SAN FRANCISCO — Waiting could have some big benefits for Super Bowl LX ticket buyers, as the market continues to show significant declines as Sunday’s game between the Seahawks and Patriots approaches.

Low-end, get-in pricing for the matchup at Levi’s Stadium is now hovering around $3,800 per ticket on multiple marketplaces. That is a 17% drop from the beginning of this week, and is down 42% from the comparable, entry-level figure of $6,500 right after Seattle and New England clinched their conference championships. 

Through the past two weeks, the Super Bowl ticket market has shown a slow, but steady, retreat as more supply has entered the market, and a further ebb beyond now and Sunday afternoon’s kickoff is quite possible. 

That more conventional dynamic is a significant change from last year in New Orleans, when a historic lodging crunch corroded the Super Bowl ticket market. Even two-star hotels there went for thousands of dollars per night in many cases, cutting heavily into what fans were then willing to pay for game tickets.

At the same point last year before Super Bowl LIX in Louisiana, the entry-level market for tickets fell to about $2,600 per seat.

A similar situation can be seen with On Location, the TKO Group Holdings–owned company that is the official hospitality provider of the NFL and controls a large swath of the Super Bowl ticket resale market. Its packages that include game tickets, along with other fan experience elements, now start at $4,950 per person, down from $6,500 last Sunday and a marked drop from $7,500 per person after the conference championship games. 

On Location also sells many high-end packages that are much more expensive, can run well into six figures in cost, and include amenities such as meet-and-greets with legends and exclusive concerts. 

Not the End of the Story

On Location president Paul Caine predicted plenty more activity in the ticket market over the next two days.

“The [final] story on the ticket market won’t be written until Monday,” Caine told Front Office Sports. “When you have a city like this with great access to airports, lots of hotel rooms, and a lot of people in the city that would like to go to the game, the dynamics of the market shift quite a bit. Just on the plane [ride] in, I was talking to a lot of people who didn’t have tickets yet, but they want to. They’re waiting or just seeing what their options are.”

“Every [Super Bowl] city has a little different character when it comes to the last-minute dynamic,” he said.

Bay Area Market

Caine also addressed the ongoing sprawl debate surrounding this year’s Super Bowl, where the culture and high appeal of San Francisco is paired with Levi’s Stadium, site of the game itself, located about 40 miles away in Santa Clara, Calif.

“With a Super Bowl, there’s the game itself, which is a destination to itself. There’s also the industry event. And then there’s the consumer event. Having the consumer event in San Francisco has a lot to offer,” Caine said. “There’s the Super Bowl Experience here. Fans can feel the NFL here. It’s very exciting. As for the industry side, they generally like it when things are concentrated, because it’s easier to get around and do things. 

“So having it sprawled out does make it a little more challenging to go do all the things you want to do. But I do absolutely love having a really great city for an event like the Super Bowl, and this is a really great city,” he said. 

On Friday, Alabama state judge Daniel Pruet heard arguments about whether to grant Alabama men’s basketball player Charles Bediako more eligibility to play for the Crimson Tide—despite having signed three NBA contracts.

While Pruet’s ruling will likely make history, it won’t necessarily answer the eligibility question over professional athletes once and for all, legal experts say. If players continue to sue, judges in other states aren’t strictly bound to Pruet’s ruling.

The first thing to understand is the specific eligibility rules at issue in Bediako’s case, which the NCAA spelled out in a brief filed Thursday. “Plaintiff asks the Court to use its equitable powers to grant him eligibility to return to collegiate sports following his participation in the NBA draft, entry into multiple professional contracts, and participation in professional competition that exhausted his eligibility clock,” the NCAA wrote.

Some of these issues aren’t novel to court cases or eligibility questions. The NCAA has already allowed other former G Leaguers to return to their university programs, and it has an exception for international professional basketball players. However, the NCAA has taken into account whether a player went through the NBA draft process, as Bediako did, or whether the player exhausted their five seasons to complete four years of eligibility during their G League play. 

The new issue in this case is whether Bediako should be allowed to play despite the fact that he has signed three professional NBA contracts, including one two-way deal. NCAA president Charlie Baker previously said players wouldn’t be granted NCAA eligibility if they signed an NBA deal, including a two-way deal, whether they played in the NBA (Bediako never did).

The NCAA argued in its Thursday brief that the ruling could have consequences far beyond Bediako’s career, setting the stage for a flood of professional basketball players who have signed NBA contracts to return to college hoops. “This Court should decline to forever change the landscape of high school, collegiate, and professional sports through grant of a preliminary injunction,” the NCAA wrote.

In the long run, that may be the case. But lawyers say several things would have to happen first, given that the ruling wouldn’t actually set a binding precedent. 

Bediako’s lawsuit is being heard in Alabama state court. If he prevails, his case will likely be cited by others in state court cases, which could help judges make similar decisions. In the long run, it could potentially pave the way for a federal class-action lawsuit involving players who have signed NBA contracts who want to return to college, lawyers said—though it’s unclear how likely this scenario would be.

But it doesn’t set a binding precedent; it doesn’t guarantee that other judges in other states will rule similarly. “If he wins, it’s not a decision that other state courts would be bound to follow,” Kennyhertz Perry sports attorney Mit Winter tells Front Office Sports. 

The same goes if the judge rules in the opposite direction, upholding the NCAA’s eligibility rules. Players with NBA contracts could sue in other state courts—though they’d be less likely to win given that at least one judge has already evaluated a similar case. 

There are plenty of reasons for the split. A judge could have their own interpretation of the laws; a player could submit more or less convincing evidence; a quirk or discrepancy in a state contract law could lead to a different decision. 

One thing is for sure: The NCAA’s eligibility decisions—regarding professional participation, years in college, junior college, medical exemptions, and others—continue to be challenged. Players may have found a winning formula by filing lawsuits in state court, arguing breach of contract or tortious interference, rather than filing lawsuits in federal court arguing antitrust laws. Says Seton Hall law professor Bob Boland of the trend: “It may not be impervious, but it’s certainly a lot stronger.”

As for what’s next, Bediako is set to play against Auburn on Saturday if there’s no ruling, or a ruling in his favor. Meanwhile, several more high-profile eligibility hearings are set for next week.