It would be inaccurate to say that no New Yorkers are seeing economic benefits from having the Super Bowl in their backyard: Giants quarterback Eli Manning, freed from the obligations of having to play football in the post-season, is hosting a DirectTV party with Jay-Z. Both are surely being well compensated for their labor.
Why did the NFL agree to play the Super Bowl in New York in the first place? Because this is how the league always rewards teams that refurbish or rebuild their stadiums. The new Meadowlands Stadium was completed in 2010, even though taxpayers were — indeed, still are — servicing $110 million in debt on the old one.
You can argue — however unconvincingly — that even if the economics don't add up, cities enjoy ancillary benefits from hosting big sporting events, such as the opportunity to raise their profiles. But you can't make that argument when the city is New York. You can't even say — though I suspect Goodell has at some point — that locating the game in the U.S. media capital would be good for football's exposure. The Super Bowl is the most hyped sporting event in the world, no matter where it's played. New York didn't need it, and it didn't need New York.
Super Bowl, get back to Tampa or Phoenix, where you belong.