How much did Super Bowl really earn for Bay Area? Experts discount $720 million claim
As Santa Clara prepares to host six World Cup matches starting Saturday, city officials are still tussling over the finances of Super Bowl LX, the previous marquee sporting event at Levi's Stadium.
On May 26, nearly four months after Seattle beat New England to earn the NFL championship, the City Council rejected Mayor Lisa Gillmor's proposal to order a report examining whether the city has been repaid for millions of dollars in security and other costs associated with staging the game.
The Bay Area Host Committee, a San Francisco 49ers-founded nonprofit serving as official host of the Super Bowl and World Cup, is responsible for reimbursing Santa Clara's expenses. Officials who benefited from millions of dollars in 49ers campaign contributions voted to quash the mayor's idea.
During the council meeting, Gillmor complained the city's online dashboard detailing Super Bowl finances had not been updated since January. Days later, the dashboard was updated - and showed costs incurred nearing $7.8 million, almost $1.4 million more than Santa Clara's earlier estimate. Additional planning and training costs bumped up the total, according to city officials.
More For You
Super Bowl LX marks latest chapter in fractious 49ers-Santa Clara relationship
The San Francisco 49ers and city of Santa Clara will host Super Bowl LX on Feb. 8 at Levi's Stadium, but their path to this big moment was complicated and contentious.
Bay Area lands nearly $60 million in federal funds to help cover World Cup costs
Two federal agencies will spend nearly $60 million to underwrite World Cup matches at Levi's Stadium, as part of a $1 billion infusion from the Trump administration.
Meantime, the host committee issued a news release Thursday claiming Super Bowl LX was a financial bonanza for the Bay Area, supposedly boosting the region's economy by $720 million in a week. Two experts contacted by the Chronicle dismissed the report's assessment as wildly overstated.
"These numbers are laughable and would never pass peer review," said Victor Matheson, a Holy Cross professor who has studied Super Bowl finances for more than two decades.
Roger Noll, a Stanford professor of economics emeritus and longtime expert on sports finances, echoed Matheson. Noll noted the report, produced by Boston Consulting Group on behalf of the host committee, highlighted about $100 million in benefits for Bay Area counties beyond San Francisco and Santa Clara, where virtually all Super Bowl-related events were held.
"Once you see that number (for other counties), you know the methodology is screwed up," Noll said. "So there's no reason to believe any of it."
Mitch Germann, a spokesperson for the host committee, wrote in an email Monday that the group "stands firmly behind" the $720 million estimate.
The NFL approved the 49ers' bid to host Super Bowl LX in 2023. Two years later, the City Council agreed to an unusual financing deal to pay for the event.
Santa Clara officials estimated their Super Bowl costs at $6.4 million, records show, much of it to pay for law enforcement. By local ordinance, the city is prohibited from spending taxpayer funds to underwrite events at Levi's Stadium.
But under the terms of this financing deal, the city agreed to pay Super Bowl costs up front; after the game, the host committee would reimburse the city for its expenses. The committee said it would raise money to pay for the Super Bowl, and the 49ers agreed to make the city whole if the committee's fundraising fell short.
The deal requires Santa Clara officials to send invoices to the host committee to get reimbursed, and gives the committee the right to challenge invoices and refuse to pay them. Billing disputes are supposed to be settled in confidential binding arbitration, according to the agreement.
Gillmor opposed the deal, saying she feared the city would end up saddled with costs it shouldn't have to pay. Former city attorney Brian Doyle, who was fired at the 49ers' behest in 2021, called the deal "abysmal" for the city. He argued the 49ers, not the city, should be required to pay up-front costs for the Super Bowl.
A similar reimbursement agreement covers the upcoming World Cup matches, for which city officials have said they expect a $37 million outlay. To address transparency concerns, the city set up a dashboard on its website so the public could track spending for both big sporting events.
But the dashboard went months without being updated. In May, more than three months after the Super Bowl, the dashboard showed the host committee had reimbursed the city only $611,000 for expenses related to the game - less than 10% of the event's estimated cost.
Gillmor cited this lack of information at the May 26 council meeting, when she recommended directing city staff to report on the status of payouts and reimbursements for the Super Bowl and World Cup.
"This is routine financial oversight," she told the council. "The public has waited long enough to get these numbers."
But Suds Jain and Kevin Park, two council members elected with the 49ers' support, said Gillmor wasn't following proper procedures to put the issue on an upcoming agenda. They ultimately joined two other pro-49ers officials, Raj Chahal and Karen Hardy, in voting against the idea - and the mayor's plea went down 4-3.
"It's interesting that the Bay Area Host Committee can do an analysis of the financial impact of the Super Bowl, but the city can't even figure out how much money they spent on it," said Doyle, the former city attorney.
By Friday, the city dashboard had been updated. It showed Santa Clara had been reimbursed for nearly $2.9 million in Super Bowl expenses, leaving about $4.9 million in invoices pending.
Gillmor, who viewed the contract's framework as onerous, now feels like her fears are being realized.
"The majority of money has not been reimbursed," she said, "and I don't know where it is in the process."
Germann, the host committee spokesperson, blamed Santa Clara for the slow payments, saying the city has been "sending invoices months late and failing to provide reasonable supporting documentation for its reimbursement requests as called for by the agreement."
Despite that, the host committee will repay the city for its "reasonable and actual Super Bowl services costs" under terms of the deals, he said.
"As we've pointed out many times, the city has a no-risk, all-reward deal," Germann wrote in a statement.
In a statement emailed via a spokesperson, City Manager Jovan Grogan said the host committee requested "additional documentation and proof" on some invoices. The committee already has disputed an $18,000 bill for staff training, according to the city, and is "requesting further discussion" regarding other invoices.
"We will meet and confer on the charges prior to proceeding with the dispute resolution process," spokesperson Janine De la Vega wrote in the email.
As for the wider-scope economic impact report, Matheson, the Holy Cross professor, said the biggest financial benefit of hosting the Super Bowl comes in additional hotel revenue. That typically ranges from $40 million to $50 million, he said, not nearly enough to support an estimate of $720 million in total impact.
Matheson described his basic rule as "take whatever the boosters tell you and move the decimal point one spot to the left."
Noll questioned the traditional focus on dollars spent in connection with the Super Bowl - whether last year in New Orleans, this year in Santa Clara or next year in Los Angeles. He maintained last week's estimate doesn't offer insight, instead merely providing a number that "sounds big" for fans to think the event "must have been a success."
"From my perspective, I think the Super Bowl was run really well, the ancillary events were well done and everyone had a good time," Noll said. "Why isn't that enough? Why do you have to go to this next step and say, ‘Everyone got rich?'"
Asked his answer to that question, Noll replied, "I think it's partly political performance. The people responsible for whether it's happening want it to create political benefit for them and to be in control of the agenda. The fact is, it's nonsense."
Still, the finances of this year's Super Bowl carry uncommon significance in this respect: They offer a lens into what Santa Clara must navigate with the World Cup. The economic stakes are higher for soccer's most prestigious tournament, which will include six matches at Levi's Stadium starting with Qatar vs. Switzerland on Saturday and running through July 1.
Gillmor has acknowledged her reservations about the process requiring the host committee to approve the city's invoices for repayment. The system is causing friction in the wake of the Super Bowl, and now a bigger test awaits with the World Cup.
"It's very concerning," Gillmor said.
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.
This story was originally published June 8, 2026 at 7:16 PM.