THE REALLY IMPORTANT SUPER BOWL STATS
If you want weather forecasts and financial news this morning the best place to turn is the sports sections. Weather gets most of the attention, primarily for it’s impact on the finances.
On this, the 47th anniversary of the first Super Bowl, the AFL-NFL Championship Game, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Green Bay Packers, the New York Post runs a feature on ticket brokers and how they gauge the futures on their investments. That first Super Bowl was televised by both CBS and NBC and no one seemed to care. It wasn’t sold out, commercials were sold for a song and it wasn’t the media event of the year. This year’s commercials sell for more per thirty seconds than the treasury of most third world countries and all the tickets are sold, many of them for resale, and those brokers are keeping a close eye on the weather for the obvious reason, that it’s the first Super Bowl played at a cold weather venue, and some reasons less obvious.
According to the Post the February 2nd game at Met Life Stadium already commands the highest face value price in Super Bowl history, $2,600, and has a chance to set a new resale record, at more than $1,000 over face value per, weather, and matchup, permitting. Ticket brokers are banking, hey, let’s be honest about it, betting, on a Denver-Seattle matchup, because fans from those two cities are used to watching football games in foul weather. The Patriots and their fans are familiar with winter football conditions as well, but Patriots fans haven’t historically traveled well to Super Bowls, and the frequency with which they’ve reached the big game diminishes the appeal held by more rabid fans in more Super Bowl starved venues. The big money wants Denver and Seattle. So does the city of New York. New England fans might be inclined to drive over on the day of the game while fans from the opposite side of the country are likely to make the better part of the week of it, spending more money, hotels, restaurants, public transportation, click-cling, click-cling, click-cling. And this morning USA Today runs a feature on how the cities that host the Super Bowl don’t necessarily bring in the big bucks you might think they do.
New York is hoping to see a $600 million payoff as the host, but that’s a figure provided by the NFL, which, of course, has to sell future Super Bowls to cities that might invest in expensive new stadiums to get them, and it may be inflated. At least one University of Florida economist thinks it may be inflated a lot, maybe by as much as, well, $600 million. Professor Philip Porter says, “Super Bowl attendees simply don’t buy much that the local economy sells.”
Most of the actual economic activity at a Super Bowl, reason some economists, has no effect on the local economy, Holy Cross’s Victor Mattheson telling USA Today it’s like, “An airplane landing at an airport and everyone gets out and gives each other a million bucks then gets back on the plane. That’s $200 million in economic activity, but it’s not any benefit to the local economy.”
One thing is certain, probably this year more than any past, the financial futures of the Super Bowl will be greatly impacted by the weather and, even if it’s bad that may be good, depending on which two teams get there.
Bottom line. If you want an analysis of this year’s Super Bowl ask Joe Furey or Jim Vicevich. In terms of the important statistics of this year’s game, guys like me don’t have a clue.
With a comment from the sports world, I’m Scott Gray.