Shahid Khan has put a blunt cap on one of the biggest selling points attached to Jacksonville’s stadium debate: the idea that a renovated EverBank Stadium could help bring a Super Bowl back to town. In October 2025, the Jaguars owner told talkSPORT that Jacksonville does not have the infrastructure needed to host one, a statement that lands awkwardly against the economic logic used to justify the taxpayer-financed renovation.
That matters because the Jaguars’ stadium case has not been framed only as a football project. It has also been sold as a public investment tied to larger citywide returns, including mega-events that could flow through hotels, restaurants and other visitor spending. If the Super Bowl is part of that logic, Khan’s own assessment cuts straight across it: Jacksonville, by his telling, is not ready.
Why Khan’s comments matter
Khan’s view is not subtle. He said a Super Bowl has become an event that requires more than a stadium, including hotel rooms and broader infrastructure, and he argued that Jacksonville does not have that. He did add that the city could still host other NFL events, such as the draft, and perhaps other elements in the future, but only after more development. On the Super Bowl question, his answer was essentially: absolutely not.
That is a notable contradiction for a deal that has already moved through several political stages. In May 2023, Lenny Curry’s administration negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the Jaguars. In June 2024, the Jacksonville City Council approved the stadium deal. The arrangement includes $775 million in public money for the renovation, with the broader hotel incentives plan first approved in 2021, expanded again in 2025 under Donna Deegan, and tied to the kind of tourism upside that big events are supposed to produce.
The numbers behind the pitch
The Jaguars’ own study, commissioned from Tourism Economics in August 2023, projected $21.7 billion in economic impact between 2028 and 2052. That figure helped build the argument that the deal was not simply about keeping the team in place, but about creating a long-term return for Jacksonville. Yet the Super Bowl has always been one of the clearest symbols of that promise, which makes Khan’s public skepticism especially important.
Jacksonville has hosted a Super Bowl before, of course, with Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005. But the city’s lack of premium hotel space has long been seen as a limitation, and Khan’s comments essentially confirm that the obstacle has not gone away. If anything, he framed it as structural rather than temporary.
Critics seized on the gap between the study’s promise and the owner’s admission. Neil deMause described the projections as “PR missives meant to provide pretend numbers that elected officials can use as an excuse for handing over hundreds of millions of tax dollars to a private sports owner.” J.C. Bradbury was even more direct, saying that providing “incentives” to the billionaire owner’s hotels across the street is not defensible.
Those criticisms are not new, but Khan’s remarks sharpen them. If the owner says Jacksonville cannot host a Super Bowl now, then the event cannot be treated as a near-term economic pillar of the stadium plan. That does not mean the renovation has no public value, or that the Jaguars cannot still be a major civic draw. It does mean one of the deal’s most visible economic hopes is, at minimum, far more distant than the projections suggest.
The larger issue is not just whether Jacksonville can someday host another Super Bowl. It is whether the public case for the stadium was built on a future that still has not arrived. Khan’s answer suggests the city is not there yet, and may not be for some time.
