Despite the constant whining we heard from the media about how cold it was in the Twin Cities over Super Bowl week, it turns out that a lot of people came for the festivities after all. And those people spent some money while they were in the area.
A whole lot of money.
According to a story from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the economic impact of having the NFL’s big game in the Twin Cities was approximately $400 million. That’s net impact, which means that local costs and activity that was otherwise displaced has already been figured in.
We’re still waiting on the results of the study that show what sort of economic impact the Super Bowl would have had on the Twin Cities if U.S. Bank Stadium hadn’t been built, the Minnesota Vikings would have left town, and the game would have been played somewhere else. I’m not an economist, but my estimate is slightly less than $400 million.
According to the study, the average visitor during Super Bowl week stayed in the city for about four days and spent right around $600 a day. I’m guessing that includes all sorts of expenses, but that still sounds like a whole lot of money.
Despite all of this, it seems unlikely that the Twin Cities will be hosting the game again any time soon. After all, the journalists that come in from out of town spent anywhere from five to fifteen minutes outside over the course of the entire week, and every single one of those minutes were completely unbearable. That means that the game is likely going to be relegated to warmer climates for the foreseeable future.
But, it would appear that all of the people that seemed to poo-poo the idea of U.S. Bank Stadium being an economic benefit to the area were, shockingly, incorrect. Given that the city is now also going to be hosting the upcoming Men’s Final Four, among other events, we’re simply going to see an amplification of just how incorrect they were.