EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUPER BOWL 50 ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT

Sportsimpacts was retained by the Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Host Committee to conduct a post-event
analysis of Super Bowl 50s economic impact on the Bay Area economy. Super Bowl 50 marks the third
Super Bowl study conducted by our firm (Detroit 2006, North Texas 2011), and marks more than 80
economic impact studies performed since our inception in 2000, including numerous large-scale events
and projects (e.g., three NCAA Final Fours, the Ryder Cup, the Presidents Cup, the Major League
Baseball All-Star game, numerous collegiate bowl games, and a financial analysis with the United States
Tennis Association).
KEY FINDING: Using best practices and conservative methodology, our economic impact analysis
concluded that Super Bowl 50 generated at least $240 million in economic benefits for the Bay Area
economy.
Before summarizing how we arrived at this conclusion, we will first discuss (1) important considerations
associated with economic impact studies, (2) the methodology employed herein, and (3) various elements
of conservatism imbedded in our analysis, many of which are not often adopted in comparable studies.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
It is nearly impossible and truly a flawed practice by anyone who undertakes it to compare the
economic impact of one mega-event to another when different organizations/consultants are employed to
conduct these studies. This is because, in our two decades of industry experience,
organizations/consultants often differ in regards to (1) their level of subject matter expertise, (2) their
degree of impartiality towards the end result, and (3) the degree of conservatism they choose to impart
during their analysis. These factors are, often times, interrelated, and directly impact the degree to which
a reports methodologies follow accepted industry standards (as chronicled in various academic and
industry literature cited within this report). Subsequently, comparing one economic impact study to
another will almost certainly yield improper conclusions about the relative financial merits across events.
Another important point pertaining to the current study and a point which is also true with most megaevents we are familiar with is that not all economic impacts upon the Bay Area arising from Super Bowl
50 occurred instantaneously during Super Bowl 50 week itself. For example, some expenditures on event
operations and logistics were incurred well before February 2016. Similarly, some of the multiplier

effects associated with non-local spending may not materialize for 1-2 years after the event, simply
because the trickle down spending associated with the multiplier process often requires time for money
to, in fact, trickle throughout the local economy (especially a large geographic region like the Bay Area).
Therefore, it would be erroneous to conclude that the entirety of the estimated economic impacts
associated with Super Bowl 50 reported herein accrued immediately during or just after Super Bowl 50
week.
METHODOLOGY
These general caveats in mind, our methodological approach herein involved six primary steps:
Defining the Bay Area
The Bay Area was defined as the counties which comprise the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs), which includes San Francisco, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, and San Mateo
Counties (SF MSA), as well as Santa Clara and San Benito Counties (SJ MSA).
Subsequently, any persons or expenditures originating from these counties were considered local. If
persons or expenditures originated from beyond these counties, these were classified as non-local.
Excluding Local Spending
Consistent with accepted industry standards, we largely excluded expenditures by local persons or
organizations when calculating economic impact. (The report details some exceptions to this general rule,
including the locals vacationing at home argument.)
Defining Economic Impact
Consistent with accepted industry standards, our measure/definition of economic impact is the portion
of non-local expenditures which are retained within the local impact region after being spent, and
represent a net increase in visitor spending above and beyond historical levels of visitor spending.
This concept is referred to as the net impact on local income, which accounts for such things as
monetary leakages, displacement, and the exclusion of spending by local persons or organizations.
In our experience, most economic impact studies of mega-events fail to account for these three key
factors, which subsequently inflates the economic impact estimates associated with such studies.

Identifying Spending Sources

To calculate the direct non-local spending associated with Super Bowl 50, four sources of spending were
considered:
1.

Spending by non-local game-day attendees. Over 700 on-site attendee questionnaires were
collected over Super Bowl 50 weekend by Sportsimpacts staff to estimate these spending levels.

2.

Spending by non-local visitors who visited the Bay Area during Super Bowl 50 week but did not
attend the game itself. Also obtained from the survey cited above.

3.

Spending by non-local event participants (e.g. media/press members, NFL executives, vendors,
team traveling parties, television production and talent staff from ESPN, CBS, CNN, and NFL
Network, staff from PPW and Populous). The Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Host Committee provided
estimates of how large these parties were, and thereafter, Sportsimpacts applied various
spending assumptions pertaining to these groups.

4.

Spending on event logistics and operations originating from non-local sources (e.g. stadium
preparations, event-related preparations of surrounding area, event security, ancillary events like
Media Day, on-location shows in Super Bowl City in downtown San Francisco, non-local vendors
who purchased space/rentals). The Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Host Committee provided estimates
of these various expenditures. Due to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) between the Host
Committee and several of these reporting organizations, details regarding the specific flow of
these monies (i.e. original source, final destination) were not shared with Sportsimpacts.

Calculating the Multiplier Effect

To calculate the multiplier effects associated with the direct non-local spending sources listed above, and
consistent with accepted industry standards, we employed IMPLAN multiplier data to estimate spin-off
spending effects. IMPLAN is an industry-leading software widely employed by economic impact
professionals.
Subtracting City Costs and Displaced Spending
Lastly, and consistent with theoretically proper economic impact methodologies (though seldom
employed in comparable studies), we reduced our final economic impact estimates by accounting for (1)
local costs associated with hosting Super Bowl 50 (e.g. transportation services, public safety, police,
firefighters, etc), and (2) displacement effects which the event may have had (e.g. local residents getting

out of town to avoid Super Bowl congestion, or would-be events like conferences, conventions, etcthat
otherwise may have come to the Bay Area in 2016 but for Super Bowl 50.
COMPARATIVE ELEMENTS OF CONSERVATISM
In the process of executing this methodology, and consistent with our firms historical reputation, we
routinely erred on the side of conservatism throughout our analysis. Eight specific examples of this
conservatism include:
1.

Using 5% trimmed means rather than means when estimating attendee spending. This helps
deflate outlying answers obtained from survey research.

2.

Excluding game-day concessions and merchandise spending from economic impact

consideration since it doesnt remain within the local economy. Though these monies were
considered for tax impact purposes since those expenditures occurred within Santa Clara
County.

3.

Heavily deflating rental car and air travel expenditures due to the uncertainty with which those
monies are retained within the local economy given the nature of those respective industries.

4.

Deflating visitor spending by accounting for casuals and time-switchers. These are two
groups of non-local visitors who should be excluded from economic impact consideration,
though many studies fail to properly do so.

5.

Using an estimate for non-local spending on event operations and logistics that was
considerably less than the aggregate sum provided by the Host Committee, since due to NDAs
we were not able to meticulously assess first-hand whether various sources of reported
itemized spending would meet the definitions of economic impact accepted by industry
standards.

6.

Using spending and income multipliers which almost certainly understate the true multiplier
effects for the entire Bay Area. Due to project constraints, IMPLAN multiplier data was only
purchased for San Francisco County, and generally speaking, the larger the geographic area, the
larger the corresponding multipliers for that area.

7.

Reducing non-local direct spending estimates by $9.6 million to account for local Bay Area costs
incurred while hosting Super Bowl 50.

8.

Reducing non-local direct spending estimates by an additional $12.1 million to account for
potential displacement effects.

RESULTS AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

After employing our methodology which is consistent with accepted industry standards, and then
factoring in all the elements of conservatism outlined above, we conclude with reasonable certainty that
the eventual economic impact of Super Bowl 50 upon the Bay Area economy will be at least $240.1
million. Recall that the term eventual is used because, as noted earlier, a small portion of this estimate
(roughly 6%) reflect multiplier effects which have yet to occur, as the initial expenditures from non-local
sources may take 1-2 years to trickle throughout a local economy as large as the Bay Area before being
fully realized.
There are three additional considerations pertaining to the assessment of economic impact for Super Bowl
50, and the first two of these considerations further highlight how our $240.1 million estimate may still
understate the true economic impact of Super Bowl 50 upon the Bay Area:
Revisiting Non-Local Spending on Event Operations and Logistics
The Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Host Committee estimated that, collectively, the non-local spending on these
items was approximately $194.3 million. Because our firm was not able to review these numbers in detail
due to NDAs between the Host Committee and the various reporting agencies, we cannot confirm
whether all of these monies would classify as economic impact in the way economic impact has been
defined herein. However, based upon our past experience reviewing these types of expenditures and
conversations with the Host Committee, we are reasonably confident that allowing 25% of these monies
(or $48.6 million) to count towards economic impact consideration is a fair and conservative estimate of
how these expenditures collectively impacted direct non-local spending within the Bay Area economy.
That being said, if we are being overly conservative in our assessment of what portion of these monies
should count towards economic impact consideration, then the $240.1 million estimate reported above
would understate the true economic impact of Super Bowl 50 upon the Bay Area. For example, if as
much as 40% of these reported non-local expenditures on operations and logistics were counted towards
economic impact consideration, the resulting economic impact estimate after accounting for multipliers,
local costs, and displacement would be $269.5 million.
Future tourism resulting from regional exposure/marketing
Hosting a mega-event like Super Bowl 50 creates worldwide television exposure and considerable free
advertising for the Bay Area a region that relies heavily on the tourism industry. Though research to

quantify these effects were beyond our scope, another benefit of hosting the game is that it may spur
future tourism from either (1) visitors who liked the Bay Area so much during their Super Bowl 50
experience that they plan to make a future return visit, or (2) television viewers who became enamored
with visiting the area upon seeing the various beauty shots of the region throughout the numerous
hours of media coverage for the event. These effects are hard to quantify, but certainly can exist. To the
extent the Bay Area eventually realizes future residual tourism due to the exposure/marketing conferred
from hosting Super Bowl 50, our estimate of economic impact is understated.
Spending by Local Residents
Apart from a small portion of spending by local game-day attendees, this report largely excludes the
spending by local residents to the Bay Area. This omission is consistent with economic impact
methodology, and the rationale is that locals who spent money at either the game itself or game-related
events (e.g. Super Bowl City, NFL Experience) would have spent their money elsewhere in the region at
some point in the future (i.e. within the next 1-2 years) had they not spent their money at these events.
However, it is possible that more local spending was redirected towards downtown San Francisco prior
to and during Super Bowl 50 week than would otherwise have been the case (since the majority of events
were located in San Francisco). Though beyond the scope of our analysis, it should be recognized that the
typical spending patterns of local residents may have been redirected to parts of the Bay Area where
event-related activities were concentrated.
OTHER KEY FINDINGS FROM THE REPORT
In closing, here are seven additional key findings from the study:
(1) 83% of game-day attendees were from outside the local impact area (i.e. not from either the San Francisco
or San Jose MSAs)

(2) Regarding the different types of non-locals based on survey data:

o

80.1% were overnighters (i.e. people paying for overnight lodging)

15.0% stayed with locally-based family or friends

3.7% were day-commuters (i.e. people driving in/out of the Bay Area on the same day as
the game without requiring overnight lodging)

1.2% did not identify themselves into any of these non-local categories

(3) Direct Spending Per Day Per Person (by Non-Local Typeexcluding hotel spending and unadjusted
for casuals and time-switchers):
o

$341..Overnighters

$275..Family/Friends

$261..Day-Commuters

(4) For those that incurred overnight lodging expenditures:

o

$351..Average nightly rate

1.56Average rooms per party

3.49Average number of nights

(5) What percentage of the overall economic impact came from these sources?
o

36.9%..Non-local game-day attendees

33.9%..Non-local event participants

19.7%..................Non-local spending on event operations / logistics

9.5%Additional non-local visitors not attending the game

(6) What percentage of the economic impact accrued in these parts of the Bay Area?
o

57.1%..San Francisco

19.5%..San Jose/Santa Clara (with 12.3% accruing in San Jose, 7.2% in Santa Clara)

7.1%....................Near San Francisco Airport

3.7%Oakland

12.6%..................Other

(7) Regarding direct tax impacts, there was an estimated $35.8 million in Direct Tax Impacts for the Bay Area
o

$21.6 million in state sales taxes from direct spending by non-local people and/or
organizations, $945,000 in state sales taxes from the $10.8 million in combined
concessions and merchandise spending within Levi Stadium on Super Bowl Sunday, and
$13.2 million in regional Occupancy Tax collections throughout the Bay Area

Note that direct tax impacts do not account for multiplier effects, or reductions from
direct spending by non-locals (e.g. local event costs incurred or displacement).