Rose Bowl votes against being temporary NFL venue

By Jason Parker

It’s looking more and more like the NFL will be returning to the city of Los Angeles for the 2016 season. Whether it’s the Rams, Raiders or Chargers, at least one NFL team is probably headed to the City of Angels in the near future.

It also seems likely that whatever stadium they are scheduled to play in will not be completed in time, so a temporary home will need to be found. The league has asked stadiums and venues in the the city to bid for the right to host a team.

The Rose Bowl Stadium was one of the sites asked to bid. However, those in charge of the historic venue have said thanks, but no thanks, according to the Los Angeles Times.

It’s a prudent business decision for the Rose Bowl Operating Company, which runs the city-owned stadium. A steady revenue is much more important than a one-time payout in the world of business. They are also 100% correct that the NFL is not part of the “Pasadena brand” especially when you consider the team won’t be called the Pasadena Rams.

The decision also is part of a recent trend of calling into question the supposed economic benefits to a city that hosts a large sporting event. Many of the World Cup stadiums from South Africa and Brazil have sat mostly vacant since theirr construction, which came at a high cost to the hosts, and the city of Glendale’s mayor has publicly stated his preference to not host the Super Bowl.

More from Gamedayr: