NFL owners award 2018 Super Bowl to Minnesota

Minnesota Vikings
The new stadium will be fully constructed and in use by July 2016.

After a hard-fought effort to secure public financing for a new Vikings stadium, National Football League owners rewarded the team and the state Tuesday by awarding the 2018 Super Bowl to Minneapolis.

The owners, meeting in Atlanta, also heard proposals from New Orleans and Indianapolis before granting the game, Super Bowl LII (or 52), to Minneapolis.

The new stadium will be fully constructed and in use by July 2016.

The team will play at the University of Minnesota stadium for the next two years during construction of the $1 billion covered stadium on the site of the old Metrodome.

Minneapolis has hosted one other Super Bowl, the 1992 game that was held in the Dome.

Gov. Mark Dayton said this after the NFL’s announcement Tuesday afternoon:

“On behalf of all Minnesotans, I want to thank Co-Chairs Doug Baker, Marilyn Carlson Nelson, and Richard Davis, and the Minnesota Vikings, for their superb and successful efforts to bring the 2018 Super Bowl to Minnesota. Hosting the Super Bowl will provide a terrific opportunity to showcase Minnesota to the world. It will also bring major economic benefits to our state.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by Steven Bailey on 05/20/2014 - 07:37 pm.

    Kicked again!

    So after Minneapolis residents were illegally blocked from voting on the new billion dollar stadium they now get to pay for a super bowl too. No economic net gain for the hosting city. Tons of inconvenience for the locals. Another win win for the uber wealthy. How miserable.

    • Submitted by Jim Bernstein on 05/21/2014 - 01:59 am.

      Nothing Illegal!

      The Minnesota Legislature (with the governor’s signature) has the authority to override a provision of a city charter and they quite properly did so in the stadium legislation. You may not like that decision but to call it “illegal” is simply wrong.

      And, the Legislature also required the Minneapolis City Council to vote and accept that provision in the stadium bill which they did and then Mayor Rybak signed it.

      Unless everyone but you is wrong, there is indeed quite a “net economic gain” for Minneapolis and for any city hosting a Super Bowl which is why cities compete fiercely for the privilege. Granted, there will likely be some inconvenience for people living Downtown – especially on game day – but most of us “locals” will manage quite nicely.

  2. Submitted by Joe Musich on 05/20/2014 - 08:39 pm.

    3:41 pm post

    8:38 and no comments ? Pretty telling.

  3. Submitted by Neal Gendler on 05/20/2014 - 11:34 pm.

    “Pretty telling?”

    I don’t think the lack of postings indicates overwhelming enthusiasm for the stupid bowl. More likely it’s just that those who didn’t want to spend public millions on (yet) another sports palace have just become numb to the inevitability of sports events and costs shoved down our civic throats. Why bother to protest what is going to happen whether we like it or not?

    What I want to know is how much this event will cost Minneapolis for all the extra police and street-cleaning work. When all this comes to pass, I’ll avoid dirtying the NFL’s “clean zone” with my presence.

  4. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 05/21/2014 - 06:35 am.

    Another game

    Scheduling another game, particularly one guaranteed to receive national attention is a good thing. Once we made the commitment of resources to build a new stadium, it certainly makes sense to find ways to use it nine times a year instead of just eight.

    Here is what has aggravated me. I am a fan of English Premier League soccer. One of the cool things about the Premier League, and other leading soccer league is that the interests of the teams are aligned with the interests of the fans. Specifically, it is absolutely critical financially for Premier League teams to win. For the top teams, winning means participation in the profitable UEFA Europoean team championships. For lower teams, winning means staying in or getting in to the immensely profitable Premier League, since the bottom three teams are relegated to a lower league from which the top three teams are promoted to the Premier League.

    In the NFL, there just isn’t comparable pressure. Teams can get lousy and afford to stay lousy since there continuation in the NFL is guaranteed. There are other consequences as well. Since the beginning of the stadium discussion, the focus has been issues which have the effect that have been both misleading and distracting from what fans really want, from what Premier League fans get every Saturday and Sunday. What fans want, what they should get in exchange for the hundreds of millions of dollars they are handing NFL team owners is just some link, between the money we give them and performance on the field. The economic arguments for building stadiums were always composed entirely of balderdash to put it politely. All of us, pro stadium or anti always knew that on one level or another. And fans don’t really care about stadiums. The typical Vikings game would trade a comfortable seat for a winning team any day of the week.

    And this brings me to the spectacle of the Super Bowl campaign. Has any display of corporate muscle ever appeared so completely clueless? No wonder the economy is in the state in which it is. The simple reality is that Minnesota sports fans couldn’t care less about getting the Super Bowl, indeed would much rather go to some place nice in the winter time to watch it. Only a handful of Minnesotans will even actually attend the event. Again, what they want is a winning football team. Has it ever occurred to our local corporate titans that by far the smarter strategy would have been to take a tenth of the money they are spending on the game to be played years from now, and investing it in a team that could be consistently not awful. That would have a chance to go deep in the playoffs, maybe actually play in a Super Bowl? Has it ever occurred to them that such a team, cumulatively, will provide far more local promotion, in terms of nationally televised games during the season, and in post season play, over the years, than the one day event, to be played nearly half a decade from now?

  5. Submitted by mark wallek on 05/21/2014 - 08:30 am.

    Start Early

    If party planning in Minneapolis follows recent superbowl tradition, then Minneapolis should start now with planning to relocate the homeless to less visible areas. We all know how it disturbs the elite party goers to see need in the face of their ridiculous excess, and we know Phoenix did not plan well. So Minneapolis, what will you do about the poor and the homeless come superbowl? Will you relocate them effectively and protect the sensitivities of the uber wealthy? Just what is the plan?

Leave a Reply