THE REAL COST OF A GOLD MEDAL
Is hosting the Olympics a waste of money?
Well, UK Prime Minister David Cameron apparently thinks not.
He’s hoping London’s Olympic spectacular will deliver Britain a 13 billion pound boost over four years.
He better be right, given the angst no doubt felt by Britons who’ve watched publically subsidised Olympic expenditure blow out (as they always do) whilst they endure a double dip recession and all the cuts that have come with it. The upside blip in employment is of course only fleeting.
But what about the long-term economic benefits? Did Sydney, for example, experience a significant and enduring upside after it hosted the 2000 Olympic games?
As it turns out, after the Olympics audits are few and far between. So even as cities are bidding themselves crazy to get the Games, they are doing so with little hard data on what the long-term financial benefits might be. In any event, positive economic impact for Atlanta might be very different to positive economic impact for Sydney.
Different cities. Different offerings. Vastly different geographic locations.
And it’s probably important to know that cities tend to outbid themselves in their quest to win the Games. They keep upping the offering until they get to the expected return. Politicians are usually so intent on winning, they don’t tell us those returns could be negligible.
The cost of building all those stadiums, swimming centres and other infrastructure needed for Sydney to host the 2000 Olympics was approximately $2.2 billion.
Balance that out against the gains from Olympic television rights, and the 700,000 visitors (including athletes and Olympic officials) who flocked to Sydney, along with the extra 340,000 visitors who headed here in the immediate aftermath as a result of all the hoopla and the small increase in the export of Australian manufactured goods as well. It was good news. For NSW. But only in the short term.
In the long term, the picture was less rosy.
The UK’s Institute for Public Policy, which put together a paper as London was bidding for the games, found that for there to be a long-lasting upside from all the necessary expenditure of hosting such a huge event, “The Olympics must be embedded within existing mainstream programs and policy agendas that start well before 2012 and continue well after.”
There’s no doubt that London, like Sydney before it, will look more spruced and sparkly when the athletes and spectators leave than before they arrived. But whether this effect lasts longer that a year or so, and whether the host city’s showing off leads to greater international investment which benefits communities is another question altogether.
Unlike Greece, host of the 2004 games, where most of the Olympic infrastructure now costs the austerity-crippled Greek government more to maintain than its populace is happy to support, the Homebush site still looks remarkably clean.
Even better, it’s still used. Although every time I’ve been there I am overwhelmed by the vast expanse of concrete buildings and the remarkably few humans I see walking the site’s wide avenues.
But in terms of widespread, lasting economic benefit, it seems the Sydney Olympics weren’t all they were cracked up to be.
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
9 Responses to this article
-
Wendy August 6, 2012
I think its time to hang up the olympics hat, It is so costly to any country, I applaud the sports and the sports people, but we have other arenas that the athletes can compete and have records , medals etc. I find it very hard to accept an already crippled country can add to its debt for the sake of sport. The people and its economy should be a priority .
-
pauline w August 6, 2012
I think the idea of one or two Olympic venues is a good one. Maybe one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern.
Sydney made so many mistakes with the venues in my opinion. Homebush is a white elephant and the opportunity to improve Darling Harbour was lost.
I feel sorry for the Brits (well, not much)
-
ellenni August 6, 2012
the olympics are a huge waste of money but how much pleasure does it gives those who participate and the pride their families feel. how many people who cannot attend get pleasure out of the tv coverage? what about the entertainment of the opening and closing ceremonies – all that free entertainment on tv is such a change from all the other rubbish which is shown daily. for those who love sport its a joy. so yes its a huge waste of money but its not always about the bottom line.
-
Chris August 6, 2012
Another terrific, informative and intelligent piece by Monica Attard.
I am concerned about Rio hosting the next Olympics when so many citizens live in dire poverty. I also believe that as wonderful a couple of weeks Sydney 2000 provided us, NSW citizens are continuing to pay the cost of hosting the Olympics in terms of our appalling hospitals, declining public education and other infrastructure under funding. The money and energy were re-directed to the Olympics and more than a decade later, individual citizens continue to bear the brunt of that redirected spending. If this is what ensues in a relatively well off first world state, imagine the suffering of much poorer Bazilian citizens for the next 30 years. All to pay for a three week sporting party.
-
Monica August 6, 2012
The idea of one permanent host city isn’t one I like. But Pauline’s idea of one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern, sounds appealing. Anyone agree?
-
Cathy August 6, 2012
I work in Health in NSW and I agree with Chris about how funding the Olympics seems to have broken our state financially. I saw first hand how dollars were redirected to the Olympics from health and 12 years later we are still paying the price (as I’m sure the large portfolios like Education & Transport are). I love the Olympics, I loved how Sydney transformed herself for two weeks, I loved the atmosphere and the general happiness however, I can’t help but wonder if we ‘sold the house to pay for the groceries’
-
cornishmaid August 6, 2012
We probably have “sold the house” but at this moment there will be few in GB who think it’s not a bad deal for the lift Team GB have provided a nation who have been subject to horrendous public cuts in spending etc etc – ironic isn’t it – Ben Ainslie’s medal made my Games absolutley fantastic!
-
Nquillinan August 8, 2012
Consider the affective impact of the Olympics. What is that worth? Would the most marginalized, under privileged, lowest socio-economic group in Australia – Aborigines – swap the experience of seeing one C. Freeman win gold on their own country for additional funding? I think not.
