6 ms·

Are their any actual legit studies that have shown if hosting an olympics is worth it for the overall economy or not? For example I think the olympics put Barc

by zpeti 6y ago

Are their any actual legit studies that have shown if hosting an olympics is worth it for the overall economy or not? For example I think the olympics put Barcelona on the map for a lot of tourists and they’ve been reaping the rewards since, but it seems to me that’s more of an exception than the rule.

kungito 6y ago
I cannot imagine Barcelona needing something to put it on a map. Am not spanish
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  Barcelona Olympics happened in 1992. Back then, foreign tourists tended to go to the Balearic Islands almost exclusively, Barcelona was kind of an inside tip for the young backpackers. Memories of an actually fascist government (which only disappeared some 15 years before) were still very present, and many foreigners thought the islands to be "safe tourist resorts", much like the tourist resorts of Cuba today (with few, mostly Boheme types ever leaving them during their stay). Not sure if Barcelona as a tourist destination was caused by the Olympics, but in 1991, it certainly was not a major destination for Europeans.
DevX101 6y ago
Hosting the Olympics costs somewhere between US$15-20 billion. If the goal is really to put a city 'on the map' you could spend less than 5% of that money on an extensive cultural/tourism marketing campaign and have more of an effect. I've yet to meet anyone who's chosen Sochi as a vacation destination.
- Ceezy 6y ago
  They just need an other Olympic Game to remind people...
- Retric 6y ago
  Winter Olympics locations rarely end up as tourist destinations because people take fewer international vacations to cold locations. Summer Olympics have a better shot, and the stadiums can more often be useful long term. But, it’s still low odds of success. The best bet seems to be a lesser known location which can use most of the infrastructure and has some non Olympics tourist destinations. Which isn’t a huge list, but there have been a few.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    > Winter Olympics locations rarely end up as tourist destinations because people take fewer international vacations to cold locations. I would describe it differently, the facilities used for skiing events are usually already tourist locations, plenty of people take international skiing vacations.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 6y ago
      It’s purely a numbers game, ski trips happen but are really a small subset of trips. Meanwhile 1/2 of the Olympic city’s host winter games.
      - rjsw 6y ago
        The venues for Olympic Winter games are by definition where people go for ski trips, they may build varying amounts of infrastructure for non-skiing events but they will have an economy already geared around tourism.
        Retric 6y ago
        Cortina d'Ampezzo is hosting the 2026 Winter ski events, and yes it’s a ski destination but only has a peak of 40k residents in the winter which is when the Olympic boom would hypothetically take place. That’s not a huge economy to absorb a short term spike in tourism when it’s focused on a few months out of the year. Worse it’s not like there is a massive untapped surplus of people doing international ski vacations. But don’t take my word for it their are actual studies looking into this stuff that come to similar conclusions.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Sochi is hardly open for tourism - the closest international market, Europe, requires visas to visit, and not even visas on arrival like countries like Turkey. Far less hassle for someone from Germany to visit Cairo, Dubai, Nairobi, New York, than to visit Sochi. Same issue with holding the world cup in 2018. Give a 30 day tourist visa on arrival and they'd get far more tourists
dagw 6y ago
Are their any actual legit studies that have shown if hosting an olympics is worth it for the overall economy or not? Lots, probably hundreds. Most of them conclude 'it depends, but basically not worth it'. But the gist is that if you are already a functioning city and popular tourist spot (like London) you'll get close to zero benefit (at massive costs). London actually significantly had less total tourists the year of the Olympics compared with the preceding and following years. Some cities, like Barcelona, Seoul and possibly Rio de Janeiro saw some benefit in terms of raising awareness of the city as tourist destination and better infrastructure for handling tourism. Both led to increased tourism the years following the Olympics. Barcelona and Seoul where also however cheaper events than current Olympics so it is hard to compare. Also only the Summer Olympics has shown any sign of positive benefits on tourism. Winter Olympics has basically no effect.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  The upside is that you modernise your city. In this case, they would have receive X thousand/million of tourists, which they won't come. If you travel to Japan (e.g. from Europe) you don't just go for the events. You also say an extra 5-10 days. That is a big loss for the tourist industry, the millions of mouths eating in restaurants, drinking in bars, and on top of the costs/profits, imagien that the state takes a 5-10-20% on taxes, which would be reinvested to the country (education, infrastructure, health, etc.) It is a worse case sceario for the country. All these expenses and not near enought he revenue..
  - dagw 6y ago
    The upside is that you modernise your city. In some cases that is true. But I've been to Tokyo twice as a tourist and didn't see much in desperate need of modernization. And even if your city is in need of modernization, hosting an Olympics is a very inefficient way to go about it. The only argument that can be made is a political one where it is easier to convince the government to spend $10 billion on hosting the Olympics (and spending some of that on infrastructure renovation) rather than just spending $2 billion on infrastructure renovation. In fact the Mayor of London even said: “I bid for the Olympics because it’s the only way to get the billions of pounds out of the government to develop the East End – to clean the soil, put in the infrastructure and build the housing.” However as many cities have found, the modernization done to host an Olympics aren't necessarily the modernizations a city needs the most long term, In this case, they would have receive X thousand/million of tourists Would they be getting more that they would otherwise though? As I mentioned elsewhere, London saw a clear drop in tourists visiting over the Olympic summer (with a matching decrease in restaurant and shop revenue), since it turns out many people who want to visit London would rather do so when there isn't a major sporting event causing massive chaos. I mean yes. Spending all that money preparing for an Olympics and having no one show up is probably worse than having people show up. But not hosting the Olympics in the first place would obviously be the most financially prudent move
rpadovani 6y ago
I know only about this study about the costs, without any consideration about if they are worth it or not: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2804554 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2804554 Living in Munich I have to say that the amazing park and infrastructures (widely used nowadays and close to the city center) left after the tragic 1972 Olympics are definitely worthy of the $1B spent over infrastructure
ekianjo 6y ago
Usually not worth it. And most facilities are decay into ruins or are completely under utilized. Olympic games of Waste.
johannes1234321 6y ago
Aside from financial gains through tourism etc. I have another observation from the 1972 Olympic Games here in Munich: Hosting the Olympic Games was a booster for infrastructure projects. Like some new roads, finally deciding to build an underground, building a suburban sub-surfsce rail line through the city center and convert it to pedestrian area, ... Multiple of those projects where pushed off before, but Olympics gave the "let's do it" spirit for those huge projects. Having those projects done is an important part of today's quality of life here (while since the late 90ies underground construction mostly stopped and we're seeing consequences as the city grows ...)

by zpeti 6y ago

kungito 6y ago

I cannot imagine Barcelona needing something to put it on a map. Am not spanish

DocTomoe 6y ago
Barcelona Olympics happened in 1992. Back then, foreign tourists tended to go to the Balearic Islands almost exclusively, Barcelona was kind of an inside tip for the young backpackers. Memories of an actually fascist government (which only disappeared some 15 years before) were still very present, and many foreigners thought the islands to be "safe tourist resorts", much like the tourist resorts of Cuba today (with few, mostly Boheme types ever leaving them during their stay). Not sure if Barcelona as a tourist destination was caused by the Olympics, but in 1991, it certainly was not a major destination for Europeans.

DevX101 6y ago

Hosting the Olympics costs somewhere between US$15-20 billion. If the goal is really to put a city 'on the map' you could spend less than 5% of that money on an extensive cultural/tourism marketing campaign and have more of an effect. I've yet to meet anyone who's chosen Sochi as a vacation destination.

Ceezy 6y ago
They just need an other Olympic Game to remind people...
Retric 6y ago
Winter Olympics locations rarely end up as tourist destinations because people take fewer international vacations to cold locations. Summer Olympics have a better shot, and the stadiums can more often be useful long term. But, it’s still low odds of success. The best bet seems to be a lesser known location which can use most of the infrastructure and has some non Olympics tourist destinations. Which isn’t a huge list, but there have been a few.
- rjsw 6y ago
  > Winter Olympics locations rarely end up as tourist destinations because people take fewer international vacations to cold locations. I would describe it differently, the facilities used for skiing events are usually already tourist locations, plenty of people take international skiing vacations.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    It’s purely a numbers game, ski trips happen but are really a small subset of trips. Meanwhile 1/2 of the Olympic city’s host winter games.
    - rjsw 6y ago
      The venues for Olympic Winter games are by definition where people go for ski trips, they may build varying amounts of infrastructure for non-skiing events but they will have an economy already geared around tourism.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Cortina d'Ampezzo is hosting the 2026 Winter ski events, and yes it’s a ski destination but only has a peak of 40k residents in the winter which is when the Olympic boom would hypothetically take place. That’s not a huge economy to absorb a short term spike in tourism when it’s focused on a few months out of the year. Worse it’s not like there is a massive untapped surplus of people doing international ski vacations. But don’t take my word for it their are actual studies looking into this stuff that come to similar conclusions.
iso1631 6y ago
Sochi is hardly open for tourism - the closest international market, Europe, requires visas to visit, and not even visas on arrival like countries like Turkey. Far less hassle for someone from Germany to visit Cairo, Dubai, Nairobi, New York, than to visit Sochi. Same issue with holding the world cup in 2018. Give a 30 day tourist visa on arrival and they'd get far more tourists

dagw 6y ago

Are their any actual legit studies that have shown if hosting an olympics is worth it for the overall economy or not? Lots, probably hundreds. Most of them conclude 'it depends, but basically not worth it'. But the gist is that if you are already a functioning city and popular tourist spot (like London) you'll get close to zero benefit (at massive costs). London actually significantly had less total tourists the year of the Olympics compared with the preceding and following years. Some cities, like Barcelona, Seoul and possibly Rio de Janeiro saw some benefit in terms of raising awareness of the city as tourist destination and better infrastructure for handling tourism. Both led to increased tourism the years following the Olympics. Barcelona and Seoul where also however cheaper events than current Olympics so it is hard to compare. Also only the Summer Olympics has shown any sign of positive benefits on tourism. Winter Olympics has basically no effect.

HenryBemis 6y ago
The upside is that you modernise your city. In this case, they would have receive X thousand/million of tourists, which they won't come. If you travel to Japan (e.g. from Europe) you don't just go for the events. You also say an extra 5-10 days. That is a big loss for the tourist industry, the millions of mouths eating in restaurants, drinking in bars, and on top of the costs/profits, imagien that the state takes a 5-10-20% on taxes, which would be reinvested to the country (education, infrastructure, health, etc.) It is a worse case sceario for the country. All these expenses and not near enought he revenue..
- dagw 6y ago
  The upside is that you modernise your city. In some cases that is true. But I've been to Tokyo twice as a tourist and didn't see much in desperate need of modernization. And even if your city is in need of modernization, hosting an Olympics is a very inefficient way to go about it. The only argument that can be made is a political one where it is easier to convince the government to spend $10 billion on hosting the Olympics (and spending some of that on infrastructure renovation) rather than just spending $2 billion on infrastructure renovation. In fact the Mayor of London even said: “I bid for the Olympics because it’s the only way to get the billions of pounds out of the government to develop the East End – to clean the soil, put in the infrastructure and build the housing.” However as many cities have found, the modernization done to host an Olympics aren't necessarily the modernizations a city needs the most long term, In this case, they would have receive X thousand/million of tourists Would they be getting more that they would otherwise though? As I mentioned elsewhere, London saw a clear drop in tourists visiting over the Olympic summer (with a matching decrease in restaurant and shop revenue), since it turns out many people who want to visit London would rather do so when there isn't a major sporting event causing massive chaos. I mean yes. Spending all that money preparing for an Olympics and having no one show up is probably worse than having people show up. But not hosting the Olympics in the first place would obviously be the most financially prudent move

rpadovani 6y ago

I know only about this study about the costs, without any consideration about if they are worth it or not: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2804554 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2804554 Living in Munich I have to say that the amazing park and infrastructures (widely used nowadays and close to the city center) left after the tragic 1972 Olympics are definitely worthy of the $1B spent over infrastructure

ekianjo 6y ago

Usually not worth it. And most facilities are decay into ruins or are completely under utilized. Olympic games of Waste.

johannes1234321 6y ago

Aside from financial gains through tourism etc. I have another observation from the 1972 Olympic Games here in Munich: Hosting the Olympic Games was a booster for infrastructure projects. Like some new roads, finally deciding to build an underground, building a suburban sub-surfsce rail line through the city center and convert it to pedestrian area, ... Multiple of those projects where pushed off before, but Olympics gave the "let's do it" spirit for those huge projects. Having those projects done is an important part of today's quality of life here (while since the late 90ies underground construction mostly stopped and we're seeing consequences as the city grows ...)