Forbes released an interesting list that rates the most valuable sporting event brands.
|3||FIFA World Cup||103|
Forbes continues that Advertisers are "willing to fork over up to $2.6 million for a 30-second" commercial.
And the return?
What's the benefit for half-time performers?
Another product that's seeing an increase is the purchase of fancy hi-def TVs.
There's debate into the economic impact the host city receives.
"If you move that $400 million estimate and you move the decimal point one place to the left you're much closer to what it is that it actually provides," said Robert Baade, an economics professor at Lake Forest College in Chicago who has looked at the financial impact of Super Bowls, Olympics and World Series.
My question is why don't the cities, with Super Bowl teams, complain to the NFL about not getting them in their own backyard? Based off a seeding system used to rank the teams, why not have an NFL seeding with the highest seed awarded to host the Super Bowl? You don't think a city like Indianapolis would stand to benefit big time with the game? Award the city with the team's success.
I understand there's neutrality and preparation issues (security, events, etc), but I believe it's worth debate.