By Robert Haugh 

Former Santa Clara City Attorney Brian Doyle says the city put itself at risk long before Super Bowl LX ever kicked off.

In a recent interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Doyle said city staff failed to negotiate adequate protections for Santa Clara in agreements tied to hosting the Super Bowl at Levi’s Stadium. 

He warned the reimbursement structure leaves the city exposed to disputes, delays and potential shortfalls.

“I believe the city staff did a miserable job negotiating this agreement,” Doyle said. “They put the city at tremendous risk.”

Doyle pointed to the city’s deal with the Bay Area Host Committee and the San Francisco 49ers, which requires Santa Clara to front millions in costs for public safety and city services. 

The agreement was negotiated by City Manager Jovan Grogan and City Attorney Glen Googins.  Neither one of them has experience in negotiating contracts for major sporting events. 

The 49ers are supposed to cover those costs if the host committee’s fundraising falls short. But Doyle said the reimbursement process is complex and one-sided.

Invoices can be challenged. Payments can be delayed. The city may have to fight to recover money it should not have to chase.

As Super Bowl LX approaches, those concerns are no longer theoretical. City officials estimate Santa Clara will incur more than $6.4 million in costs related to the event, largely for law enforcement and legal services.

Mayor Lisa Gillmor told the Chronicle the city is once again carrying the burden while much of Super Bowl week activity takes place elsewhere.

“We’re carrying the heavy load,” Gillmor said.

According to the Chronicle, only the game itself will be held in Santa Clara. Most concerts, fan events, and corporate gatherings will be in San Francisco. 

Of the Bay Area Host Committee’s 16 official Super Bowl week events, Santa Clara hosts just one.

Despite that imbalance, organizers continue to promote large regional economic impact projections. A study commissioned by the Bay Area Host Committee claims the Super Bowl could generate up to $630 million in economic activity across the Bay Area. Roughly 70% of that spending is expected to flow to San Francisco. 

The report does not estimate Santa Clara’s share.

Stanford economist Roger Noll said those numbers miss the point.

“It doesn’t matter,” Noll told the Chronicle.

Noll is a professor of economics emeritus and a longtime expert on sports finance. He said major sporting events rarely produce lasting economic benefits for host cities. 

Temporary hotel price spikes and visitor spending, he said, largely benefit national corporations. The money does not stay local. The impact does not last.

“There’s no long-term sticking power,” Noll said.

Gillmor said Santa Clara’s experience after Super Bowl 50 in 2016 supports that skepticism. 

City officials later calculated Santa Clara gained about $700,000 in additional tax revenue while spending roughly $2 million on local events.

“So it wasn’t huge,” Gillmor said. “But people say, ‘You make so much money with these events.’ I hear that all the time.”

For now, Gillmor said the city is focused on hosting a successful Super Bowl and protecting Santa Clara’s interests as best it can.

“We’ll deal with the bills afterward,” she said.

Gillmor said the real opportunity is not short-term profit, but visibility.

“Letting the world discover Santa Clara,” she said, “that’s our biggest benefit.”