When we think of the Olympic games we think of world records and national pride, but we do not think about the rent-seeking that goes along with the games. Cities from around the world attempt to convince the International Olympic Committee that they should host the games. Why do the cities/countries want this "honor"? Well supposedly there is a large economic impact that comes with hosting the Olympics, but is this really the case?
Dave Zirin, of The Nation writes: "News Flash: Winter Olympic officials in tropical Vancouver have been forced to import snow – on the public dime – to make sure that the 2010 games proceed as planned. This use of tax-dollars is just the icing on the cake for increasingly angry Vancouver residents".
Dave Zirin, of The Nation writes: "News Flash: Winter Olympic officials in tropical Vancouver have been forced to import snow – on the public dime – to make sure that the 2010 games proceed as planned. This use of tax-dollars is just the icing on the cake for increasingly angry Vancouver residents".
Harsha Walia writes in the Vancouver Sun: "historian George Monbiot has aptly characterized the Olympics as 'a legacy of a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich … Everywhere they go, they become an excuse for eviction and displacement; they have become a license for land grabs.' It is trite to comment on how taxpayers are the real sponsors of the $6 billion-$7 billion Winter Games. According to Kevin Walmsley of the University of Western Ontario’s International Centre for Olympic Studies, most host cities incur a high debt."
These are the costs associated with the games, but what about all the expenditures just trying to lure the games to your city/country? Fox News reports that President Obama's spent more than the $1.2 million of taxpayer money to make the overnight dash from Washington to Copenhagen to make the case for Chicago, IL to host the next games. USOC Chief Executive Scott Blackmun note "the cold and hard reality is Chicago spent approximately $80 million on its bid." So the U.S. spent over $80 million dollars for what? This type of spending is why Gordon Tullock argued that rent-seeking was not a wealth transfer, but a welfare loss. How many other cities spent money to only lose the bid. What is the opportunity cost of those resources, and does the economic benefit to the host city more than make up for it? I am doubtful.
It is not just the Olympics sports economist Craig Depken explains that most large sporting events such as the super bowl do not have large economic impacts. You can read his analysis here.
These are the costs associated with the games, but what about all the expenditures just trying to lure the games to your city/country? Fox News reports that President Obama's spent more than the $1.2 million of taxpayer money to make the overnight dash from Washington to Copenhagen to make the case for Chicago, IL to host the next games. USOC Chief Executive Scott Blackmun note "the cold and hard reality is Chicago spent approximately $80 million on its bid." So the U.S. spent over $80 million dollars for what? This type of spending is why Gordon Tullock argued that rent-seeking was not a wealth transfer, but a welfare loss. How many other cities spent money to only lose the bid. What is the opportunity cost of those resources, and does the economic benefit to the host city more than make up for it? I am doubtful.
It is not just the Olympics sports economist Craig Depken explains that most large sporting events such as the super bowl do not have large economic impacts. You can read his analysis here.
Posts
