NEW YORK CITY — Forget the teams – some say New York City is already the real Super Bowl champ.
"It's going to have a fantastic impact on our local economy - it's going to be great for New York City," said Mayor Bill de Blasio, D-New York City.
How great? The NFL says the region will reap as much as an extra $600 million from full hotels and big dinners, adding up to more in taxes.
But not to rain on the parade – some experts say officials are fumbling the numbers.
"Unfortunately, there's no research that backs the idea of creating an economic impact from hosting the Super Bowl," said Kurt Rotthoff, Seton Hall University.
That's because as football fans come to town, locals and other tourists stay away. Plus, economists say much spending goes to big corporate profits or stays at the stadium in New Jersey.
So that 600 million dollar figure?
"The research tends to say it's about ten percent of that. Right, so if we see an economic impact of around $60 million, I think that's probably more accurate. Unfortunately, they're claiming it will cost around $70 million to host the Super Bowl," Rotthoff said.
That means, like those on the wrong end of a bet, the region could actually lose money on the Super Bowl. So, if they can't bank on a tax receipts, why do cities jockey for the privilege of hosting a Super Bowl? Exposure and prestige. For one night, an entire nation pays attention to your city.
So it will, although chances are New York outshines East Rutherford, where MetLife Stadium is located. And does New York City really need a Super Bowl to put it on the map?
"It might be more of an argument for a city like Jacksonville," said Neil deMause, "Field of Schemes" author.
Here's another problem. Economists say most people don't remember where the last Super Bowl was held, and hosting the big game doesn't mean more money after it ends.
Finally, how did the NFL get that $600 million figure? The host committee won't release a study it says proves it, nor agree to an interview.