There will always be countries who uses large Money on Space Projects, Nuclear Projects, .... regardless there are poor or gay people in their country. Better use the money on sports than many other things.
US will not stop their Space projects because there are homeless people in their country. Now would you shut up.
US will not stop their Space projects because there are homeless people in their country. Now would you shut up.
Last edited:
The economics of hosting events with massive amounts of money being thrown has been totally debunked by Economists from left and right.
Even hosting Republican and Democratic National Conventions are costly events for cities because of security costs.
Look at Olympic infrastructure built just ten years ago in Athens.
http://www.businessinsider.com/2004-athens-olympics-venues-abandoned-today-photos-2012-8?op=1
The reality you can not force a city or a country to digest all this news infrastructure that was not organically added to the city.
This is especially true in the case of Olympics and Winter Olympics when many times a city has to built massive infrastructure that will be only used once.
There is no justification for this madness. Cities and Countries should just bid for events with their existing infrastructure.
Even hosting Republican and Democratic National Conventions are costly events for cities because of security costs.
Look at Olympic infrastructure built just ten years ago in Athens.
http://www.businessinsider.com/2004-athens-olympics-venues-abandoned-today-photos-2012-8?op=1
The reality you can not force a city or a country to digest all this news infrastructure that was not organically added to the city.
This is especially true in the case of Olympics and Winter Olympics when many times a city has to built massive infrastructure that will be only used once.
There is no justification for this madness. Cities and Countries should just bid for events with their existing infrastructure.
The Batman guy is not an economist. He's a voice. His community is suffering indefinitely so you and your buddies can go to Brazil and shake your asses while drunk. Have some empathy.
The economists have already done their job of determining why hosting such events is a net loss.
It's not even just about the overall net result. It's about how the burden is unfairly distributed. Sure if Toronto hosts an Olympic, you and I will pay with our tax dollars and won't lose our homes, but in China and Brazil and many other places in the world, the burden is not in the form of tax dollars, rather lost homes, relocation and enforced poverty.
Why are you turning this into a fight instead of paying attention to the evidence presented?
The economists have already done their job of determining why hosting such events is a net loss.
It's not even just about the overall net result. It's about how the burden is unfairly distributed. Sure if Toronto hosts an Olympic, you and I will pay with our tax dollars and won't lose our homes, but in China and Brazil and many other places in the world, the burden is not in the form of tax dollars, rather lost homes, relocation and enforced poverty.
Why are you turning this into a fight instead of paying attention to the evidence presented?
Exactly what "evidence" have you presented that hosting the world cup is a net loss, other than some guy in a Batman suit saying his community is suffering and extending that to say that's because me and "my buddies" (i.e. people who are not suffering from clinical depression) are going there and shaking our "asses while drunk"?!!! I'm turning this into a fight?!!! Plus, I thought you like people who pick fights and thanked my post when I said I'll come back here when I want to pick a fight!
What "economists" are you talking about exactly? Did you provide any links or articles about the last 3 world cups being "net losses"? Did you even do the slightest bit of research on it or look up the KPMG reports on the last world cup, or other reports about Germany, Japan or Korea before going off the rails?!
Infrastructure spending is NOT a loss in economic terms - it is a job creator. Brazil's GDP sky rocketed past Russia and India right after the announcement of the world cup, compliments of all the infrastructure and construction spending. So, the guy in the Batman suit got left out of the construction boom because he's running around in a Batman suit! He's going to also get left behind from the tourism dollars that me and my ass shaking buddies will spend down there. You know why? Because instead of selling ice cream and hot dogs, he's running around in a Batman suit!
So, if you really have so much empathy for this guy, you think the construction boom hurt Brazilians, you think hospitality, tourism and service dollars are going to hurt Brazilians, you think all the infrastructure in a country with terrible infrastructure was a bad decision, at least send the guy a Robin suit so he can run around and entertain you and "your buddies" with a sidekick.
:bye:
I honestly don't know what to say. I want to continue this debate, but with your last reply I don't know what can be said to bring you back to earth.
Clinical depression?!! I'd like to consider myself the opposite of Kosmashang. If that qualifies as being clinically depressed, then so be it
Are you being serious here or is this inline with your "clinical depression" comment?
Clinical depression?!! I'd like to consider myself the opposite of Kosmashang. If that qualifies as being clinically depressed, then so be it
Are you being serious here or is this inline with your "clinical depression" comment?
Just so you know there are tons of studies out there.
Here is one that looked at U.S bid for 2018 worldcup.
http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_10_121.pdf
Here is one that looked at U.S bid for 2018 worldcup.
http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_10_121.pdf
BT, where are we going with this. You are the administrator of a football forum and want all tournements like WC, Olympics,... to stop. Then football will stop. No football forum.
US invaded Iraq killed many innocent people to get the oil at a cheap Price. Did they care for the people WHO were killed. No one said life is fair. Even if World cup is stopped the government of Brezil will not change anything if they don't want to. Their money will be used in other Projects. And believe me brezilians have also Economists WHO tell the government what to do.
Are we going to solve their problems?
US invaded Iraq killed many innocent people to get the oil at a cheap Price. Did they care for the people WHO were killed. No one said life is fair. Even if World cup is stopped the government of Brezil will not change anything if they don't want to. Their money will be used in other Projects. And believe me brezilians have also Economists WHO tell the government what to do.
Are we going to solve their problems?
you don't political dynamics.
just look at cities in the U.S which year after year subsidize Processional sports team by paying for security for their events.
Fast Tracking their stadiums zoning laws.
paying for majority of stadium costs.
That's all done not withstanding the hundreds of studies that rejects the cost benefit analysis to pay for such projects.
The political Dynamics reward a city council or president of a country that can bring world Cup, Olympics, Super Bowl or other big events to their realm.
Many times the politicians that bring in the world cup are not even there by the time the spending has to begin.
just look at cities in the U.S which year after year subsidize Processional sports team by paying for security for their events.
Fast Tracking their stadiums zoning laws.
paying for majority of stadium costs.
That's all done not withstanding the hundreds of studies that rejects the cost benefit analysis to pay for such projects.
The political Dynamics reward a city council or president of a country that can bring world Cup, Olympics, Super Bowl or other big events to their realm.
Many times the politicians that bring in the world cup are not even there by the time the spending has to begin.
This article clearly ignores the significance of Ice cream sales, but never less is interesting:
The Social Cost of Brazil Hosting World Cup 2014
Depending on which side of the argument you choose to listen to, the hosting of any major sporting event can both be seen as an opportunity for great development, or an impending disaster.
The 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil is no different, and opposing groups have already been debating the cost benefit of hosting the competition for some time. Somewhat unsurprisingly, they come up with very different figures.
The hosting of the World Cup can be twisted to suit the agenda of any political group. However, for all the potential economic benefits, will it actually be the Brazilian public who benefit? That much is open to very serious questions.
Whilst bidding for the tournament, the emphasis had been on the social benefit that hosting the World Cup would bring. Those benefits—largely based around the sizable issue of urban mobility—have now been swiftly forgotten about.
Besides the lack of investment outside of the stadiums, other issues such as forced relocation and breaches of workers' rights also threaten the tournament's impact on those most disadvantaged in society. The figures do not make pretty reading.
Shaun Botterill/Getty Images
New Stadia: Broken Promises
Just last week, renowned Brazilian football journalist Tim Vickery posted an interesting article on ESPNfc detailing some of the issues that Brazil was facing regarding stadia for the 2014 World Cup.
One of the key points of Vickery's piece is that the public have been mislead on where government money would be spent. A budget of $13.3 billion was set for the tournament, with the majority of money to be spent on projects around the host cities.
Instead, as Vickery notes below, a huge amount of the budget for the tournament has been used on building the stadiums—at the cost of improved highways, subway systems, airports and ports.
“
At the start of the process Brazil's population was explicitly told that all of the money to be spent on stadiums would be private, leaving public funds for much needed infrastructure projects.
It always looked like a dubious claim, especially as four of the stadiums would seem to have questionable viability. And as it has turned out, almost all of the funds spent on stadiums are from the public purse.
”
The problem does not end there either. Brazil opted to spend a particularly high amount of money on the stadium developments for two reasons: to implement green technology and to renovate existing iconic grounds.
However, both elements of that decision come under intense scrutiny when it comes down to evaluating finances.
Firstly, the decision to use high-end materials to add in solar panels, water recycling facilities and retractable stands have required the use of foreign technology and labour.
Beyond that, the Global Post report that there will be an annual maintenance cost of 10 percent of the total price. That is to say, the total cost of the stadium will double within just 10 years.
A planned rail link in Sao Paulo
This rapidly rising cost and delay of work at the stadiums, the majority of which has been funded by the state development bank BNDES, has thus taken priority. Works to improve the flow of the event, and people's general lives, have taken a backseat.
According to information on the official Portal 2014 (Portuguese) site earlier this year, seven planned works on airports around the country are yet to begin. Among those, an expansion of the runway in Porto Alegre was scrapped.
Again, regarding urban mobility, it is a similar story. A Publica (Portuguese), for example, report that 13 of the 50 original planned projects across the country have now been scrapped.
One such project, a rail link from São Paulo's Congonhas airport to the Morumbi area of the city had been seen as vital, given the frequent travel problems en-route to the airport.
With small returns on investment failing to attract private investors in quite the quantity that the government had hoped, the Cup is not quite going to offer the legacy that had been so talked up.
Construction at the Mineirão
Forced Relocations and Workers' Rights
Another major issue the competition has thrown up, like with many sporting events, has been the rights of the people who had lived on land that would now be repossessed for use.
An IPS report on the matter suggests that 30,000 families in Rio de Janeiro alone will have been forced to move for the competition. The Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, meanwhile, places the overall estimate at 170,000 people countrywide.
While the figures above may vary, the number of people being displaced from what are often very poor areas of cities is enormous. There have been complaints over the compensation offered for people's homes, while many of the areas designated for relocation have been both distant and incomplete.
Speaking to the Associated Press last year, Alexandre Mendes, a former head of housing rights at the Rio state public defender's office, said of the evictions: "Many of these removals did not respect principles and rights considered basic in local and international law."
In quotes carried by Metro newspaper, Raquel Rolnik, United Nations special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, was even more damning. He said:
“
We've received complaints about violent evictions in which families received notifications to leave their homes in a few hours carrying their belongings and then immediately had their homes demolished. There's an absolute lack of transparency and public information.
Compensation measures, resettlement plans and assistance programmes are not presented in advance, nor disclosed in public.
The country is paying a very high price. Brazil has bowed to pressure to change federal laws, has passed over some citizens' rights and has financed billions to rebuild stadiums at the expense of investment in important sectors—all in the name of the World Cup and the Olympics.
The opportunity to turn the mega-events into possibilities for developing the country is being wasted. Brazil has the will, has the money and still has time to do a better World Cup and Olympics.
”
Whatever the pros and cons of "urbanising" the country's famous favelas, the manner of the evictions is certainly not in line with the ideals that Brazil as a country like to promote. "Order and Progress", after all, is the motto that sits abreast the country's flag.
The public of the favelas, quite simply, do not buy the reasoning behind the relocations. Many consider, instead, that it is a wish to beatify the cities ahead of upcoming events, or to use the land for expensive new real estate.
Many have already been evicted, but the protests will continue long past the World Cup as work continues ahead of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
Besides those who live in the cities, there have also been numerous complaints about the treatment of construction workers ahead of the competition—with numerous works delayed by strikes over conditions.
The United Kingdom-based Latin America Bureau reports that FIFA's threats over the completion dates of projects were used as excuses to ignore the rights of workers by construction firms.
They quote a report entitled "Mega-Events and Human Rights Violations in Brazil", produced by A Publica in late 2012, as documenting strikes at six of the 12 stadiums for use next summer.
To quote their translation of the report, the main demands of the strikes "ranged from wage increases and benefits like health insurance, food assistance and transportation, to improved working conditions (in particular, the protesters had complaints regarding the security situation, sanitation, and food), increased overtime payment and the end of 'inhumanely long' working hours."
It is all fairly unsatisfactory on behalf of both FIFA and the local organising committee, with the feeling that the ordinary people do not matter as long as the event runs smoothly. For FIFA, it is an issue that once more looks set to rear its head ahead of the 2022 competition in Qatar. (Guardian)
Romario has been outspoken on social issues
Law Changes and Ticket Prices
One of the most controversial aspects of hosting a World Cup is that FIFA require a country to, at least temporarily, change their laws to match the governing body's requirements.
Those laws involve along FIFA to avoid tax on earnings at the event, preventing businesses from associating with the tournament, and, in Brazil's case, the permitting of alcohol sales inside stadia.
They are demands that understandably cause unease among both politicians and public alike. However, it is all part of hosting a World Cup.
Leaving aside the in-depth legal jargon in which I am not well-versed, there are a couple of the laws introduced that add to the feeling of the competition not being "for the people".
The first, Article 11 of the General Law of the World Cup, prevents "the sale of any kind of merchandise in 'official competition locations, in their immediate surroundings and their main access ways', without the express authorization of FIFA."
It all sounds reasonable enough until it emerges that the exclusion zones have previously stretched two kilometres from each stadium. Within that radius, no local trader can make any money from World Cup merchandise.
Beyond that, Article 23 "penalizes bars that try to transmit World Cup games without the appropriate authorization or that promote certain brands not authorized by FIFA." Thus, if you cannot get a ticket for the event, you can only watch it in a bar sponsored by the World Cup's official beer provider. (all from CIP Americas)
Both articles and, indeed, the law itself, have been opposed by many business and workers' rights groups across the country.
There is a common feeling that Brazil's World Cup is being taken away from the lower classes, with all these factors adding to the sentiment. The high cost of ticket prices, also, have done little to soften dissatisfaction.
Brazil has managed to negotiate a 50 percent discount for the elderly population and for students into the prices, in line with the country's national laws, but there is a feeling more must be done.
Ticket prices will be announced on July 1, but only this week Brazilian minister of sports gave a warning that people may need to prepare for a shock.
He said, "I spoke with FIFA representatives, stating that this was unacceptable, that the prices were so high."
"This is really a celebration of the people of Brazil. Soccer is very important for the whole population in Brazil. So I mentioned to FIFA representatives, how about that part of the population that cannot afford those expensive tickets?'' (Fox Sports)
As an indication, tickets for the World Cup in South Africa ranged from $20 to $160 for most first-round matches, and escalated to $150 to $900 for the final.
The build up to the World Cup has involved a number of public figures, as well as those from FIFA, speaking about the legacy of the competition returning to Brazil.
While it will be a party atmosphere for most tourists, and indeed wealthy locals, there will be no real legacy unless Brazil's working classes are included.
Many Brazilian politicians, including the former player Romario, have recognised this. However, it is not easy to change when dealing with the commercial machine that is the FIFA World Cup.
The Social Cost of Brazil Hosting World Cup 2014
Depending on which side of the argument you choose to listen to, the hosting of any major sporting event can both be seen as an opportunity for great development, or an impending disaster.
The 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil is no different, and opposing groups have already been debating the cost benefit of hosting the competition for some time. Somewhat unsurprisingly, they come up with very different figures.
The hosting of the World Cup can be twisted to suit the agenda of any political group. However, for all the potential economic benefits, will it actually be the Brazilian public who benefit? That much is open to very serious questions.
Whilst bidding for the tournament, the emphasis had been on the social benefit that hosting the World Cup would bring. Those benefits—largely based around the sizable issue of urban mobility—have now been swiftly forgotten about.
Besides the lack of investment outside of the stadiums, other issues such as forced relocation and breaches of workers' rights also threaten the tournament's impact on those most disadvantaged in society. The figures do not make pretty reading.
Shaun Botterill/Getty Images
New Stadia: Broken Promises
Just last week, renowned Brazilian football journalist Tim Vickery posted an interesting article on ESPNfc detailing some of the issues that Brazil was facing regarding stadia for the 2014 World Cup.
One of the key points of Vickery's piece is that the public have been mislead on where government money would be spent. A budget of $13.3 billion was set for the tournament, with the majority of money to be spent on projects around the host cities.
Instead, as Vickery notes below, a huge amount of the budget for the tournament has been used on building the stadiums—at the cost of improved highways, subway systems, airports and ports.
“
At the start of the process Brazil's population was explicitly told that all of the money to be spent on stadiums would be private, leaving public funds for much needed infrastructure projects.
It always looked like a dubious claim, especially as four of the stadiums would seem to have questionable viability. And as it has turned out, almost all of the funds spent on stadiums are from the public purse.
”
The problem does not end there either. Brazil opted to spend a particularly high amount of money on the stadium developments for two reasons: to implement green technology and to renovate existing iconic grounds.
However, both elements of that decision come under intense scrutiny when it comes down to evaluating finances.
Firstly, the decision to use high-end materials to add in solar panels, water recycling facilities and retractable stands have required the use of foreign technology and labour.
Beyond that, the Global Post report that there will be an annual maintenance cost of 10 percent of the total price. That is to say, the total cost of the stadium will double within just 10 years.
A planned rail link in Sao Paulo
This rapidly rising cost and delay of work at the stadiums, the majority of which has been funded by the state development bank BNDES, has thus taken priority. Works to improve the flow of the event, and people's general lives, have taken a backseat.
According to information on the official Portal 2014 (Portuguese) site earlier this year, seven planned works on airports around the country are yet to begin. Among those, an expansion of the runway in Porto Alegre was scrapped.
Again, regarding urban mobility, it is a similar story. A Publica (Portuguese), for example, report that 13 of the 50 original planned projects across the country have now been scrapped.
One such project, a rail link from São Paulo's Congonhas airport to the Morumbi area of the city had been seen as vital, given the frequent travel problems en-route to the airport.
With small returns on investment failing to attract private investors in quite the quantity that the government had hoped, the Cup is not quite going to offer the legacy that had been so talked up.
Construction at the Mineirão
Forced Relocations and Workers' Rights
Another major issue the competition has thrown up, like with many sporting events, has been the rights of the people who had lived on land that would now be repossessed for use.
An IPS report on the matter suggests that 30,000 families in Rio de Janeiro alone will have been forced to move for the competition. The Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, meanwhile, places the overall estimate at 170,000 people countrywide.
While the figures above may vary, the number of people being displaced from what are often very poor areas of cities is enormous. There have been complaints over the compensation offered for people's homes, while many of the areas designated for relocation have been both distant and incomplete.
Speaking to the Associated Press last year, Alexandre Mendes, a former head of housing rights at the Rio state public defender's office, said of the evictions: "Many of these removals did not respect principles and rights considered basic in local and international law."
In quotes carried by Metro newspaper, Raquel Rolnik, United Nations special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, was even more damning. He said:
“
We've received complaints about violent evictions in which families received notifications to leave their homes in a few hours carrying their belongings and then immediately had their homes demolished. There's an absolute lack of transparency and public information.
Compensation measures, resettlement plans and assistance programmes are not presented in advance, nor disclosed in public.
The country is paying a very high price. Brazil has bowed to pressure to change federal laws, has passed over some citizens' rights and has financed billions to rebuild stadiums at the expense of investment in important sectors—all in the name of the World Cup and the Olympics.
The opportunity to turn the mega-events into possibilities for developing the country is being wasted. Brazil has the will, has the money and still has time to do a better World Cup and Olympics.
”
Whatever the pros and cons of "urbanising" the country's famous favelas, the manner of the evictions is certainly not in line with the ideals that Brazil as a country like to promote. "Order and Progress", after all, is the motto that sits abreast the country's flag.
The public of the favelas, quite simply, do not buy the reasoning behind the relocations. Many consider, instead, that it is a wish to beatify the cities ahead of upcoming events, or to use the land for expensive new real estate.
Many have already been evicted, but the protests will continue long past the World Cup as work continues ahead of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
Besides those who live in the cities, there have also been numerous complaints about the treatment of construction workers ahead of the competition—with numerous works delayed by strikes over conditions.
The United Kingdom-based Latin America Bureau reports that FIFA's threats over the completion dates of projects were used as excuses to ignore the rights of workers by construction firms.
They quote a report entitled "Mega-Events and Human Rights Violations in Brazil", produced by A Publica in late 2012, as documenting strikes at six of the 12 stadiums for use next summer.
To quote their translation of the report, the main demands of the strikes "ranged from wage increases and benefits like health insurance, food assistance and transportation, to improved working conditions (in particular, the protesters had complaints regarding the security situation, sanitation, and food), increased overtime payment and the end of 'inhumanely long' working hours."
It is all fairly unsatisfactory on behalf of both FIFA and the local organising committee, with the feeling that the ordinary people do not matter as long as the event runs smoothly. For FIFA, it is an issue that once more looks set to rear its head ahead of the 2022 competition in Qatar. (Guardian)
Romario has been outspoken on social issues
Law Changes and Ticket Prices
One of the most controversial aspects of hosting a World Cup is that FIFA require a country to, at least temporarily, change their laws to match the governing body's requirements.
Those laws involve along FIFA to avoid tax on earnings at the event, preventing businesses from associating with the tournament, and, in Brazil's case, the permitting of alcohol sales inside stadia.
They are demands that understandably cause unease among both politicians and public alike. However, it is all part of hosting a World Cup.
Leaving aside the in-depth legal jargon in which I am not well-versed, there are a couple of the laws introduced that add to the feeling of the competition not being "for the people".
The first, Article 11 of the General Law of the World Cup, prevents "the sale of any kind of merchandise in 'official competition locations, in their immediate surroundings and their main access ways', without the express authorization of FIFA."
It all sounds reasonable enough until it emerges that the exclusion zones have previously stretched two kilometres from each stadium. Within that radius, no local trader can make any money from World Cup merchandise.
Beyond that, Article 23 "penalizes bars that try to transmit World Cup games without the appropriate authorization or that promote certain brands not authorized by FIFA." Thus, if you cannot get a ticket for the event, you can only watch it in a bar sponsored by the World Cup's official beer provider. (all from CIP Americas)
Both articles and, indeed, the law itself, have been opposed by many business and workers' rights groups across the country.
There is a common feeling that Brazil's World Cup is being taken away from the lower classes, with all these factors adding to the sentiment. The high cost of ticket prices, also, have done little to soften dissatisfaction.
Brazil has managed to negotiate a 50 percent discount for the elderly population and for students into the prices, in line with the country's national laws, but there is a feeling more must be done.
Ticket prices will be announced on July 1, but only this week Brazilian minister of sports gave a warning that people may need to prepare for a shock.
He said, "I spoke with FIFA representatives, stating that this was unacceptable, that the prices were so high."
"This is really a celebration of the people of Brazil. Soccer is very important for the whole population in Brazil. So I mentioned to FIFA representatives, how about that part of the population that cannot afford those expensive tickets?'' (Fox Sports)
As an indication, tickets for the World Cup in South Africa ranged from $20 to $160 for most first-round matches, and escalated to $150 to $900 for the final.
The build up to the World Cup has involved a number of public figures, as well as those from FIFA, speaking about the legacy of the competition returning to Brazil.
While it will be a party atmosphere for most tourists, and indeed wealthy locals, there will be no real legacy unless Brazil's working classes are included.
Many Brazilian politicians, including the former player Romario, have recognised this. However, it is not easy to change when dealing with the commercial machine that is the FIFA World Cup.
here is a limited list of some articles on the subject. If interested, you can dig in and research deeper.
“About Winning: The Political Economy of Awarding the World Cup and the Olympic Games”
Szymanski, Stefan. SAIS Review, Winter-Spring 2011, Vol. 31, No. 1, 87-97, doi: 10.1353/sais.2011.0003.
Abstract/findings: “The hosting of major sporting events such as the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup has become the subject of intense competition among nations. Governments seem willing to make large financial commitments in order to win the bidding competition but evidence suggests that the economic impact of this spending is limited. While this outcome is easily understood in terms of rent seeking behavior, it is suggested that organizations such as the IOC and FIFA could better serve their constituents by diverting competition away from lavish provision of facilities towards goals that would raise participation in sports…. The members of the IOC and the FIFA Executive Committees do little to discourage extravagant spending. The memberships of these organizations have frequently been accused of outright corruption in the past, but corruption is only one part of the problem. It is perfectly reasonable for the IOC and FIFA to extract a surplus from the sale of TV and sponsorship rights to fund the global development of sport. However, the unjustified claim that these events produce substantial economic benefits can (a) mislead people into believing that their taxes are being productively spent on social regeneration rather than just funding mass entertainment, and (b) lead some private individuals to invest their own wealth in the expectation that an event will generate returns when it is unlikely to do so.”
“Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: A Review of Related Research”Kasimati, Evangelia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2003, Vol. 5, 433-444, doi: 10.1002/jtr.449.
Findings: “Covering the period of 1984 through to [estimates of] 2012, all the ex ante [anticipating the event] economic studies indicate the significant role of the Summer Olympic Games in the promotion of the host economy. They highlighted the extension of the Games economic impact well beyond the actual period of the event occurrence itself. Economic growth, increased tourism and additional employment were some of their major findings. However, the high expectations released by most of them could be considered to be potentially biased, because the ambition of those commissioning the studies is to favour the hosting of the Games. This issue has received a great deal of attention from scholars investigating the Games and other mega-events (Mills, 1993; Crompton, 1995; Howard and Crompton, 1995; Kesenne, 1999; Porter, 1999; Preuss, 2000; Baade and Matheson, 2002). Nevertheless, it is our opinion that if the estimation process is made transparent, then the findings are reliable. Taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of all the methods and techniques used, the discussion here shows that ex ante models and forecasts were not confirmed by ex-post analyses and this therefore prompts the need for improved theory.”
“Bidding for the Olympics: Fool’s Gold?”Baade, R.A.; Matheson, V. Paper in Barros C; Ibrahimo M.; Szymanski , S. (Eds.), Transatlantic Sport: the Comparative Economics of North America and European Sports, 2002, 127-151.
Findings: “The purpose of this paper was to assess the economic impact of the Summer Olympic Games on Los Angeles in 1984 and Atlanta in 1996. In so doing, it was our hope that we could provide some useful information to cities bidding for the Games. It is conceivable that an after-the-fact sober appraisal of the economic contribution of the Games could help temper some of the excesses that have been brought to light by the well-publicized ‘overzealous’ behavior of those who succeeded in bringing the Olympics to Salt Lake City and Atlanta. Los Angeles and Atlanta represent an interesting contrast in terms of their approaches to the bidding process. This difference reflects to a substantial extent past financial experiences. In the wake of the financially troubled Montreal and Moscow Olympic Games in 1976 and 1980, only Los Angeles bid for the 1984 Games. This fact explains the absence of significant public sector financial support in Los Angeles, and, perhaps, the private financial success the 1984 Games are thought to have enjoyed. The increase in economic activity attributable to the 1984 Games, as represented by job growth, an estimated 5,043 full-time and part-time jobs using our model, appears to have been entirely transitory, however. There is no economic residue that can be identified once the Games left town. Los Angeles was not visibly affected by the experience; certainly it was not transformed by it. Atlanta represented a return to the extraordinary levels of public spending associated with the Olympic Games in 1976 and 1980, a phenomenon not coincidentally associated with several cities bidding for the right to host the Games… It is not surprising that the best-case scenario for the Atlanta Games of 1996 is consistent with what we could reasonably expect to find for public investments in general. More specifically if beginning in 1994 all the economic growth beyond Atlanta’s normal experience could be attributable to public expenditures in conjunction with the Olympics, Atlanta spent approximately $63,000 to create a permanent full- or part-time job. To create a permanent full-time job equivalent, past public works programs have spent approximately the same amount of money.”
“Resident Perceptions of Mega-Sporting Events: A Non-Host City Perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games”
Ritchie, Brent W.; Shipway, Richard; Cleeve, Bethany. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 2009, Vol. 14, Issue 2-3, 143-167, doi: 10.1080/14775080902965108.
Abstract: “Despite the growing importance of a ‘triple bottom line’ approach to mega sport event research, limited longitudinal research has been carried out to understand and explain resident perceptions of the impact of such events. The aim of this paper is to develop a deeper understanding of the social dimension of Olympic tourism development, by exploring resident perceptions of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games within the two respective communities of Weymouth and Portland in England. This paper reports the first stage of a repeated cross-sectional longitudinal study conducted in 2007. It highlights that generally residents were supportive of hosting the event in the local area but were concerned over perceived traffic congestion, parking issues and potential increases in the cost of living. A factor analysis identified five factors that explained 60.5% of the variance in resident perceptions, with the largest factor comprising ‘positive social impacts,’ followed by ‘negative impacts,’ ‘transport issues,’ ‘positive economic impacts’ and ‘price rises.’ Differences were found between these factors and socio-demographic characteristics. Implications for mega event managers and future research are outlined.”
“Mega-events and Housing Costs: Raising the Rent while Raising the Roof?”Coates, Dennis; Matheson, Victor A. The Annals of Regional Science, 2011, Vol. 46, No. 1, 119-137, doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0340-5.
Abstract: “This paper examines the relationship between hosting mega-events such as the Super Bowl, Olympics, and World Cup and rental housing prices in host cities. If mega-events are amenities for local residents, then rental housing prices can serve as a proxy for estimating residents’ willingness to pay for these amenities. An analysis of rental prices in a panel of American cities from 1993 to 2005 fails to find a consistent impact of mega-events on rental prices. When controls are placed on the regression models to account for nationwide annual fluctuations in rental prices, mega-events generally exhibit little impact on rental prices in cities as a whole and are as likely to reduce rental prices as increase them…. Somewhat stronger evidence exists, however, that mega-events tend to affect rental prices outside of the center city in a fundamentally different manner than in the city core. Atlanta experienced lower rental prices in the central city compared the suburbs both before and after the 1996 Summer Olympics while Salt Lake City witnessed an increase in rental prices in its central city compared to its suburbs before and after the 2002 Winter Olympics.”
“The Impact of the London Olympics on Property Prices”
Kavestos, Georgios. Urban Studies, May 2012, Vol. 49, No. 7, 1453-1470, doi: 10.1177/0042098011415436.
Abstract: “This study estimates the impact of the London 2012 Olympics announcement on property prices. Using a self-constructed dataset of a sample of property transactions, it is estimated that properties in host boroughs are sold between 2.1% and 3.3% higher, depending on the definition of the impact area. A similar investigation based on radius rings suggests that properties up to three miles away from the main Olympic stadium sell for 5% higher. It is estimated that the overall impact on the price of properties in host boroughs amounts to £1.4 billion, having substantial social and financial implications for existing residents.”
“The Olympic Effect”
Rose, Andrew K.; Spiegel, Mark M. The Economic Journal, June 2011, 652-677, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02407.x.
Abstract: “Why should countries offer to host costly ‘mega-events’ such as the Olympic Games? We show that hosting a mega-event increases exports. This effect is statistically robust, permanent and large; trade is over 20% higher for host countries. Interestingly, unsuccessful bids to host the Olympics have a similar impact on exports. We conclude that the Olympic effect on trade is attributable to the signal a country sends when bidding to host the games, rather than the act of actually holding a mega-event. We develop an appropriate formal model and derive conditions under which liberalizing countries will signal through a mega-event bid.”
“The Labor Market Effects of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics”
Baumann, Robert; Engelhardt, Bryan; Matheson, Victor. Working paper series, International Association of Sports Economists, September 2010.
Abstract: “The local, state, and federal governments, along with the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee, spent roughly $1.9 billion in direct costs related to planning and hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In this paper, we investigate whether these expenditures increased employment. At the state level, we find strong evidence it increased leisure related industries in the short run and potentially in the long run. However, the results indicate it had no long term impact on trade or total employment.”
“City Branding and the Olympic Effect: A Case Study of Beijing”Zhang, Li; Zhao, Simon Xiaobin. Cities, October 2009, Vol. 26, Issue 5, Pages 245-254, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2009.05.002.
Abstract: “City branding is a common practice adopted by many cities in the context of intensified urban competition for mobile resources, markets, opportunities and attention. This paper examines the effectiveness of efforts to brand Beijing, the capital city of China. Based on an analysis of official branding strategies through the Olympics, and an attitudinal survey of peoples’ understanding of Beijing, the paper investigates to what extent the current campaign has caught the city’s good attributes. The paper finds a mismatch between the identity and core values as branded by the city government, and the realities as experienced by visitors and residents. The paper argues that the Beijing Olympics could only have limited impacts on the city’s brand.”
“Assessing the Impact of the 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek Economy: A Small Macroeconometric Model”
Kasimati, Evangelia; Dawson, Peter. Economic Modelling, January 2009, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 139-146, doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2008.06.006.
Abstract: “This paper examines the impact of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek economy. Using a small aggregate macroeconometric model we find evidence to support the view that the Olympics is an event that could successfully boost the economy of the host city by generating benefits that outweigh the preparation cost. Consistent with recent literature in this area, whilst the impact effects are quite strong during the preparation phase and the year the Games took place, the long-term economic legacy effects appear to be quite modest.”
“The Seoul Olympics: Economic Miracle Meets the World”Bridges, Brian. The International Journal of the History of Sport, December 2008, Vol. 25, No. 14, 1939-1952, doi: 10.1080/09523360802438983.
Abstract: “The 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul were a coming out party for South Korea — a culmination of its efforts to be recognized as an accomplished economic power and a serious international actor. The South Korean leadership undoubtedly looked for accelerated economic growth as well as heightened national consciousness (including awareness of sporting cultures). Yet, the run-up to and the actual hosting of the games also had a dramatic impact on both South Korea’s domestic politics, as it became a factor in the struggle for democratization, and its external relations, most specifically with North Korea and its erstwhile allies. While there were economic benefits and a more subtle impact on South Korean society, national pride, collective memory and sporting culture, it is these political legacies that have been the most profound.”
“The Economic Consequences of the Sydney Olympics”Madden, John R. Current Issues in Tourism, 2002, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 7-21, doi: 10.1080/13683500208667904.
Abstract: “This paper assesses the economic impact of the 2000 Olympics. It draws on economic modeling I undertook for Arthur Andersen (financial adviser to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games).The analysis is undertaken with a large-scale multiregional computable general equilibrium model, so as to take into account both the positive and negative flow-on effects of Sydney staging the Games. The effects of Olympics construction and operating expenditure, and of spending by Games visitors and additional tourists are modelled over a 12-year period, under specific assumptions regarding the Australian labour market, capital supply constraints and Australian government policy on foreign debt. Olympics expenditure not funded by Games revenues is modelled as being met by an increase in New South Wales state tax revenues (via a larger revenue base and slightly higher tax rates than would otherwise be the case) and a substantial diversion of government expenditure from non-Olympic to Olympic items. Simulation results indicate that NSW activity is 0.3% higher over the 12-year period due to the Games, but there is little effect on the other states. However, the final outcome is sensitive to the degree the Olympics promotes tourism from overseas and the labour market reaction.”
“National Well-being and International Sports Events”
Kavestos, Georgios; Szymanski, Stefan. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2010, Vol. 31, Issue 2, 158-171, doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.11.005.
Abstract: “The widely proclaimed economic benefits of hosting major sporting events have received substantial criticism by academic economists and have been shown to be negligible, at best. The aim of this paper is to formally examine the existence of another potential impact: national well-being or the so-called ‘‘feelgood” factor. Using data on self-reported life satisfaction for twelve European countries we test for the impact of hosting and of national athletic success on happiness. Our data covers three different major events: the Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Championship. We find that the ‘‘feelgood” factor associated with hosting football events is large and significant, but that the impact of national athletic success on happiness, while correctly signed, is statistically insignificant.
“Olympic Bidding, Multicultural Nationalism, Terror, and the Epistemological Violence of ‘Making Britain Proud’”
Falcous, Mark; Silk, Michael L. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, October 2010, Vol. 10, Issue 2, 167-186, doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9469.2010.01073.x.
Abstract: “This paper excavates the entanglement of British nationalist identity politics with sport, terrorism, place re-imagining, mega-event bidding, and corporate neoliberalism. We focus on London’s 2012 Olympic bidding and the coalescence of corporate, state, civic, and sporting interests surrounding the national (re)imaginings that characterised the bid. We open with a critical reading of the bid narratives explicating how selective assertions of Britishness were envisioned through the motifs of harmonious multicultural unity, ‘youth,’ and passion for sport. We focus on how these narratives offered up ‘idealised’ multicultural citizens and harmonious diversity as a reactionary form of nationalist ‘pride politics’ (Fortier 2005). We subsequently juxtapose these narratives with a critical reading of English press and political discourse in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 bombings — the day after London was awarded the Olympic games. This juxtaposition reveals the tensions and ambiguities between assertions of inclusive civic nationalism — that apparently transcends ethnic difference — and the geo-politics of the ‘war on terror’ within Britain’s post-imperial self imaginings. Specifically, we tease out the place — and ambiguities — of the 2012 olympics within these imaginings reading the London games as an exemplar of a soft-core ideological spectacle informing selective nationalist narratives within the the context of unfolding neoliberal politics.”
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/stud...lympics-research-roundup#sthash.P23soPId.dpuf
“About Winning: The Political Economy of Awarding the World Cup and the Olympic Games”
Szymanski, Stefan. SAIS Review, Winter-Spring 2011, Vol. 31, No. 1, 87-97, doi: 10.1353/sais.2011.0003.
Abstract/findings: “The hosting of major sporting events such as the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup has become the subject of intense competition among nations. Governments seem willing to make large financial commitments in order to win the bidding competition but evidence suggests that the economic impact of this spending is limited. While this outcome is easily understood in terms of rent seeking behavior, it is suggested that organizations such as the IOC and FIFA could better serve their constituents by diverting competition away from lavish provision of facilities towards goals that would raise participation in sports…. The members of the IOC and the FIFA Executive Committees do little to discourage extravagant spending. The memberships of these organizations have frequently been accused of outright corruption in the past, but corruption is only one part of the problem. It is perfectly reasonable for the IOC and FIFA to extract a surplus from the sale of TV and sponsorship rights to fund the global development of sport. However, the unjustified claim that these events produce substantial economic benefits can (a) mislead people into believing that their taxes are being productively spent on social regeneration rather than just funding mass entertainment, and (b) lead some private individuals to invest their own wealth in the expectation that an event will generate returns when it is unlikely to do so.”
“Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: A Review of Related Research”Kasimati, Evangelia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2003, Vol. 5, 433-444, doi: 10.1002/jtr.449.
Findings: “Covering the period of 1984 through to [estimates of] 2012, all the ex ante [anticipating the event] economic studies indicate the significant role of the Summer Olympic Games in the promotion of the host economy. They highlighted the extension of the Games economic impact well beyond the actual period of the event occurrence itself. Economic growth, increased tourism and additional employment were some of their major findings. However, the high expectations released by most of them could be considered to be potentially biased, because the ambition of those commissioning the studies is to favour the hosting of the Games. This issue has received a great deal of attention from scholars investigating the Games and other mega-events (Mills, 1993; Crompton, 1995; Howard and Crompton, 1995; Kesenne, 1999; Porter, 1999; Preuss, 2000; Baade and Matheson, 2002). Nevertheless, it is our opinion that if the estimation process is made transparent, then the findings are reliable. Taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of all the methods and techniques used, the discussion here shows that ex ante models and forecasts were not confirmed by ex-post analyses and this therefore prompts the need for improved theory.”
“Bidding for the Olympics: Fool’s Gold?”Baade, R.A.; Matheson, V. Paper in Barros C; Ibrahimo M.; Szymanski , S. (Eds.), Transatlantic Sport: the Comparative Economics of North America and European Sports, 2002, 127-151.
Findings: “The purpose of this paper was to assess the economic impact of the Summer Olympic Games on Los Angeles in 1984 and Atlanta in 1996. In so doing, it was our hope that we could provide some useful information to cities bidding for the Games. It is conceivable that an after-the-fact sober appraisal of the economic contribution of the Games could help temper some of the excesses that have been brought to light by the well-publicized ‘overzealous’ behavior of those who succeeded in bringing the Olympics to Salt Lake City and Atlanta. Los Angeles and Atlanta represent an interesting contrast in terms of their approaches to the bidding process. This difference reflects to a substantial extent past financial experiences. In the wake of the financially troubled Montreal and Moscow Olympic Games in 1976 and 1980, only Los Angeles bid for the 1984 Games. This fact explains the absence of significant public sector financial support in Los Angeles, and, perhaps, the private financial success the 1984 Games are thought to have enjoyed. The increase in economic activity attributable to the 1984 Games, as represented by job growth, an estimated 5,043 full-time and part-time jobs using our model, appears to have been entirely transitory, however. There is no economic residue that can be identified once the Games left town. Los Angeles was not visibly affected by the experience; certainly it was not transformed by it. Atlanta represented a return to the extraordinary levels of public spending associated with the Olympic Games in 1976 and 1980, a phenomenon not coincidentally associated with several cities bidding for the right to host the Games… It is not surprising that the best-case scenario for the Atlanta Games of 1996 is consistent with what we could reasonably expect to find for public investments in general. More specifically if beginning in 1994 all the economic growth beyond Atlanta’s normal experience could be attributable to public expenditures in conjunction with the Olympics, Atlanta spent approximately $63,000 to create a permanent full- or part-time job. To create a permanent full-time job equivalent, past public works programs have spent approximately the same amount of money.”
“Resident Perceptions of Mega-Sporting Events: A Non-Host City Perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games”
Ritchie, Brent W.; Shipway, Richard; Cleeve, Bethany. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 2009, Vol. 14, Issue 2-3, 143-167, doi: 10.1080/14775080902965108.
Abstract: “Despite the growing importance of a ‘triple bottom line’ approach to mega sport event research, limited longitudinal research has been carried out to understand and explain resident perceptions of the impact of such events. The aim of this paper is to develop a deeper understanding of the social dimension of Olympic tourism development, by exploring resident perceptions of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games within the two respective communities of Weymouth and Portland in England. This paper reports the first stage of a repeated cross-sectional longitudinal study conducted in 2007. It highlights that generally residents were supportive of hosting the event in the local area but were concerned over perceived traffic congestion, parking issues and potential increases in the cost of living. A factor analysis identified five factors that explained 60.5% of the variance in resident perceptions, with the largest factor comprising ‘positive social impacts,’ followed by ‘negative impacts,’ ‘transport issues,’ ‘positive economic impacts’ and ‘price rises.’ Differences were found between these factors and socio-demographic characteristics. Implications for mega event managers and future research are outlined.”
“Mega-events and Housing Costs: Raising the Rent while Raising the Roof?”Coates, Dennis; Matheson, Victor A. The Annals of Regional Science, 2011, Vol. 46, No. 1, 119-137, doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0340-5.
Abstract: “This paper examines the relationship between hosting mega-events such as the Super Bowl, Olympics, and World Cup and rental housing prices in host cities. If mega-events are amenities for local residents, then rental housing prices can serve as a proxy for estimating residents’ willingness to pay for these amenities. An analysis of rental prices in a panel of American cities from 1993 to 2005 fails to find a consistent impact of mega-events on rental prices. When controls are placed on the regression models to account for nationwide annual fluctuations in rental prices, mega-events generally exhibit little impact on rental prices in cities as a whole and are as likely to reduce rental prices as increase them…. Somewhat stronger evidence exists, however, that mega-events tend to affect rental prices outside of the center city in a fundamentally different manner than in the city core. Atlanta experienced lower rental prices in the central city compared the suburbs both before and after the 1996 Summer Olympics while Salt Lake City witnessed an increase in rental prices in its central city compared to its suburbs before and after the 2002 Winter Olympics.”
“The Impact of the London Olympics on Property Prices”
Kavestos, Georgios. Urban Studies, May 2012, Vol. 49, No. 7, 1453-1470, doi: 10.1177/0042098011415436.
Abstract: “This study estimates the impact of the London 2012 Olympics announcement on property prices. Using a self-constructed dataset of a sample of property transactions, it is estimated that properties in host boroughs are sold between 2.1% and 3.3% higher, depending on the definition of the impact area. A similar investigation based on radius rings suggests that properties up to three miles away from the main Olympic stadium sell for 5% higher. It is estimated that the overall impact on the price of properties in host boroughs amounts to £1.4 billion, having substantial social and financial implications for existing residents.”
“The Olympic Effect”
Rose, Andrew K.; Spiegel, Mark M. The Economic Journal, June 2011, 652-677, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02407.x.
Abstract: “Why should countries offer to host costly ‘mega-events’ such as the Olympic Games? We show that hosting a mega-event increases exports. This effect is statistically robust, permanent and large; trade is over 20% higher for host countries. Interestingly, unsuccessful bids to host the Olympics have a similar impact on exports. We conclude that the Olympic effect on trade is attributable to the signal a country sends when bidding to host the games, rather than the act of actually holding a mega-event. We develop an appropriate formal model and derive conditions under which liberalizing countries will signal through a mega-event bid.”
“The Labor Market Effects of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics”
Baumann, Robert; Engelhardt, Bryan; Matheson, Victor. Working paper series, International Association of Sports Economists, September 2010.
Abstract: “The local, state, and federal governments, along with the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee, spent roughly $1.9 billion in direct costs related to planning and hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In this paper, we investigate whether these expenditures increased employment. At the state level, we find strong evidence it increased leisure related industries in the short run and potentially in the long run. However, the results indicate it had no long term impact on trade or total employment.”
“City Branding and the Olympic Effect: A Case Study of Beijing”Zhang, Li; Zhao, Simon Xiaobin. Cities, October 2009, Vol. 26, Issue 5, Pages 245-254, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2009.05.002.
Abstract: “City branding is a common practice adopted by many cities in the context of intensified urban competition for mobile resources, markets, opportunities and attention. This paper examines the effectiveness of efforts to brand Beijing, the capital city of China. Based on an analysis of official branding strategies through the Olympics, and an attitudinal survey of peoples’ understanding of Beijing, the paper investigates to what extent the current campaign has caught the city’s good attributes. The paper finds a mismatch between the identity and core values as branded by the city government, and the realities as experienced by visitors and residents. The paper argues that the Beijing Olympics could only have limited impacts on the city’s brand.”
“Assessing the Impact of the 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek Economy: A Small Macroeconometric Model”
Kasimati, Evangelia; Dawson, Peter. Economic Modelling, January 2009, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 139-146, doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2008.06.006.
Abstract: “This paper examines the impact of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek economy. Using a small aggregate macroeconometric model we find evidence to support the view that the Olympics is an event that could successfully boost the economy of the host city by generating benefits that outweigh the preparation cost. Consistent with recent literature in this area, whilst the impact effects are quite strong during the preparation phase and the year the Games took place, the long-term economic legacy effects appear to be quite modest.”
“The Seoul Olympics: Economic Miracle Meets the World”Bridges, Brian. The International Journal of the History of Sport, December 2008, Vol. 25, No. 14, 1939-1952, doi: 10.1080/09523360802438983.
Abstract: “The 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul were a coming out party for South Korea — a culmination of its efforts to be recognized as an accomplished economic power and a serious international actor. The South Korean leadership undoubtedly looked for accelerated economic growth as well as heightened national consciousness (including awareness of sporting cultures). Yet, the run-up to and the actual hosting of the games also had a dramatic impact on both South Korea’s domestic politics, as it became a factor in the struggle for democratization, and its external relations, most specifically with North Korea and its erstwhile allies. While there were economic benefits and a more subtle impact on South Korean society, national pride, collective memory and sporting culture, it is these political legacies that have been the most profound.”
“The Economic Consequences of the Sydney Olympics”Madden, John R. Current Issues in Tourism, 2002, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 7-21, doi: 10.1080/13683500208667904.
Abstract: “This paper assesses the economic impact of the 2000 Olympics. It draws on economic modeling I undertook for Arthur Andersen (financial adviser to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games).The analysis is undertaken with a large-scale multiregional computable general equilibrium model, so as to take into account both the positive and negative flow-on effects of Sydney staging the Games. The effects of Olympics construction and operating expenditure, and of spending by Games visitors and additional tourists are modelled over a 12-year period, under specific assumptions regarding the Australian labour market, capital supply constraints and Australian government policy on foreign debt. Olympics expenditure not funded by Games revenues is modelled as being met by an increase in New South Wales state tax revenues (via a larger revenue base and slightly higher tax rates than would otherwise be the case) and a substantial diversion of government expenditure from non-Olympic to Olympic items. Simulation results indicate that NSW activity is 0.3% higher over the 12-year period due to the Games, but there is little effect on the other states. However, the final outcome is sensitive to the degree the Olympics promotes tourism from overseas and the labour market reaction.”
“National Well-being and International Sports Events”
Kavestos, Georgios; Szymanski, Stefan. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2010, Vol. 31, Issue 2, 158-171, doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.11.005.
Abstract: “The widely proclaimed economic benefits of hosting major sporting events have received substantial criticism by academic economists and have been shown to be negligible, at best. The aim of this paper is to formally examine the existence of another potential impact: national well-being or the so-called ‘‘feelgood” factor. Using data on self-reported life satisfaction for twelve European countries we test for the impact of hosting and of national athletic success on happiness. Our data covers three different major events: the Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Championship. We find that the ‘‘feelgood” factor associated with hosting football events is large and significant, but that the impact of national athletic success on happiness, while correctly signed, is statistically insignificant.
“Olympic Bidding, Multicultural Nationalism, Terror, and the Epistemological Violence of ‘Making Britain Proud’”
Falcous, Mark; Silk, Michael L. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, October 2010, Vol. 10, Issue 2, 167-186, doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9469.2010.01073.x.
Abstract: “This paper excavates the entanglement of British nationalist identity politics with sport, terrorism, place re-imagining, mega-event bidding, and corporate neoliberalism. We focus on London’s 2012 Olympic bidding and the coalescence of corporate, state, civic, and sporting interests surrounding the national (re)imaginings that characterised the bid. We open with a critical reading of the bid narratives explicating how selective assertions of Britishness were envisioned through the motifs of harmonious multicultural unity, ‘youth,’ and passion for sport. We focus on how these narratives offered up ‘idealised’ multicultural citizens and harmonious diversity as a reactionary form of nationalist ‘pride politics’ (Fortier 2005). We subsequently juxtapose these narratives with a critical reading of English press and political discourse in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 bombings — the day after London was awarded the Olympic games. This juxtaposition reveals the tensions and ambiguities between assertions of inclusive civic nationalism — that apparently transcends ethnic difference — and the geo-politics of the ‘war on terror’ within Britain’s post-imperial self imaginings. Specifically, we tease out the place — and ambiguities — of the 2012 olympics within these imaginings reading the London games as an exemplar of a soft-core ideological spectacle informing selective nationalist narratives within the the context of unfolding neoliberal politics.”
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/stud...lympics-research-roundup#sthash.P23soPId.dpuf
Just to present a balanced argument, and since ice cream sales are deemed to be the driving engine of WC economic success for Brazilians here is an ice cream WC related article:
Mars Ice Cream unveils World Cup 2014 on-pack promotion
April 11th, 2014
unnamedMars Ice Cream is aiming to drive further volume and sales growth with a strategic on-pack promotion in support of the forthcoming Football World Cup in Brazil.
As an official sponsor of the FA, this exclusive giveaway will permit Mars to reward England football supporters by offering them the unique opportunity to win one of 500,000 official England football shirts – available across both the Mars Confectionery and Mars Ice Cream ranges.
The promotion will be on the Mars Ice Cream Singles bars and Mars Ice Cream 4-Packs, and is available to all retailers now.
The promotion acts to capitalise on this key sales occasion, presenting a fantastic opportunity for retailers looking to maximise the impulse potential of the World Cup, targeting fans who will be stocking up on ice creams before, during and after the games.
This promotion will be accompanied by a £4m media support spend.
With Mars Ice Cream being the number one best-selling ice cream bar in the UK, one of the UK’s top 20 best-selling four packs, and with Mars and Snickers ice cream brands having an overall growth of 27% and 30% respectively in 20133, this World Cup on-pack promotion hopes to encourage retailers with further reason to stock Mars Ice Creams.
James Hay, Senior Brand Manager, Mars Ice Cream said:
“Mars Ice Cream offers best-selling consumer favourites in a variety of formats, building on the heritage of Mars confectionery brands.
“We are dedicated to supporting retailers and to growing the ice cream category through innovation and NPD.
“Mars is proud to be an official sponsor of the FA, and we are particularly excited about our forthcoming promotion around the World Cup 2014 – which we hope will help to encourage even more significant sales growth.”
here is an ice cream WC related article:Mars Ice Cream unveils World Cup 2014 on-pack promotion
April 11th, 2014
unnamedMars Ice Cream is aiming to drive further volume and sales growth with a strategic on-pack promotion in support of the forthcoming Football World Cup in Brazil.
As an official sponsor of the FA, this exclusive giveaway will permit Mars to reward England football supporters by offering them the unique opportunity to win one of 500,000 official England football shirts – available across both the Mars Confectionery and Mars Ice Cream ranges.
The promotion will be on the Mars Ice Cream Singles bars and Mars Ice Cream 4-Packs, and is available to all retailers now.
The promotion acts to capitalise on this key sales occasion, presenting a fantastic opportunity for retailers looking to maximise the impulse potential of the World Cup, targeting fans who will be stocking up on ice creams before, during and after the games.
This promotion will be accompanied by a £4m media support spend.
With Mars Ice Cream being the number one best-selling ice cream bar in the UK, one of the UK’s top 20 best-selling four packs, and with Mars and Snickers ice cream brands having an overall growth of 27% and 30% respectively in 20133, this World Cup on-pack promotion hopes to encourage retailers with further reason to stock Mars Ice Creams.
James Hay, Senior Brand Manager, Mars Ice Cream said:
“Mars Ice Cream offers best-selling consumer favourites in a variety of formats, building on the heritage of Mars confectionery brands.
“We are dedicated to supporting retailers and to growing the ice cream category through innovation and NPD.
“Mars is proud to be an official sponsor of the FA, and we are particularly excited about our forthcoming promotion around the World Cup 2014 – which we hope will help to encourage even more significant sales growth.”
