{"id":118685,"date":"2021-07-24T12:26:09","date_gmt":"2021-07-24T12:26:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fin2me.com\/?p=118685"},"modified":"2021-07-24T12:26:09","modified_gmt":"2021-07-24T12:26:09","slug":"hosting-the-olympics-is-a-bad-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fin2me.com\/business\/hosting-the-olympics-is-a-bad-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"Hosting the Olympics Is a Bad Deal"},"content":{"rendered":"
The DealBook newsletter delves into a single topic or theme every weekend, providing reporting and analysis that offers a better understanding of an important issue in the news. If you don\u2019t already receive the daily newsletter, <\/em>sign up here<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n Yesterday\u2019s Olympic opening ceremony was a year behind schedule and took place in a nearly empty stadium, during a state of emergency. The Games, which most residents of Japan would have preferred to postpone again or cancel, will be unusual at the least \u2014 and a public health disaster at the worst.<\/p>\n But the large amount of money that Tokyo will burn by hosting the event fits right in with the financial bonfires still burning at many former Olympic locations.<\/p>\n Tokyo initially said it would spend $7.3 billion, but a 2019 government audit put the actual spending at around $28 billion.<\/p>\n Every Olympics since 1960 has run over budget, at an average of 172 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, according to an analysis by researchers at Oxford University. They concluded that this was \u201cthe highest overrun on record for any type of megaproject,\u201d far exceeding roads, bridges, dams and other major undertakings.<\/p>\n For the 2016 Summer Games, Rio de Janeiro budgeted $14 billion and spent an estimated $20 billion, according to data collected by the Council of Foreign Relations. Sochi, Russia, budgeted $10.3 billion for the 2014 Winter Olympics and spent more than $51 billion. And London, the summer host in 2012, aimed for $5 billion and spent $18 billion.<\/p>\n Another study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, examined how rosy projections of the Games\u2019 economic impact \u2014 usually commissioned by organizations with an interest in their city\u2019s hosting the spectacle \u2014 stacked up to reality. It concluded that actual effects \u201care either near-zero or a fraction of that predicted prior to the event.\u201d<\/p>\n Few researchers have studied the business of the Olympics more than Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College who has published three books about the economics of the Olympics. His research has led him to raise questions about the value to cities of hosting the Olympics \u2014 and influenced some cities to back away from bidding. He believes Tokyo has spent more on the Olympics than the 2019 government audit estimated and expects the Games to lose at least $35 billion.<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re going to be white elephants,\u201d he said of many of the newly built Olympic buildings and venues. \u201cThe reason why they didn\u2019t exist before the Olympics is because there was no economically viable use for them.\u201d<\/p>\n DealBook spoke with Mr. Zimbalist about why he believes hosting the Olympics, even in normal times, is a money-pit for cities \u2014 and why they end up competing to host them anyway. He also has a clever solution to fix it all.<\/p>\n How do Olympic cities end up spending billions of dollars?<\/strong><\/p>\n The budget put out by the organizing committee is for operating the Games for 17 days. In addition to the 17 days, in recent years they\u2019ve also started to include some other expenses, like temporary venues. The figure they are using for Tokyo is about $15 billion. It doesn\u2019t include the building of the national stadium, the construction of the Olympic Village, the media village. It also doesn\u2019t include any of the transportation, communication and hospitality infrastructure investments that were made in order to host the Games. The number itself is very fungible depending on what you want to include.<\/p>\n Where else does the money go?<\/strong><\/p>\n The security budget will be somewhere around $2 billion. Then there is transportation for the 205 Olympic teams that are coming to Tokyo. The International Olympic Committee pays for all the flights for them to get to Tokyo.<\/p>\n If you look at the bid document, the I.O.C. requires a lot of hospitality expenditures \u2014 Thomas Bach and John Coates and others to stay at fancy hotels and their meals. You\u2019ve got to pay for the 11,000 athletes and their coaches and trainers who were in the Olympic Village. You have to pay for their lodging, food, health care and so on. And another thing that\u2019s there, by the way, is the $3 billion that it costs them to postpone.<\/p>\n Why are cities still bidding for the Olympics if, as you argue, the economics are so bad?<\/strong><\/p>\n If you go back four or five Olympic Games, consistently you have several European cities dropping their bids because of a plebiscite or their residents voted, \u201cNo, we don\u2019t want to do this.\u201d They\u2019re looking at the balance sheet, which is overwhelmingly negative. They\u2019re looking at the social and environmental disruption, which is extremely problematic.<\/p>\n What the I.O.C. has done in response to that is introduce a few tepid reforms. One of which is putting all the bidding behind closed doors. They\u2019re sick and tired of being embarrassed by cities dropping out. So the process is now secretive.<\/p>\n But some cities still do want to do this, right?<\/strong><\/p>\n The main answer is that you have the construction industry executives deciding that this would be a wonderful thing for their industry. They\u2019re going to get billions of dollars of contracts. They can line up, of course, the trade unions, and some investment bankers. They hire a consulting firm to do an economic impact study, which uses a faulty methodology and makes some unrealistic assumptions. And they come out with \u201cBy golly, this is going to put our city on the map.\u201d<\/p>\n So this is about misalignments?<\/strong><\/p>\n If, say, Deloitte were to come out, having been hired by a chamber of commerce, and say, \u201cThis is a crazy idea. Your city should never do this,\u201d they are never going to do another economic impact study for a megastar sport event. So this is their modus operandi.<\/p>\n What about the $4 billion the I.O.C. gets from broadcasters?<\/strong><\/p>\n Individual members don\u2019t make anything, except that they\u2019re treated to hospitality. The I.O.C. has an immense and elaborate operating structure with all sorts of subcommittees and subagencies. So their operating costs are quite substantial. It\u2019s probably somewhere in the order of 15 percent of their total revenues over a four-year Olympic cycle.<\/p>\n Do you think the broadcasting rights will gain or lose value in the future?<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, are we going to start betting on the Olympic Games? Certainly the Supreme Court decision invalidating the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act is an indication that sports betting is going to hit all of the sports leagues. This could be a big revenue-generating item for broadcasting rights fees.<\/p>\n The next Olympic Games will be in Beijing this winter. How do you expect it to fare?<\/strong><\/p>\n I imagine there\u2019s an enormous amount of political pushback to the I.O.C. for having selected Beijing. Of course, they only had a choice between Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan. It was a Hobson\u2019s choice.<\/p>\n Will Beijing make money?<\/strong><\/p>\n They\u2019re doing some really crazy, crazy things. They\u2019ve selected two venues 60 and 120 miles to the north of Beijing to host the Nordic and Alpine skiing events. Both of those areas are arid \u2014 not far from the Gobi Desert. They have to invest tens of billions of dollars in a water transfer system because they\u2019re going to have to use artificial snow. None of that\u2019s going to appear in the Olympic budget. It\u2019s extremely stupid to spend that kind of money to promote skiing in the north of China when it\u2019s not a very popular sport. They admitted to spending $44 billion for the 2008 Summer Games.<\/p>\n How much are the Olympics about countries and cities demonstrating political power?<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s hard for me to imagine that President Xi thinks that this is going to put Beijing on the map. One of the things we learned in 2008 was that Beijing was horrifically polluted, and we learned much more about repression in China because of the Games\u2019 being broadcast.<\/p>\n So why did Japan bid?<\/strong><\/p>\n Back in 1964, one of the things that Japan was so happy about when it hosted the Olympics was their opportunity to say to the world: \u201cWe\u2019re not part of the Axis powers anymore. We\u2019re a young, growing capitalist society.\u201d To some extent it worked, because they were transforming dramatically.<\/p>\n When they bid in 2013, they promulgated these ideas within Japan: \u201cWe were going to be able to show the world that we have recovered from Fukushima and that the economic miracle \u2014 which stopped in the early 1990s and was followed by three decades of stagnation \u2014 that we\u2019re now over that.\u201d<\/p>\n You\u2019ve identified lots of problems. Do you have a solution?<\/strong><\/p>\n If we were living in a rational world, we would have the same city hosting the Games every two years. There\u2019s no reason to rebuild the Olympic Shangri-La every four years. It doesn\u2019t make sense for the cities. It certainly makes no sense from the standpoint of climate change. When the modern Olympics were created in 1896, we didn\u2019t have international telecommunications and international jet travel. So in order to have the world participate in and enjoy the Olympics, you had to move it around. We don\u2019t have to do that anymore.<\/p>\n Do you think the I.O.C. would ever do that?<\/strong><\/p>\n They are not going to respond positively to that idea. Their role in the world and their prestige in the world, and their definition of themselves, revolve around their power to decide where the Olympics are going to happen. Why would they give up that power?<\/p>\n What about the feel-good part of the Olympics? Don\u2019t you buy the argument that the Olympics bring the world together?<\/strong><\/p>\n I like some of the symbolism of the Olympics. I\u2019m not sure how penetrating it is, but I like the idea that you bring the world\u2019s best athletes together from 205 countries, and you have them compete against each other on the playing field rather than on the battlefield. That resonates for me. I like it. Now, how far does that take us? I don\u2019t think very far. It\u2019s very expensive symbolism.<\/p>\n What do you think? Are the Olympics good or bad for the cities that host them? Let us know: dealbook@nytimes.com.<\/p>\nLatest Updates<\/h2>\n
Summer Olympics Essentials<\/h4>\n
\n
\n