David_TheMan
Banned
There have been multiple economic reports that show Olympics are a negative to the communities and nations that host them financially. i don't think there has been one olympics yet that produced a profit, of the modern ones.
Well technically all US cities that lobbied for the Olympics - not even the those that won - have been able to use it to their advantage to leverage growth.
@88m3 did you make that thread on how NYC was able to use the Olympics proposals to increase the budget for the highway and transit system?
There have been multiple economic reports that show Olympics are a negative to the communities and nations that host them financially. i don't think there has been one olympics yet that produced a profit, of the modern ones.
Maybe it made you feel like it was great for atlanta but actual economic indicators don't confirm what you are saying with regard as the olympics being a benefit. It had no long term economic effects and the city of atlanta reported it only broke even.The Olympics were good for Atlanta. It put us on the map. Centennial Park is now a city square, the Olympic village was refitted into college dormitories for Georgia State, Aquarium was part of the legacy, we now have the busiest airport in the world and we had a migration boom.
The Olympics basically cemented Atlanta as the hub of the Southeast.
There is also the issue of “unit of analysis.” Do we measure impact by the organizing committee, the city, the province/state, or the country? Or all of them collectively? For example, in Barcelona (1992), the Spanish government was reportedly left a $6.1 billion (all figures U.S.) debt despite the organizing committee reporting a profit of $3 million. Similarly, in Nagano (1998), reports suggested the Olympic committee showed a $28 million profit but various government groups were left with $11 billion in debt. Some Games do not differentiate, such as Albertville (1992), which reportedly lost $57 million, and Atlanta (1996) and Sydney (2000), who both reported breaking even.
Even if facilities sit empty after the games, many host countries point to another possible economic benefit. They claim that a publicity boost from the Olympics will help a city with tourism and international business.
Allen Sanderson, senior lecturer at the University of Chicago who specializes in sports economics, investigated that question.
He and a student, Samantha Edds, compared cities that hosted the Olympics with similar cities in the same country or region that did not. The cities were also comparable in other ways — size, population and tourist appeal.
They compared Atlanta, which hosted the Olympics, to Charlotte, which did not. They pitted Olympic city Barcelona against Madrid, and matched up Sydney, Australia, against Melbourne.
They checked for marked growth in construction, tourism and the financial-services sector over a nine-year period — four years before the games, and five years after.
"We couldn't find any difference in terms of building permits, tourism, anything before or after," Sanderson says. "If you masked the name of the cities, you would not be able to tell which of these two cities had the Olympics and which did not."
According to Sanderson, this doesn't mean cities should stop competing to host the Olympics; it just means they should stop claiming that the games make economic sense.