141
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by 01011@monero.town to c/world@lemmy.world

After a long battle, Paris's beloved bouquinistes will be staying put this summer. The decision, announced on 13 February by the French government, came after considerable public backlash to the police prefecture's original plan to move part of the iconic Seine booksellers elsewhere for the inauguration of the Olympics Games on 26 July.

In academia, the debate about the potential positive and negative effects of large-scale sporting events is ongoing. Although these events are often associated with substantial economic losses, the long-term benefits are the main argument in favor of hosting them. These include the development of material and soft infrastructure such as hotels, restaurants or parks. Big games can also help put the host region on the map as an attractive place for sports and cultural events, and inspire a better entrepreneurial climate.

The cost of these benefits, as the Parisians have realized, is steep. Host countries appear to suffer from increased tax burdens, low returns on public investments, high construction costs, and onerous running cost of facilities after the event. Communities can also be blighted by noise, pollution, and damage to the environment, while increased criminal activity and potential conflicts between locals and visitors can take a toll on their quality of life. As a result, in the recent past several major cities, including Rome and Hamburg, withdrew their bids to host the games.

A common feature of the economics of large-scale sporting events is that our expectations of them are more optimistic than what we make of them once they have taken place. Typically, expenditure tends to tip over the original budget, while the revenue-side indicators (such as the number of visitors) are rarely achieved.

When analyzing the effect of hosting large-scale sporting events on tourist visits, it is important to take into consideration both the positive and negative components of the overall effect. While positive effects may be associated with visitors, negative effects may arise when "regular" tourists refuse to visit the location due to the event.

This might be because of overloaded infrastructure, sharp increases in accommodation costs, and inconveniences associated with overcrowding or raucous or/and violent visitors. On top of that, reports of poverty or crime in the global media can actually undermine the location's attractiveness.

In an article published in the Journal of Sports Economics with Igor Drapkin and Ilya Zverev, I assess the effects of hosting large-scale sporting events, such as Winter and Summer Olympics plus FIFA World Cups, on international tourist visits. We utilize a comprehensive dataset on flow of tourists covering the world's largest destination and origin countries between 1995 and 2019.

Our results show that the effects of large-scale sporting events vary a lot across host countries: The World Cup in Japan and South Korea 2002 and South Africa 2010 were associated with a distinct increase in tourist arrivals, whereas all other World Cups were either neutral or negative. Among the Summer Olympics, China in 2008 is the only case with a significant positive effect on tourist inflows.

The effects of the other four events (Australia 2000, Greece 2004, Great Britain 2012, and Brazil 2016) were found to be negative in the short- and medium-term. As for the Winter Olympics, the only positive case is Russia in 2014. The remaining five events had a negative impact except the one-year neutral effect for Japan 1998.

Following large-scale sporting events, host countries are therefore typically less visited by tourists. Out of the 18 hosting countries studied, 11 saw tourist numbers decline over four years, and three did not experience a significant change.

Our research indicates that the positive effect of hosting large-scale sporting events on tourist inflows is, at best, moderate. While many tourists are attracted by FIFA World Cups and Olympic games, the crowding-out effect of "regular" tourists is strong and often underestimated. This implies that tourists visiting for an event like the Olympics typically dissuade those who would have come for other reasons. Thus, efforts to attract new visitors should be accompanied by efforts to retain the already existing ones.

Large-scale sporting events should be considered as part of a long-term policy for promoting a territory to tourists rather than a standalone solution. Revealingly, our results indicate that it is easier to get a net increase in tourist inflows in countries that are less frequent destinations for tourists—for example, those in Asia or Africa.

By contrast, the United States and Europe, both of which are traditionally popular with tourists, have no single case of a net positive effect. Put differently, the large-scale sporting events in Asia and Africa helped promote their host countries as tourist destinations, making the case for the initial investment. In the US and Europe, however, those in the last few decades brought little return, at least in terms of tourist inflow.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago

Yep. About the last thing people should want is for their country to host the Olympics. Because YOU as a tax payer are footing the bill for all that infrastructure, all the event costs, while seeing no real income from any of it. And once it’s done, it’ll keep hurting your economy. And let’s not forget all that useless infrastructure that you had to build. That needs to be demolished after all…

If someone suggests bringing the games to your country, you should boop them on the nose until they reach sanity again.

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

This was true of NFL stadiums for US cities last I checked, which was several years ago. In general this stuff looks like a prestige project that rarely produces enough residual benefit to the hosting city to make it worthwhile.

[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

My own city has a soccer stadium. It was built with taxpayer money. It has 30.000 seats, after it was expanded twice. It had 13.000 when it opened.

The club who uses it has been a financial mess for ages.

The stadium gets used for soccer matches and… nothing. That’s the only use. You can technically rent part of it for say, a wedding reception or business event, but by and large it sits unused most days of the year.

Now imagine if this had been an even larger, even more expensive Olympic stadium. There simply would be no way to make it economically viable to keep it around post-games.

And a stadium is at least potentially multifunctional. But something like an indoor cycling track or high diving pool has fuck-all reuse potential.

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

In a city I lived in the built a speed skating ring in the middle of the city for some national winter games and it's used as a free skating oval in the winter and running track when it's warm. That scale of infrastructure seems ok and it's much beloved by the people. However, that's so different from a massive stadium.

[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Good to hear at least sometimes things like that work out well :D

At least ice skating and running are fairly normal sporting activities that average people can partake in. But some of those other facilities they build really have no use for most people.

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yup for sure

[-] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Fuck Stan Kroenke and the Rams.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

That needs to be demolished after all…

Or worse, maintained.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Not demolished, abandoned.

[-] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 37 points 8 months ago

Let's also not forget the IOC is incredibly corrupt. They demand that bids get higher and higher. Hosting is always a gamble. The bigger the bid, the more likely the host will lose.

[-] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

This is one of the most often glossed over facts about the Olympics: rampant corruption amongst the IOC. Sochi is a classic example and Salt lake City is another glaring example.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 8 months ago

the IOC is incredibly corrupt

True

They demand that bids get higher and higher

Actually, surprisingly not true any more. I'm living in the 2032 host city, and our State Government has had a bit of a scandal over their desire to demolish and rebuild the stadium that's slated to be the main Olympic venue. The IOC has pretty explicitly said "nah, that's not necessary". The IOC is actually setting out to see the cost of hosting the Games decrease compared to what it has been in the past.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 20 points 8 months ago

One of the things I see glossed over on this study is the cost-benefit of hosting. The USA has been surprisingly good at hosting these events to where the hosting city either breaks even or makes a profit. For instance, Los Angeles made a profit on its first two Olympics and will probably make a profit on its third.

Most other countries seem to lean harder on making these events a prestige event and will spend money to do so; the USA will generally use existing infrastructure and only build new infrastructure if there is an immediate need for it.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

If I recall correctly, most of the infrastructure for the Atlanta Olympics was turned over to various universities.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 8 months ago

A lot of it was, including student dorms for Georgia State. Most of those venues are still in use today.

The venues that didn't survive the Olympics were mainly old venues that weren't going to last long after anyway, so they just maintained them until the Olympics were over.

[-] 520@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago

It benefitted Barcelona immensely in 1992. The city became an international hub because of it.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The law of headlines is true here as expected: no. These stadiums (stadia?) End up displacing housing, lead to short term cash inflow, but end up dilapidated and a crumbling mess after the hosting location can't keep the massively oversized complex full enough for upkeep.

[-] esc27@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

From what I recall the 1996 Atlanta games were profitable and left a generally positive legacy with most of the structures finding some sort of use.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago

I believe it's been pretty widely reported that Sydney 2000 was the last time an Olympics was profitable.

[-] oxbech@feddit.dk 7 points 8 months ago

Personally, I love visiting France, but won’t be visiting this summer due to the overcrowding that comes with the Olympics. I’m actually sort of yearning to revisit Paris but I guess I’ll have to wait until next year or perhaps winter. So I’m one of those visitors who’s (temporarily) dissuaded from going due to the event.

I will say that I think looking at it as an economic “thing” is fundamentally wrong. Hosting the olympics should be about offering the locals a chance to experience world class sports events and the civic pride that comes with putting your country on the map. If you only want to do it for economic benefits, then you really shouldn’t host it.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

It's not "offering" if it is a massive waste of taxpayers money in the first place.

[-] oxbech@feddit.dk 1 points 8 months ago

I suppose “offering” might not be the right word, but I think the whole point is whether it is a waste of taxpayer money or not. As I wrote, I don’t think it makes sense to expect a worthwhile economic return from hosting the Olympics, but there is of course other types of “wealth” besides money. For example, if only money mattered a building should be built in as cheap a fashion as possible, but spending a bit more on making it beautiful is worth (to me at least) for the “wealth” it provides society in improving the beauty of our surroundings. I think the question becomes if it is worth the cost of hosting the Olympics, for the “wealth” of allowing the citizens of a country/city a chance of attending without travelling half way around the globe. Additionally there’s the “wealth” gained from the civic pride of having your country/city be the center of the world’s attention in a largely positive manner for the course of the games.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

Of course, if you're deciding to not go one year because on that year it will be overcrowded, that implies that on that one year they are receiving a lot more tourism than typical.

[-] oxbech@feddit.dk 1 points 8 months ago

Oh yes, I fully agree. My point, I guess, is more that not every tourist coming to Paris for the Olympic is an “extra” tourist, since some people who would otherwise go, won’t.

The question is also how many of them will come back to Paris once the games are over, who wouldn’t have, were it not for the games. If the olympics don’t result in additional tourists in the years following it, then it would seem unlikely it was economically worth it. That’s why I think it is fundamentally wrong to base whether you want to hold the Olympics based on expected economic returns.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Well, a lot of the people who live here are thinking of getting the hell out to escape the whole mess.

Some of them hope to make bank by renting their homes for the duration, but it's not really clear if that will be a thing.

[-] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 6 points 8 months ago

Not really a surprise, but good to see some actual research.

Countries/Cities duped into building publicly owned infrastructure for circuses do not benefit.

Surge tourism can only have positive RoI if the tourists are grossly exploited during the surge.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

It's mostly just clout.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

TL;DR

Third world benefits more than first world from hosting large sporting events.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

But also suffers more from it. As someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out, regular people are paying for all that extra infrastructure and also for maintaining it as it stands unused afterwards. At best, their local team now uses one of the new stadiums and charges a shitload more for tickets to cover the costs.

The only people who profit from major sporting events are the already rich people whose corporations are paid to build it and the politicians they bribe to get the contracts.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It can be worse: Spending millions on trying to get the Olympic games, and then failing.

So, basically, Olympic games (or soccer championships, and similar events) are either held in countries that are good at wasting money, or those who want to paint a bleak and dark public image "better".

[-] Sabin10@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The venues built for the 1988 Calgary winter games got turned into the world's best training centers.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago

They should ban the Olympics. It's unhealthy for those athletes to live in poverty their whole lives with one singular focus then fade into obscurity.

this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
141 points (97.3% liked)

World News

39005 readers
1016 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS