The New York/New Jersey Super Bowl went off with relatively few hitches, which could set a dangerous precedent. Now, every cold-weather city wants a shot to host a Super Bowl.
“We want a Super Bowl here, we deserve a Super Bowl here,” Snyder said last fall, per Maaddi. “It’s the nation’s capital, it makes all the sense in the world.”
This comes to head now because of how smoothly things went Sunday in East Rutherford, N.J., but the NFL has no reason to push its luck unless absolutely necessary. Consider that the New York metropolitan area was hammered by a snow storm just hours after Super Bowl XLVIII came to an end. They barely made it work.
Pandora's box is wide-freakin'-open.
But the entitled notion that any of these cities "deserves" the Super Bowl is incorrect. Regardless of what the NFL says, we know that New York wouldn't have been awarded the game had it not built a $1.6 billion stadium.
Is a Washington Super Bowl a good idea?
Yeah, Washington is indeed the nation's capital. But Philadelphia's bigger and has quite an important national history as well. Same applies to Chicago, which is even bigger than those two.
If you build it, they might come. Unless you're willing to spend 10 figures on a new venue, don't count on it.
They ignored you for nearly half a century for a reason: The Super Bowl works better in warmer climates such as Miami, San Diego, Phoenix and Tampa. This game wasn't made to be played in cities like Washington and Philly.
In Washington's case specifically, FedEx Field is 17 years old—too old to merit a Super Bowl, but too young to be replaced. One day, when that stadium is ready to be put to sleep and a new one is in the works, we might be able to start talking about a D.C. Super Bowl.
That'll depend, though, on if this precedent has been ruined by then as a result of a snow-ridden game in another winter climate.