Sports Mailbag, Tampa Tribune, Sunday (Sports Section, p. 16, cols 1 &2)

[WoolyBully]

A professor of mine once did a study on the super bowl's effect on local economies (particularly Tampa). He found that it didn't generate anywhere near the amount of money that the NFL states it does. (Note: he testified before a court of law with these findings). He showed that most of the money went to large companies (Hyatt, Holiday Inn, Bank of America) that aren't located in Tampa. He showed that hotels and restaurants don't serve more people and generate more $$$ (since they don't grow in size actually to accommodate more people). He found that having the Super Bowl in town generate about the same amount of $$$ as a new large supermarket would generate.

If the Super Bowl isn't really bringing in the large amounts of $$$ then I doubt the ACC championship game won't either. Especially!, if FSU and UM are in the game.

See here's the tough part. Somehow, at some point in time, we developed the opinion that we had to quantify these things to pitch them. The average person isn't going to do any independent research, and the proponents of the (stadium, game, athletic park, etc.), know this. Therefore we hire a consultant to say that IT WILL generate $X, knowing that no one will refute it as they don't have the numbers in place to say so.  It's a great system. And if you call them on it, the burden of proof now rests with YOU. This is not uncommon. Think of how tough it would be to sell the idea of something so that the benefits are all intangible...something akin to being a commercial for Tampa. That's a tough sell. Ranks right up there with trying to market razor blades and toothpaste.

[MikeG]

I find it amusing that an FSU fan assumes USF football does not generate a large gate or is consider big time football.

Pretty much everything written in those examples seems borderline brain-dead

[Orlando Bull]

Wow, no one jumped on this one yet? My personal favorite quote was...

With FSU and Miami being perennial contenders in this elite league

Elite League?  :ROFLMAO

[Guest]

A professor of mine once did a study on the super bowl's effect on local economies (particularly Tampa). He found that it didn't generate anywhere near the amount of money that the NFL states it does. (Note: he testified before a court of law with these findings). He showed that most of the money went to large companies (Hyatt, Holiday Inn, Bank of America) that aren't located in Tampa. He showed that hotels and restaurants don't serve more people and generate more $$$ (since they don't grow in size actually to accommodate more people). He found that having the Super Bowl in town generate about the same amount of $$$ as a new large supermarket would generate.

If the Super Bowl isn't really bringing in the large amounts of $$$ then I doubt the ACC championship game won't either. Especially!, if FSU and UM are in the game.

See here's the tough part. Somehow, at some point in time, we developed the opinion that we had to quantify these things to pitch them. The average person isn't going to do any independent research, and the proponents of the (stadium, game, athletic park, etc.), know this. Therefore we hire a consultant to say that IT WILL generate $X, knowing that no one will refute it as they don't have the numbers in place to say so.  It's a great system. And if you call them on it, the burden of proof now rests with YOU. This is not uncommon. Think of how tough it would be to sell the idea of something so that the benefits are all intangible...something akin to being a commercial for Tampa. That's a tough sell. Ranks right up there with trying to market razor blades and toothpaste.

Dr. Porter's study is flawed.  He basically concluded the money that comes in would have been spent anyway, and the increased costs to the local government for services is never taken into account when reviewing the economic impact.

To be sure, there may be an opportunity cost of some tourists who would come to Tampa, but couldn't get hotels that weekend because of the event - or the cost of local government services.  These "opportunity costs" are how he shows the economic impact is less than projected.

[Donno]

A professor of mine once did a study on the super bowl's effect on local economies (particularly Tampa). He found that it didn't generate anywhere near the amount of money that the NFL states it does. (Note: he testified before a court of law with these findings). He showed that most of the money went to large companies (Hyatt, Holiday Inn, Bank of America) that aren't located in Tampa. He showed that hotels and restaurants don't serve more people and generate more $$$ (since they don't grow in size actually to accommodate more people). He found that having the Super Bowl in town generate about the same amount of $$$ as a new large supermarket would generate.

If the Super Bowl isn't really bringing in the large amounts of $$$ then I doubt the ACC championship game won't either. Especially!, if FSU and UM are in the game.

See here's the tough part. Somehow, at some point in time, we developed the opinion that we had to quantify these things to pitch them. The average person isn't going to do any independent research, and the proponents of the (stadium, game, athletic park, etc.), know this. Therefore we hire a consultant to say that IT WILL generate $X, knowing that no one will refute it as they don't have the numbers in place to say so.  It's a great system. And if you call them on it, the burden of proof now rests with YOU. This is not uncommon. Think of how tough it would be to sell the idea of something so that the benefits are all intangible...something akin to being a commercial for Tampa. That's a tough sell. Ranks right up there with trying to market razor blades and toothpaste.

Dr. Porter's study is flawed.  He basically concluded the money that comes in would have been spent anyway, and the increased costs to the local government for services is never taken into account when reviewing the economic impact.

To be sure, there may be an opportunity cost of some tourists who would come to Tampa, but couldn't get hotels that weekend because of the event - or the cost of local government services.  These "opportunity costs" are how he shows the economic impact is less than projected.

Actually the study isn't flawed from that standpoint.  Dr. Porter stated that the super bowl fans are just displacing other tourists so that is a wash and the economic impact is not LOCAL.

He found that the only people who felt an impact from the Super Bowl were the national hotel chains because they will be able to increase their room charge but that money is not kept local.

However, he will tell you as he has me, that there are intangibles to hosting the super bowl that are not completely recognizable by an economic impact study, goodwill, advertising etc.

He was brought in to counter-argue the economic impact study put forth by others.

[Yung Money]

Well how many games did USF sell out last year? Unless it is Florida State-Miami, the ACC title game isn't going to sell out. Therefore we can reasonably conclude it wont do two or three times better than a USF football game.

Furthermore, I certainly wouldn't call the ACC an elite league. Their champion got destroyed by LSU in September and then lost to the third best Big 12 team in the Orange Bowl. Right now, the ACC is probably the weakest of the BCS leagues and their title game has been the least successful of the BCS conference title games so far.

[BleacherBull]

I wonder just how many USF alums come from out of town to attend home games, like me, and stay in local hotels and eat in local restaurants.  Now multiply that by 6 home games.  I bet our economic impact is not too shabby.

[Guest]

Dr. Porter's study is flawed.  He basically concluded the money that comes in would have been spent anyway, and the increased costs to the local government for services is never taken into account when reviewing the economic impact.

To be sure, there may be an opportunity cost of some tourists who would come to Tampa, but couldn't get hotels that weekend because of the event - or the cost of local government services.  These "opportunity costs" are how he shows the economic impact is less than projected.

Actually the study isn't flawed from that standpoint.  Dr. Porter stated that the super bowl fans are just displacing other tourists so that is a wash and the economic impact is not LOCAL.

He found that the only people who felt an impact from the Super Bowl were the national hotel chains because they will be able to increase their room charge but that money is not kept local.

However, he will tell you as he has me, that there are intangibles to hosting the super bowl that are not completely recognizable by an economic impact study, goodwill, advertising etc.

He was brought in to counter-argue the economic impact study put forth by others.

Most (if not all) "national hotel chains" are franchises not corporate owned and operated.  So the impact, and much of the money, stays local in the community.  The same is true for restaurants.  That is part of the flaw in his argument. 

Sure the national chains get some benefit, the same as they would no matter where the Super Bowl is held... but a significant portion is retained locally.

[WoolyBully]

...However, he will tell you as he has me, that there are intangibles to hosting the super bowl that are not completely recognizable by an economic impact study, goodwill, advertising etc.

And that's the tough sell. How do you stand before the public and say, "Ok, financially, this thing's pretty much a wash, but from a CIVIC MINDED PERSPECTIVE we need to do this". It sounds as lame as "it's for the children".

[Economics_Nerd82]

Dr. Porter's study is flawed.  He basically concluded the money that comes in would have been spent anyway, and the increased costs to the local government for services is never taken into account when reviewing the economic impact.

To be sure, there may be an opportunity cost of some tourists who would come to Tampa, but couldn't get hotels that weekend because of the event - or the cost of local government services.  These "opportunity costs" are how he shows the economic impact is less than projected.

Actually the study isn't flawed from that standpoint.  Dr. Porter stated that the super bowl fans are just displacing other tourists so that is a wash and the economic impact is not LOCAL.

He found that the only people who felt an impact from the Super Bowl were the national hotel chains because they will be able to increase their room charge but that money is not kept local.

However, he will tell you as he has me, that there are intangibles to hosting the super bowl that are not completely recognizable by an economic impact study, goodwill, advertising etc.

He was brought in to counter-argue the economic impact study put forth by others.

Most (if not all) "national hotel chains" are franchises not corporate owned and operated.  So the impact, and much of the money, stays local in the community.  The same is true for restaurants.  That is part of the flaw in his argument. 

Sure the national chains get some benefit, the same as they would no matter where the Super Bowl is held... but a significant portion is retained locally.

Glad to see I'm not the only economics nerd on this board.