Number Games (original) (raw)
Related papers
Many countries also came to compete to host the Summer Olympics of 2020, spent significant sums of money during their candidacy, and made a number of significant economic commitments for the 2020 Olympics. As a result, the bids by Istanbul and Tokyo were selected as the finalists in Argentina in 2013. With emphasis on economic renewal, Tokyo committed 4.9 billion dollars for the Olympics. With a budget of 19.2 billion dollars, Istanbul in turn made its bid with the slogan “Bridge Together” and made a commitment with the existing and planned infrastructure projects in four zones of Olympics City Zone, the Coastal Zone, the Bhosporus Zone, and the Forest Zone. After a careful evaluation, the International Olympics Committee chose Tokyo’s bid as the host for the 2020 Summer Olympics. The goal of this study is to make a comparative examination of the projected economic spending and commitments of the two finalist cities, Istanbul and Tokyo, for the 2020 Summer Olympics
The Oxford Olympics Study 2024: Are Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games Coming Down? May 2024
SBS Working Papers, 2024
The present paper is an update and extension of the "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016" (Flyvbjerg et al. 2016). We document that the Games remain costly and continue to have large cost overruns, to a degree that threatens their viability. The IOC is aware of the problem and has initiated reform. We assess the reforms and find: (a) Olympic costs are statistically significantly increasing; prior analyses did not show this trend; it is a step in the wrong direction. (b) Cost overruns were decreasing until 2008, but have increased since then; again a step in the wrong direction. (c) At present, the cost of Paris 2024 is USD 8.7 billion (2022 level) and cost overrun is 115% in real terms; this is not the less expensive Games that were promised. (d) Cost overruns are the norm for the Games, past, present, and future; they are the only project type that never delivered on budget, ever. We assess a new IOC policy of reducing cost by reusing existing venues instead of building new ones. We find that reuse did not have the desired effect for Tokyo 2020 and also looks ineffective for Paris 2024. Finally, we recommend that the Games look to other types of megaproject for better data, better forecasting, and how to generate the positive learning curves that are necessary for bringing costs and overrun down. Only if this happens are Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032 likely to live up to the IOC’s intentions of a more affordable Games that more cities will want to host.
Estimating Olympic related investment and expenditure
2009
The analysis of the impact of mega events has included frameworks that evaluate different impacts under different criteria, for example, separating impacts according to whether they occur before, during or after the event itself. Analysis of the economic impacts of such events has shown that the distributional effects between the host city and the rest of an economy can be important, and can have opposite signs. This paper introduces frameworks to show the origin of the economic scale, that is, Olympic-related investment and expenditure, and shows how the frameworks can be used with reference to the Beijing 2008 Olympics.
Olympic Proportions: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Olympics 1960-2012
Saïd Business School Working Papers, Oxford: University of Oxford, 23 pp., 2012
Do different types of megaprojects have different cost overruns? This apparently simple question is at the heart of research at the University of Oxford aimed at understanding the characteristics of megaprojects, particularly in terms of how they are established, run and concluded. In this study, we set out to investigate cost overruns in the Olympic Games. To do so, we examined the costs of the Games over half a century, including both summer and winter Olympics. We looked at the evolution of final reported costs and compared these to the costs established in the Games bids, submitted to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) up to seven years before the Games occurred. In so doing we established the largest dataset of its kind, and documented for the first time in a consistent fashion the costs and cost overruns for the Olympic Games, from 1960 to 2012. We discovered that the Games stand out in two distinct ways compared to other megaprojects: (1) The Games overrun with 100 per cent consistency. No other type of megaproject is this consistent regarding cost overrun. Other project types are typically on budget from time to time, but not the Olympics. (2) With an average cost overrun in real terms of 179 per cent – and 324 per cent in nominal terms – overruns in the Games have historically been significantly larger than for other types of megaprojects, including infrastructure, construction, ICT, and dams. The data thus show that for a city and nation to decide to host the Olympic Games is to take on one of the most financially risky type of megaproject that exists, something that many cities and nations have learned to their peril. For the London 2012 Games, we find that: (1) With sports-related real costs currently estimated at USD14.8 billion, London is on track to become the most costly Olympics ever. (2) With a projected cost overrun of 101 per cent in real terms, overrun for London is below the historical average for the Games, but not significantly so. (3) The London cost overrun is, however, significantly higher than overruns for recent Games since 1999. London therefore is reversing a positive trend of falling cost overruns for the Games.
SPORT & POLITICS, 2020
In a worldwide exclusive story SPORT & POLITICS can reveal how much cash the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is really contributing to an Olympic host - to the Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (ROCOG). The list of 117 payments helps to understand one of the most enthralling questions of the Olympic industry: What kind of contribution can Tokyo 2020/2021 and future Olympic hosts expect? IOC propaganda has been claiming for decades the IOC pays basically the biggest part of the OCOG budget. IOC vice president Samaranch jr has even created the phrase of the 'no costs Olympics'. What, when, how and how much cash the IOC really transfers to the hosts and what is actually considered as value in kind (VIK) contributions is non-transparent. An internal IOC file with all payments (only 776,743,193.61 USD direct cash contribution within the officially claimed 1,531 billion USD contribution) has never published before. Journalistic and academic work on Olympic funding needs to be reconsidered. The full list and much more information is available at SPORT & POLITICS vol 2: https://www.jensweinreich.de/eshop/
Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics
Journal of Economic Perspectives
In this paper, we explore the costs and benefits of hosting the Olympic Games. On the cost side, there are three major categories: general infrastructure such as transportation and housing to accommodate athletes and fans; specific sports infrastructure required for competition venues; and operational costs, including general administration as well as the opening and closing ceremony and security. Three major categories of benefits also exist: the short-run benefits of tourist spending during the Games; the long-run benefits or the “Olympic legacy” which might include improvements in infrastructure and increased trade, foreign investment, or tourism after the Games; and intangible benefits such as the “feel-good effect” or civic pride. Each of these costs and benefits will be addressed in turn, but the overwhelming conclusion is that in most cases the Olympics are a money-losing proposition for host cities; they result in positive net benefits only under very specific and unusual ci...
Economic evaluation of the Olympic Games
International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 2019
The purpose of this paper and study i.e. to figure which key economic factors can help us explain country performance (medals) in the Olympics. The paper focuses on 3 key objectives, namely: To produce a list of possible key economic factors that can explain Olympic performance. To produce a simple Mathematical model based on these factors which could possibly predict the Olympic tally at a country level. To identify the degree to which these factors will influence Olympic performance the study has been carried out in a way to develop a conceptual model and to analyze the hypotheses. I have considered the Beijing Olympics 2008 Games, sampled with 83 countries and 946 medals for the study. Based on the findings of the study, a few recommendations have been made, which if implemented in developing countries like India, may contribute to improving the sport performance of these countries in the future.
IMPACT OF OLYMPICS ON HOST COUNTRY'S ECONOMY
2023
This research study has been developed by focusing on the economic impact of Olympic. To analyses the economic indicators of the five countries (the United States, Spain, Australia, China and Greece) that have hosted the Games between 1992 and 2008, this study utilizes a quantitative exploratory research technique and secondary data analysis. The primary indicators of success include gross domestic product, unemployment rate, tourist numbers, and foreign direct investment in the decade before, during, and after the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The studies suggest that an Olympic host country has short-and long-term economic advantages such as increased GDP, increased tourism, and increased foreign direct investment. However, studies showed that the impact on the jobless rate was small. This research elucidates the monetary benefits of hosting the Olympic Games to aid policymakers in making informed assessments on the feasibility of such mega-events. The consequences of hosting the Olympics on non-economic aspects, such as social and environmental circumstances, and how they differ between rich and developing countries might be the subject of further research.