The cost is factored in and included with the city's share of the profits revenue. Hosting a super bowl can generate tens of millions in the short term to hundreds of millions in long term revenue for the host city. Stadium security is usually provided by the contractor that handles security for the facility year round since the stadium owner (usually the city) already has multi-year deals in place for security regardless of the event. Venue security for the surrounding area is handled by the city's municipal police and private security.
Since the host city was chosen to host the Super Bowl 4-5 years earlier, funds are secured and reserved to handle the costs. The funds are repaid partially by the NFL through shared revenue profit and from taxes imposed on the host city's hotels and other tourism facilities such as restaurants, bars, and local attractions (I remember voters in San Diego passing a bond a few years to levy a special tax on city tourism to offset any overrun costs when San Diego hosted the Super Bowl in 1999). The home team in the host city (in this case, the Saints) usually helps with initial costs since they are included in the revenue profit sharing.
For more information on the economic impact of hosting a super bowl, see college.holycross.edu
For the pros/cons debate on the economic impact of hosting a super bowl, see, bleacherreport.com
And this is the media guide for Super Bowl XLVII www.neworleanssuperbowl.com
The people of San Diego were VERY disappointed when the former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue excluded our city from hosting any further Super Bowls after the 2003 event because we have a dated stadium that needs major renovation. We've hosted a total of 3 and San Diego was on the regular rotation for Super Bowla before the stadium's age caught up with us.
When you say your Stadium in San Diego is considered too old for the Superbowls, do you mean it is just not shiny and
clean, or is the turf the football players play on not state of the art, or is it too small?