By Robert Haugh
The 49ers insist Santa Clara taxpayers won’t be on the hook for hosting next summer’s World Cup matches. The team has pledged revenue from their NFL operations to cover any funding gaps.
But Mayor Lisa Gillmor told the San Francisco Chronicle in a story yesterday that she’s skeptical and concerned. The city faces tremendous financial risk if the team’s promise doesn’t pan out.
The Chronicle previously reported that the City could be on the hook for $38 million according to confidential City staff reports.
Gillmor is reflecting the feelings of a lot of residents who have seen the 49ers owner/CEO Jed York renege on his 2010 promise to build youth soccer fields and instead tried to take the Youth Soccer Park for VIP parking in 2014.
The team has also not paid the City what it promised or projected, especially since 2018.
Under current plans, a nonprofit known as the Bay Area Host Committee—founded by the 49ers—would repay the city in exchange for receiving $13 million from FIFA for stadium rental.
However, former City Attorney Brian Doyle told the Chronicle that the committee’s 2023 IRS filing shows it only has $80,000 on hand.
Gillmor told the Chronicle that although the 49ers’ guarantee sounds reassuring, the details are murky.
The team only promises to cover “approved costs,” yet it’s the host committee itself that decides which expenditures qualify. “We’re talking about a high-risk situation for the city,” Gillmor said.
“The devil is in the details. The team has agreed to cover ‘approved costs,’ but they (the host committee) are the ones who approve the costs.”
Gillmor said there’s a stark difference in transparency compared to Super Bowl 50 in 2016. For that event, the City Council saw detailed contracts and cost estimates years ahead of time.
Now, with the World Cup and a 2026 Super Bowl on the horizon, she says the public hasn’t seen final agreements for either event, even though the City Council could be voting on the World Cup deal as early as January 28.
Questions remain over possible conflict-of-interest issues involving 49ers President Al Guido.
As the Chronicle reported, Guido negotiated the deal on behalf of both the city-owned stadium and the 49ers-backed host committee, raising concerns about whether his dual role violates state law. Critics argue such a conflict could invalidate the agreement.
But Glen Googins said he would take no action on the matter even though he’s Santa Clara’s City Attorney.
Many Mission City residents remain uneasy about potential taxpayer exposure, particularly if promised donations and subsidies fail to materialize.
Forbes lists the 49ers among the world’s wealthiest sports franchises, with an estimated $144 million in yearly profits.
But there’s no guarantee that all tournament-related costs will be deemed “approved.” Some worry the team’s pledge could be dishonest and large expenditures will fall back on the City.
The City Council will discuss the details of the 49ers’ pledge and the City’s risk at a January 28 meeting.
[…] to the San Francisco Chronicle, a confidential City staff report sets the potential public cost at $38 […]
No one on our council should agree to this! If the 49ers want this, let them put all the money up front in an account that the city controls. They have screwed the people of our city over and over again. It might be time for the people of this great city to file a class action lawsuit to protect itself from the 49ers and 49er five.
No More Bull:
It seems undeniable the 49er five receive benefits from the 49ers (big campaign $) to allow them to take advantage of our citizens against our will. Or as you put it “They have screwed the people of our city over and over again.” Since the 49er five benefit from letting the 49ers do this, against our will, does that make them large scale sex traffickers? Asking for a friend.
Here is the risk to you the taxpayers: Once Santa Clara commits to holding the World Cup, it will be responsible to pass a budget that will cover all the costs of providing the necessary public services. The World Cup portion of the City budget will be in competition with the other aspects of the City budget. Staff is proposing that the World Cup budget will be reimbursed by a nonprofit that has virtually no assets and will have veto power over whether they will reimburse elements of the budget that they do not seem to be justified. That means you the taxpayers will have to pay expenditures of an unknown amount, subject to an extremely sketchy repayment scheme. And the 49ers team Guarantee? What if they just don’t pay and make us “arbitrate” to get reimbursed? We all know how that goes. To me, the only answer is to get the necessary cash up front, firmly within the City’s control.
Hey Brian Doyle, quick question that the city attorney does not have the authority regarding his position on the conflict of interest… It seems like the council would have to waive the conflict of interest? Has this ever been discussed or it is just assumed and brushed under the carpet by the guy that replaced you? This is just preposterous!
Things we no longer have.
1. City Atty
2. City Mgr.
3. Stadium
All have been lost or given to jed york.
I will add:
4. A city council majority that puts the interests of the city over the interests of Jed York’s pockets.
Petey, I don’t understand the current City Attorney’s position. It has appeared for a long time now that the agreement that Al Guido made with FIFA is VOID as a matter of law. Nobody, neither the City Attorney on his own nor the Council can “waive” the voidness of the deal. Since the City Attorney refuses to inform the public of what his conclusions are or what he is advising the Council, it is very difficult to dispute your conclusion that his position is “preposterous.”
Petey, a pro-Santa Clara council would have to be 0.5 since it came before the other 3. And as we know caused them.
I agree with you mrhmyers. And we certainly know who “started the fire.” Right 49er 5?