and proof\u201d on some invoices. The committee already has disputed an $18,000 bill for staff training, according to the city, and is \u201crequesting further discussion\u201d regarding other invoices.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will meet and confer on the charges prior to proceeding with the dispute resolution process,\u201d spokesperson Janine De la Vega wrote in the email.<\/p>\n

As for the wider-scope economic impact report, Matheson, the Holy Cross professor, said the biggest financial benefit of hosting the Super Bowl comes in additional hotel revenue. That typically ranges from $40 million to $50 million, he said, not nearly enough to support an estimate of $720 million in total impact.<\/p>\n

Matheson described his basic rule as \u201ctake whatever the boosters tell you and move the decimal point one spot to the left.\u201d<\/p>\n

Noll questioned the traditional focus on dollars spent in connection with the Super Bowl\u00a0\u2014 whether last year in New Orleans, this year in Santa Clara or next year in Los Angeles. He maintained last week\u2019s estimate doesn\u2019t offer insight, instead merely providing a number that \u201csounds big\u201d for fans to think the event \u201cmust have been a success.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom my perspective, I think the Super Bowl was run really well, the ancillary events were well done and everyone had a good time,\u201d Noll said. \u201cWhy isn\u2019t that enough? Why do you have to go to this next step and say, \u2018Everyone got rich?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked his answer to that question, Noll replied, \u201cI think it\u2019s partly political performance. The people responsible for whether it\u2019s happening want it to create political benefit for them and to be in control of the agenda. The fact is, it\u2019s nonsense.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still, the finances of this year\u2019s Super Bowl carry uncommon significance in this respect: They offer a lens into what Santa Clara must navigate with the World Cup. The economic stakes are higher for soccer\u2019s most prestigious tournament, which will include six matches at Levi\u2019s Stadium starting with Qatar vs. Switzerland on Saturday and running through July 1.<\/p>\n

Gillmor has acknowledged her reservations about the process requiring the host committee to approve the city\u2019s invoices for repayment. The system is causing friction in the wake of the Super Bowl, and now a bigger test awaits with the World Cup.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very concerning,\u201d Gillmor said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Bay Area Host Committee issued a news release Thursday claiming Super Bowl\u00a0LX was a financial bonanza for…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":352555,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[184,296,88,90,89,127,11730],"class_list":["post-352554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-jose","tag-bay-area","tag-san-francisco-49ers","tag-san-jose","tag-san-jose-headlines","tag-san-jose-news","tag-sports","tag-super-bowl"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=352554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352554\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/352555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=352554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=352554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=352554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}