By Robert Haugh
There was some excellent reporting by the San Francisco Chronicle’s Lance Williams and Ron Kroichick again.
Yesterday, they revealed in a detailed story what Santa Clara News Online readers already suspected — the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC) is falling short on fundraising for the 2026 World Cup. And their failure could put Santa Clara’s general fund or Stadium Authority money at risk.
The BAHC was set up by the 49ers to raise funds for the FIFA World Cup and Super Bowl. The Chronicle reports that Governor Gavin Newsom’s revised state budget includes no funding for Bay Area World Cup games.
That leaves the BAHC scrambling to raise $50 million. So far, it hasn’t come close, as the Chronicle reports.
In February, the Santa Clara City Council approved a controversial deal allowing Levi’s Stadium to host six games. Under the agreement, the 49ers pledged to cover any shortfall for public safety and non-NFL expenses.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Vice Mayor Kelly Cox opposed the deal because it had weak protections for Santa Clara taxpayers.
They objected to the fact that the BAHC/49ers had to approve costs and decide on what expenditures to reimburse. That process would violate Measure J — the voter-approved 2010 law that bans taxpayer subsidies for stadium operations and events.
“The Bay Area Host Committee made a commitment to Santa Clara to raise funds to cover public safety and other costs for the World Cup,” Gillmor told the Chronicle. “I’m deeply concerned the fundraising has fallen short. If that’s the case, Santa Clara will not be left holding the bag – so it will be up to the 49ers’ owners to fund whatever cost is necessary to host these events.”
City Manager Jovan Grogan said the total cost is estimated at $50 million. Even with FIFA’s $13 million contribution, he confirmed the event will lose money.
The Chronicle also reports on expenditures in other host cities. Vancouver is spending $418 million. Toronto and New Jersey are each committing around $200 million.
[…] The 49ers created BAHC to raise money for Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup costs. Numerous press reports have documented how the organization is having serious trouble raising money. […]
[…] But the group has struggled to raise money and has refused to disclose its fundraising totals. […]
Unfortunately, the public is subsidizing this event in the form of Stadium Authority funding of “unapproved” City costs that the 49ers “refused” to pay. Thanks to City staffs’ incredibly inept negotiating abilities, those expenditures will reduce non-NFL net revenue, which will in turn reduces the Performance Rent payable to the City’s General Fund. Another 49er shell game approved 5-2 by the City Council.
Well…. here we are.
It really not fair that we might be taking all the risk, and not getting to fully enjoy the possible benefits.
That’s not how a true “Risk / Reward” Business plan is played out.
There is no good reason for the residents to be holding all the Risk. Well, except just one.
That’s just how the 49ers wanted it. You know, it’s just safer for them.
A couple things are very true here.
1. “I don’t know what I don’t know”. Which is very scary when you are about to be launched off a financial Cliff, with no net in sight.
2. The main difference between “Ignorance and stupidity” is one of them is temporary. Let’s hope we can survive this mess and make darn sure that we are never in this position again.
Bottomline, if we are going to take the risk, we should also get the rewards.
At this point, my real hope is the rest of the City wakes up and learns to vote into office people who want to support us, and not some “Carpet Bagging” company.
Burt Field
78′ Buchser Grad
The whole idea is ludicrous. Why have an event if it isn’t profitable? If there isn’t enough interest in the event to support the event, don’t have it. To put it on the taxpayers is totally wrong, but we know that. Were the niners expecting the state to pay for it with taxpayer money? That’s wrong too. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just cancel the whole thing and pretend it never existed?
I don’t take it is that it is not profitable…lots of people are making lots of money and there is huge interest in this. It just costs a lot to create and the city will not be able to cover the costs, especially since no funding is allowed thanks to measure j. Santa Clara didn’t get out played on that one.