We don’t yet know which team will win the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, but we already know who is losing so far — the taxpayers of San Francisco.

A new controller’s report released Jan. 15 by the city’s independent economist found that San Francisco taxpayers were on the hook for at least $5 million in Super Bowl-related expenses, and probably much more. And that estimate does not factor in the aggravation of city residents and visitors alike caused by turning over one of the most congested neighborhoods for a corporate party or the loss of productivity and resulting economic effects.

What was perhaps most shocking about this report was the fact that the Super Bowl Host Committee, which has reportedly raised more than $50 million, has agreed to reimburse the city of Santa Clara for all of its costs, but not the city of San Francisco.

Let’s be clear: Santa Clara is hosting the Super Bowl, the world’s most lucrative marketing event. San Francisco is hosting the traffic jam. Why should San Francisco taxpayers fund the marketing efforts of the world’s largest corporations?

The answer is, we should not. That’s why it is time for an instant replay on the deal with the Super Bowl committee to require it to reimburse taxpayers for all reasonable expenses.

Along with a number of colleagues, we will be introducing emergency legislation mandating reimbursement, and we are looking forward to working with Mayor Ed Lee to implement it should we be successful at the Board of Supervisors.

Opponents of such a move have already stepped forward to say we should be satisfied with the revenue generated by this large event. After all, one of our leading industries is tourism, and the tourism industry and related industries such as restaurants employ tens of thousands of San Franciscans. That’s true.

But what is not true is the assertion that we need to pay for the privilege of hosting a corporate marketing event for a game being played 45 miles south of our city.

The small city of Santa Clara negotiated a great deal and will recoup more than $3.5 million in city expenses. We should be able to negotiate at least the same deal.

During the past few years, we have worked to negotiate better affordable housing deals in private developments, and we have heard the same initial opposition time and again — “that is just not possible.”

We don’t know what is economically possible unless we are tough negotiators on behalf of our taxpayers and residents of San Francisco.

When it comes to housing, we achieved what critics said was not possible, pledges to include 40 percent affordable housing in a number of major new projects. Now we need to negotiate just as aggressively with the NFL and the Super Bowl Host Committee.

The NFL made more than $12 billion last season. The Broncos and the Panthers each had more than $300 million in revenue. Yet we’re being asked to take money from teachers, small-business owners, nurses and others to provide $5 million for the extra security and transit costs for a party to honor these teams?

Our city is happy to host special events. And we welcome the NFL and its sponsors to San Francisco.

But we do not accept the idea that the best “deal” we could cut is to crowd out San Franciscans for a corporate marketing party and then leave taxpayers with the bill. We should have learned that economic lesson from the America’s Cup.

The Super Bowl is just around the corner, so this is something of a two-minute drill. But this new independent Budget & Legislative Analyst’s report proves that when it comes to negotiating with the NFL, it’s time to call a timeout and get a new game plan.

Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin are members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.