Great post, and maybe the area in which economic thinking helps society the best. When we had the World Elite bike race in Richmond, The organizers talked up the crowds so much that all the locals cleared out and Richmond was a ghost town all week, until the weekend when the crowds finally came.
Local organizers can never seem to understand why local residents might want to leave town when they tell everyone a flood of people will come to town.
Great analysis. Civic pride is short lived however if the lasting infrastructure is not beneficial to lives of the locals.
I await the women's gymnastics, a sport I loved as a child. But, as the events are indoors, the city of Paris isn't really a plus or minus.
Ironically, the broadcast & digital coverage improves with each Olympics... creating a better bird's eye view (across many events) & is faster than tourists trying to navigate event locations.
Helpful insights, perhaps leading to the idea that the Olympics be spread over several mid-sized cities, not contiguous, even across nations in the case of Europe? Ou would security consideration preclude such an idea?
Many sports economists suggest that hosting the Olympics in a rotating set of cities with existing infrastructure would significantly reduce costs. This approach would likely favor Western democracies, which wouldn't be popular with leaders in autocratic countries.
It’s well known that the Olympics are never a net economic benefit for the host economy. Just ask the cities that are still paying off the bills years later. If the hotels, restaurants and local attractions feel differently, perhaps they should pay for the host facilities and infrastructure?
Great post, and maybe the area in which economic thinking helps society the best. When we had the World Elite bike race in Richmond, The organizers talked up the crowds so much that all the locals cleared out and Richmond was a ghost town all week, until the weekend when the crowds finally came.
Local organizers can never seem to understand why local residents might want to leave town when they tell everyone a flood of people will come to town.
I think local organizers are the worst ignorers of opportunity cost on the planet! 😅
Great analysis. Civic pride is short lived however if the lasting infrastructure is not beneficial to lives of the locals.
I await the women's gymnastics, a sport I loved as a child. But, as the events are indoors, the city of Paris isn't really a plus or minus.
Ironically, the broadcast & digital coverage improves with each Olympics... creating a better bird's eye view (across many events) & is faster than tourists trying to navigate event locations.
Is there any good paper that provide a cost-benefit analysis of the Olympic Games?
The most famous paper is by Baade & Matheson, called "Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics"
It's publicly available here: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.2.201
Helpful insights, perhaps leading to the idea that the Olympics be spread over several mid-sized cities, not contiguous, even across nations in the case of Europe? Ou would security consideration preclude such an idea?
Many sports economists suggest that hosting the Olympics in a rotating set of cities with existing infrastructure would significantly reduce costs. This approach would likely favor Western democracies, which wouldn't be popular with leaders in autocratic countries.
That also probably wouldn't help the IOC get paid their bribe money.
It’s well known that the Olympics are never a net economic benefit for the host economy. Just ask the cities that are still paying off the bills years later. If the hotels, restaurants and local attractions feel differently, perhaps they should pay for the host facilities and infrastructure?