DOLLARS HEADED DOWN THE COAST NO TEAM, NO GAME, NO IMPACT ON L.A.

Byline: Matthew Kredell Staff Writer

San Diego is stealing L.A.'s spotlight, reveling in the excitement, income and publicity that rightfully belongs to Los Angeles.

Ever since the Super Bowl began 37 years ago, each year ending in three has placed the big game in Los Angeles. The Coliseum housed the 1973 and 1983 Super Bowls before the Rose Bowl hosted in 1993.

With Los Angeles lacking a team, the NFL is heading south for Sunday's Super Bowl XXXVII, keeping the site in sunny Southern California. It's close enough for fans from Los Angeles to go to the game, but not for the city to reap the benefits.

Putting the Super Bowl under L.A.'s nose is another reminder of the carrot the NFL is dangling as incentive for Los Angeles to get moving in bringing back a team. A Super Bowl would be worth $300 million to $400 million to the community, far more than any other event.

``That's what people need to realize when talking about if we really want a team here,'' said Kathryn Scholessman, president of the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission. ``If we had a football team, we might get three Super Bowls over 10 years. When you talk about investing, that's a pretty big return on a little bit of money.''

Paul Tagliabue, the commissioner of the NFL, mentioned Los Angeles as a possibility for the 2008 Super Bowl at the NFL meetings in late October. It was an obvious attempt to give Los Angeles a swift kick in the rear.

``I believe it shows that the NFL is finally very serious about returning to Los Angeles,'' said Mark Ridley-Thomas, a California Assemblyman. ``They see that the market opportunity is quickly getting away from them, and the longer they wait, the less likely they will be able to tap into this market.''

There is no doubt the NFL loves L.A. when it comes to Super Bowls. In the 28 years that Los Angeles had a team since the Super Bowl began, the city has hosted seven times. That is one every four years. Only New Orleans (nine) and Miami (eight) have hosted more.

Super Bowl XXXIII, held in Miami in 1999, holds the record for total economic impact at $396 million, according to a study quoted on the official Web site of the Super Bowl.

A study by Georgia State broke down the 2000 Super Bowl, which brought in $292 million for the community. Visitors to Atlanta spent an average of $350 a day, staying 3.7 days, 87 percent of them in hotels.

With the economy in a downturn, San Diego is not expected to have one of the most profitable Super Bowls this year. Corporations, which often try to wine and dine clients at the event, are especially hesitant.

Reint Reinders, CEO of the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, expects about $250 million for the area, less than the $295 million San Diego made from the game five years ago.

However, the immediate dollars don't show the entire impact of hosting a Super Bowl.

``The worldwide media coverage of the event has ramifications for a city that is a tourist attraction like San Diego or Los Angeles,'' Reinders said. ``Focus on the television, with hundreds of millions of people watching at the end of January and hopefully seeing great weather. It is the kind of exposure you cannot afford. People pay millions of dollars for commercials, and we get this for free.''

Last year's game was the fifth most-watched program in television history, attracting 131.7 million American viewers. The 10 most-watched shows in television history are all Super Bowls.

Even in a down year, Scholessman doesn't think Los Angeles would have any problem generating big money.

``San Diego has less people and a smaller market in general,'' Scholessman said. ``Los Angeles is an easy place to do it. We've got the hotels and the entertainment industry. It's just a fun place to have a party.''

Events like the recent NHL All-Star Game ($10 million) or the annual Academy Awards ($60 million) don't nearly have the impact on L.A. that a Super Bowl promises.

Before Los Angeles can have a Super Bowl, it likely needs a team. And before L.A. can have a team, the city needs a suitable stadium, whether it be a renovated Coliseum, Rose Bowl or a brand new site.

``I doubt there will be a Super Bowl without a team here,'' Rose Bowl general manager Darryl Dunn said. ``If you have the stadium and the team, you can have the Super Bowl. If you don't, you won't.''

Tagliabue specifically mentioned the Rose Bowl, host of five previous Super Bowls, when speculating about the destination of the future game. Then the commissioner visited the Rose Bowl for college football's Rose Bowl game on New Year's Day.

``It's an excellent sign,'' Dunn said. ``We still have work to do, and we know it. I think the commissioner's statement mentioned the Super Bowl and a renovated Rose Bowl. The key word is renovated. We have a lot of work to do so the stadium can be modified to work for the NFL.''

Talk of stadiums and potential teams for Los Angeles is expected to heat up again after the Super Bowl.

Before any progress can really be made, the city needs to unite behind one site and find an investor. That's where the promise of a Super Bowl might help.

``That's a very attractive carrot,'' said Jack Kaiser, CEO of the Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles. ``It's the best thing the NFL has to offer. But there's still a lot of hurdles in the way of the whole process. If the NFL can guarantee a Super Bowl at least every four years, then it might be worth all the pain and hassle.''

CAPTION(S):

photo, box

Photo:

Super Bowl banners adorn the towers of the Marriott Hotel and Marina in San Diego.

Lenny Ignelzi/Associated Press

Box:

SUPER WINDFALL

(according to Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission)