The Super Bowl is over (presumably, I didn’t watch), and there is a winner and a loser! Or multiple winners and losers? Only one winner, multiple losers? Methinks we need a list:
- The people of Nevada, who put up $750 million for the Las Vegas Raiders stadium that hosted the game? Not winners according to economist Andrew Zimbalist, winners according to non-economist Jeremy Aguero. Also winners according to Inc. magazine’s editor at large because something about attracting battery manufacturers with game tickets.
- Las Vegas hotels, who are supposed to be raking in the dough from Super Bowl visitor spending? Probably not winners, given that they’re generally full on Super Bowl weekend regardless.
- Nevada Assembly speaker Steve Yeager, who voted for the $600 million Oakland A’s stadium subsidy and presumably only ended up missing voting for the Raiders stadium deal because the vote happened a month before he took office: Winner, if you count photo ops as wins.
- Raiders stadium workers earning $14.25 an hour and relying on Medicaid for health coverage: Not winners, unless maybe the attention helps them unionize.
For those who need a refresher: Actual after-the-fact studies have shown that the benefit of hosting a Super Bowl is at most a few million dollars, which is less than most cities spend on advertising the game, let alone increased police presence. Winners: NFL owners who keep getting large chunks of their stadium costs paid for by taxpayers, plus Nevada police who get overtime pay, I guess?
