clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Economics of the Super Bowl -- let best NFL team host game.

By Josh Kirkendall

Forbes released an interesting list that rates the most valuable sporting event brands.

RANK EVENT VALUE ($mil)
1 Super Bowl 379
2 Summer Olympics 176
3 FIFA World Cup 103
4 Daytona 500 91
5 Rose Bowl 88
6 Final Four 82
7 Winter Olympics 82
8 Kentucky Derby 69
9 World Series 56
10 NBA Finals 47

Forbes continues that Advertisers are "willing to fork over up to $2.6 million for a 30-second" commercial.

And the return?

Advertisers also get a bang for their buck--or, in this case, 2 million-plus bucks--when they sign on for the big game. In 2006, the Web sites of Super Bowl advertisers saw a collective 55% spike in traffic on the day after the game, according to Nielsen NetRatings.

What's the benefit for half-time performers?

Over the last five Super Bowls, these acts have seen an average boost in album sales of 187% in the week following the game, according to Nielsen SoundScan. The most impressive spike came for former Beatle Paul McCartney, whose Back in the U.S. album saw a 542% rise in sales in the week after Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005. His older albums, All the Best (1987) and Wingspan: Hits and History (2001), also saw 246% and 161% increases, respectively.

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.

The official estimate is that the Feb. 4 game and the surrounding festivities will give the region a $400 million boost. But some economists who study the game's monetary impact say that's a pie-in-the-sky estimate, that the actual amount is one-tenth of that.

"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.

More From Cincy Jungle