Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: A Review of

the Related Research

by

Evangelia Kasimati

Address for Correspondence

Department of Economics and International Development

University of Bath

Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY

United Kingdom

Tel: +44-(0)-1225 384864, Fax: +44-(0)-1225 383423

E-mail: E.Kasimati@bath.ac.uk
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge and thank Prof. John Hudson, Dr.

Peter Dawson, Adam George-Wood, Nikos Veraros, Martha McIntosh for their helpful

comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Special thanks also to two anonymous referees

who provided substantial and constructive comments. Finally, the author would like to

acknowledge the Manpower Employment Organisation in Athens, Greece for helping

fund this research. Any remaining errors or omissions are the author’s alone.

Page 2
ABSTRACT

As the Summer Olympics are growing with larger media coverage and sponsorship,

host cities have started to attach great importance to the tourism and other likely

economic effects occurred by staging such a special event. As a result, a number of

studies have been conducted to consider the various economic implications on the hosts.

This paper examines and evaluates methods and assumptions employed by the

economic studies. It also compares ex-ante models and forecasts with the ex-post

approach. The aim is to improve the information available to policy makers and

potential future hosts of Summer Olympics and other mega-events.

Keywords: Mega-events; Summer Olympics; Economic Impact Analysis

Page 3
INTRODUCTION

The modern Olympic Games were first held in Athens in 1896. Over the years, the

Games survived many trials including wars and boycotts, and each set of Games is held

every four years. In recent years, the interest of countries and regions in staging a future

edition of the Games has grown because of the perception that doing so would help

attract tourists and generate income.

As well as the likely impacts on the socio-cultural and environmental areas, host cities

place great emphasis on the economic implications of the Olympics and the tourism

development. These implications have received increasing attention over the last two

decades, involving economic studies to provide a measure of the net gains which

hosting the Games may provide. While economic impact analyses prepared by or on

behalf of Olympic advocates have demonstrated economic advantages from hosting the

Games, potential host communities pose the question of whether, in fact, the economic

benefits of the Olympics are pragmatic and, if they are, the extent to which such

benefits offset the costs (Haxton, 1999).

Much of the published literature of the Olympics emphasises long-term benefits such as

newly constructed event facilities and infrastructure, urban revival, enhanced

international reputation, increased tourism, as well as improved public welfare,

additional employment, local business opportunities and corporate relocation (Ritchie

and Aitken, 1985; Hall, 1987; Kang, 1988; Robin, 1988; Walle, 1996; French and

Disher, 1997). In contrast, potential negative impacts include high construction costs of

public sports infrastructure and related necessary investments (usually putting a heavy

Page 4
burden on the government budget), temporary crowding problems, loss of visitors,

property rental increases, and temporary increases in employment and business

activities (Hiller, 1990; Darcy and Veal, 1994; Mount and Leroux, 1994; Leiper, 1997;

Spilling, 1998).

The objective here is to review the existing literature focused on the economic impacts

of the Summer Olympic Games. No economic impact studies were found for Games

before Los Angeles in 1984. Seven cases of the modern Games are examined, dated

between 1984 and 2012. Thirteen studies are considered that investigate various

economic variables related to the hosting of Games and they have been categorised into

ex-ante and ex-post economic impact assessments.

This review does not attempt to draw any conclusion as to which Games have the most

favourable economic impacts. This would require a comprehensive study involving the

review, comparison and justification of the models from both theoretical and empirical

standpoints. Instead, our implicit objective is more modest. The goal is primarily to

provide an overview and evaluation of the different approaches and demonstrate the

differences, which may be obtained in the results.

The remainder of this article is organised as follows. It begins by explaining the link

between direct, indirect and induced economic effects, which is the principal theory

embraced by economic impact studies. It then goes on to examine the alternative

modelling approaches taken to ascertain the economic implications generated by the

Page 5
Summer Olympics. Finally, the article analyses each study in turn, evaluates the

assumptions made and outlines directions for further research.

UNDERSTANDING THE OVERALL ECONOMIC EFFECT

When a city is awarded the Summer Olympics, a large amount of new money is

expected to flow into the host economy and re-circulate throughout it. The economic

effect from hosting the Games occurs because an inflow of funds, which have not been

switched from elsewhere in the economy and probably would not otherwise have come

without the Games, will enter the local, regional or national economy. This inflow of

money stems from broadcasters, sponsors, Olympic family, athletes and dignitaries as

well as non-area travellers who would be defined as ‘tourists’ by those in the tourism

business.

There has been a tendency to assess the economic impact of Summer Olympics using

the ‘multiplier’ concept. Briefly, a multiplier estimates the number of times a unit of

currency, once spent within an economy, is re-spent within the borders of that economy.

The overall effect of the new money on the local/regional/national economy is broken

down into three major elements:

1. Direct Effect: the first round economic effect of the new money spent by outside

visitors. As Figure 1 illustrates, new money is injected in the host economy in

industries like accommodation, food, transportation, etc.

2. Indirect Effect: the subsequent rounds of the injected money within the

economy, after allowing for leakages.

Page 6
 3. Induced effect: the proportion of household income then re-spent in other

businesses in the economy.

The indirect and induced effects together are collectively referred to as secondary

impact (Crompton, 1995).

Figure 1 here

The multiplier analysis has been a common form of estimating the re-spending impact

of an initial inflow of money in an economy. Adopting this approach, if errors occurred

in estimating the direct effect, those errors of calculation are compounded in estimating

the secondary effect. Therefore, an accurate calculation of the direct spending is

essential in order for the economic impact estimates to be reliable (Baade and

Matheson, 2002).

The three most commonly reported multipliers are those of sales, income and

employment (Crompton, 1995). Sales or Transactions multipliers measure the direct

and secondary effect of the injected money on the business activity and turnover.

Household Income multipliers concentrate on the direct and secondary effects on the

household income. Employment multipliers measure the number of new full-time jobs

resulting from the money injected in the economy.

While the sales multiplier is the one most often used in the economic impact studies,

Crompton (1995) argues that the household income multiplier is the most relevant for

assessing the economic impact of hosting a sport event. The reason for this is because it

Page 7
focuses particularly on the effect of the injected money on residents’ income and their

standard of living. In other words, the host community is not interested in knowing how

many sales are attributable to the hosting of the Summer Olympics, but rather what

proportion of these sales will end up as residents’ income.

On the other hand, the employment multipliers are the least reliable among the others

(Fletcher and Snee, 1989 cited Crompton 1995, p.22). Their basic assumption of full

utilisation of existing employees may creates errors in calculating the increase in the

level of employment, particularly for ‘one-time’ mega sports events like the Summer

Olympic Games. The short duration of the Games does not necessarily justify the hiring

of new employees, the generation of permanent full-time jobs and the sustainability of

the employment effects. Entrepreneurs will probably exhaust other alternatives like

asking existing employees to work overtime or perform other tasks, before hiring

additional work force to satisfy the temporary high demand (Crompton, 1995).

A short review in the literature reveals that the multiplier is a particularly contentious

measure. A study by Hunter (1988 cited Crompton 1995, p.33) argues that “economic

impact studies based on multipliers are quite clearly an improper tool for legislative

decision-making”. In contrast, Crompton (1995, p.34) comments that despite its

shortcomings, this technique can be valuable “if it is implemented knowledgeably and

with integrity”.

In event economic studies, problems usually arise when researchers do not clearly

identify what type of multiplier (sales or income) is used in their methodology, and as a

Page 8
result misleading conclusions can be derived from the data. Because sales multipliers

include higher numbers compared to income multipliers, they tend to be attractive tools

for sport events’ advocates to use, in their attempt to justify the economic benefits of

hosting the events (Crompton, 1995). In addition, misapplication of the data may arise,

when spending generated by local residents or which occurred outside is included in the

overall economic effect. Furthermore, spending, either from tourists who re-scheduled

their already organised trip to coincide with the Games or from those who visit the host

for other reasons but also end up attending, is crucial to be excluded from an economic

impact study (Howard and Crompton, 1995).

TYPES OF MODELLING APPROACH

In order for economists to identify and quantify the economic consequences of hosting

an event, such as the Summer Olympic Games, a modelling approach must be adopted.

In the published literature examined, two main approaches have been used under the

broad label of the Input-Output (I-O) and the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE)

framework.

The I-O method is a long-established technique originated by Leontief in the 1940s and

since then it has been very widely applied in economics. Classic I-O models are

structured around the input-output tables and its production or price identities, but make

little or no use of regression-based behavioural equations. The disaggregation of classic

I-O models is limited by the disaggregation of the published input-output table. Since

these models account for intermediate exchanges, they are useful for assessing industry

level impacts for changes in final demand, indirect tax rates or commodity price shocks

Page 9
(West, 1995). However, projections are normally made by specifying final demands

(consumption, investment, exports and imports) exogenously. Intermediate

consumption, prices and income are determined with strict identities. Consequently,

there is no integration between final demand and prices or income and no guarantee that

there will be economic consistency among, for example, consumption, prices and

income (Werling, 1992). Moreover, attempts to build ‘dynamic’ I-O models by

endogenising investment based on the capital equipment ‘requirements’ for future

output often leads to severe instability problems (Almon, 1966; Steenge, 1990).

Studies that adopted the I-O analysis to evaluate the total economic impact of hosting a

mega sporting event made use of linear assumptions. They calculated a set of

multipliers suggesting particular proportions of consuming the inputs and used them

intact, no matter of the scale of the injected funds and the surge in the economic

activity. As a result, they failed to take into account economies of scale, production

close to full capacity and price adaptations to demand changes. Ignoring these factors

tended to result in miscalculating the multiplier values.

The shortcomings described above apply to the Regional Input-Output Modelling

System (RIMS II), a computer program often used by studies examined the Summer

Olympics in the USA. RIMS II has been proven to be successful for measuring effects

at several levels of industrial aggregation, when initial tourist spending is known, but

fails to examine the effect on nearby areas, since it is a single-region model (Humphreys

and Plummer, 1995). An alternative I-O computer program, also developed in the USA,

is the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning).

Page 10
Although a comparatively large number of the referenced economic studies have been

carried out in an I-O framework (see Table 1), studies around the Sydney Olympics

turned towards the use of CGE models. CGE are disaggregated representations of the

economy, which use input-output structure for the production side of the economy.

CGE models include sectoral-level production functions and disaggregated demand

functions for consumption, imports, investment, etc. They combine input-output

structure and behavioural functions. Normally, however, behavioural parameters are not

estimated with regression analysis but are deduced from the single year’s set of data or

specified exogenously (Werling, 1992). In the determination of prices, CGE models

assume flexible prices that move to clear all the markets simultaneously (although some

CGE models will assume some sticky prices, such as in the labour market).

Earlier CGE models were used to estimate different static equilibriums under Walrasian

general equilibrium theory. Most contemporary CGE models have been expanded to

incorporate dynamic adjustment. The MMRF (Monash Multi-Regional Forecasting)

model, used by Australian studies to measure the economic impact of the Sydney

Olympics, is an example of a dynamic CGE model.

The MMRF used the so-called ‘bottoms-up’ approach. A number of regional economic

models are included and then are linked using interregional flows of commodities,

factors of production and population. The bottoms-up approach allows the modelling of

economic agents’ behaviour at the regional level and then their aggregation is

attempted. Although MMRF explicitly distinguishes the economies of Australia’s eight

Page 11
states and territories and generates results for all regions in a steady multiregional

accounting framework, its size limitation hinders the application of a similar model to

larger countries compared to Australia.

Due to vague technical details often found in the economic studies, a deep penetration

proved to be a difficult task. The economic models rely on assumptions that reduce the

economy to a level of simplicity so that it can be analysed. Each technique is subject to

its own limitations defined by its assumptions. Most of the theoretical assumptions

employed in MMRF, such as perfect competition in product markets, zero pure profits

and constant returns to scale production functions, labour market equilibrium, are not

always valid for the Australian states. It is therefore important to consider whether these

assumptions may have a significant impact on the Games modelling results.

In the case of I-O analysis the assumption that the I-O coefficients remain unchanged or

can be extrapolated into the future in a reliable manner is of particular importance. This

is still more so, when the I-O model is being used to analyse the impact of major

structural changes or shocks such as that of hosting a mega sporting event. The import

coefficients have particular relevance in this case. A further consideration, pertinent

perhaps to all forms of analysis, is differentiating between the short and the long-term

impact of hosting the Games. For example, the examination of the extent to which the

employment generated is sustainable into the long run. From the short overview,

however, it is our understanding that I-O model has been comparatively more popular,

because it might be cost effective and comparatively simple to CGE models.

Page 12
EX-ANTE AND EX-POST ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

The importance of the relationship between tourism and the Summer Olympics has

gained increased recognition in recent years. The tourism effect is one among several

that bid and host cities seek, arguing that the international media coverage preceding

and during the Games presents a tremendous opportunity to advertise themselves in the

global marketplace.

In an attempt to assess the likely growth in tourism as well as other economic effects,

ex-ante assessments have been carried out to forecast the impacts of the Summer

Olympics. Table 1 shows that a number of ex-ante economic analyses have been

conducted, while the research significantly lacks ex-post impact assessments. An ex-

post analysis examines the economic situation of the geographical influence zone before

and after the event and manages to isolate the event from other factors that may run at

the same time and may contributed to the economic impact (Baade and Matheson,

2002).

The majority of studies listed in Table 1 were commissioned by proponents of the

Olympic process, and the reader must bear in mind that the report writers were

potentially motivated to come up with a favourable result (Baade and Matheson, 2002).

This interpretation could more likely be the case when reports were prepared to justify

an Olympic bid. A good way to provide some balance to these views would be to read

economic impact studies prepared by ‘anti-Olympics’ groups, but there are none

currently available. There is, however, a growing non-affiliated literature that can be

used as a counterweight.

Page 13
For example, the anti-Olympic alliances ‘Bread Not Circuses’ (BNC) and ‘People

Ingeniously Subverting the Sydney Olympic Farce’ (PISSOFF), based on Toronto and

Sydney respectively, made use of the Internet to promote their Olympic critique (current

addresses are www.breadnotcircuses.org and www.cat.org.au/pissoff). BNC’s main

argument was that the public money spent for the Games would be taken from other

more important sectors (e.g. education, health, environment, prosperity). Now with

almost every potential Olympic city’s bid there tends to be the creation of an anti-

Olympic alliance such as the recent example from Vancouver's bid for the 2010 Winter

Games. In the case of Vancouver, ‘The Impact of the Olympics on Community

Coalition’ (IOCC) defines itself as a community watchdog rather than an anti-Olympic

group and aims to ensure that the environmental, social, economic and civil rights issues

remain outstanding and the Olympic benefits apply to everybody.

On the other side, the bidding process itself has gained attention. In his book, Hill

(1996) described the experience of the unsuccessful bids by Birmingham and

Manchester to host the 1992 and 2000 Olympic Games respectively, focusing especially

on the politics involved. Whilst Hiller (1999) has discussed the strategy employed by

Cape Town in its bid to host the 2004 Olympic Games. Further dimensions of the

bidding process, however, have been revealed by assertions of bribery and corruption.

Books such as ‘Lords of the Rings’ (Simson and Jennings, 1992) and ‘New Lords of the

Rings’ (Jennings, 1996) criticised intensively the legitimacy of the bidding process,

claiming that IOC members corruptly requested bribes and accepted generous gifts from

potential host cities in return for their votes. In addition, the Salt Lake scandal further

Page 14
emphasised the need to address such problems (McIntosh, 2000) and virtually prompted

a revamping of the IOC’s rules with respect to the host city bidding process.

The review will now analyse the studies mentioned in Table 1 with reference to a

specific question: What are the economic implications of the Summer Games on the

host?

Three studies commissioned on the Sydney Olympics predicted the event would

generate substantial extra revenue for Australia, and New South Wales (NSW) in

particular. Table 2 shows the predictions made by each study:

Table 2 here

Although KPMG (1993) adopted a different modelling approach, its figures broadly

concurred with those released by Andersen (1999) and NSW Treasury (1997). The I-O

framework used in KPMG’s study ignored supply-side constraints and therefore made

its estimates questionable. More specifically, supply-side constraints such as investment

crowding out, price increases due to resource scarcity and public financing of

infrastructure expenditures are of great importance in the study of the Summer

Olympics and the consulting firm should take this into consideration.

Investigating the tourism impacts of the Games, Andersen and NSW Treasury gave

little consideration to the likely loss of visitors as a result of hosting the 2000 Games.

This subject is of particular interest in the light of the argument put forward by Leiper

Page 15
(1997), which mentions that while mega-events such as the Summer Olympics may

encourage new tourists, the holiday-makers, business travellers or even local residents

will be diverted elsewhere to escape expected disturbances and congestion problems.

A number of ex-ante studies are also available for the next Summer Olympics, which

will be taking place in 2004 in Athens, Greece; prominent amongst these are the studies

by Balfousia et al. (2001) and Papanikos (1999). Balfousia et al. had the advantage of

utilising the most recent estimates of the direct impacts of the Games, including updated

estimates for the Olympics budget. However, scepticism is raised regarding data

estimates related to the level of induced tourism, total Olympic construction

expenditures and Olympics operating profits.

Table 3 here

Despite major methodological differences between the two studies, their results do not

differ significantly with both suggesting growth in tourism and revenue. The

macroeconometric model utilised in the Balfousia et al. study implied different

scenarios in macroeconomic settings, but failed to take into account possible resource

constraints. On the other hand, Papanikos ‘borrowed’ the value of multipliers from

other studies in related cities. This probably happened because the direct estimation of

the value could be both complicated and costly. However, it might affect his results,

since economic relationships may be different between communities. Both studies make

predictions on a national level and lack an explicit spatial dimension in assessing the

impact of the Games. The choice of the nation as a reference area is doubtful, because

Page 16
as Howard and Crompton (1995) illustrated, the larger the assessed area, the smaller the

leakages that are likely to happen and then the larger the multiplier is likely to be.

Noteworthy to mention that difficulties were experienced in providing a further

evaluation of the Balfousia et al. model as there are few published details relating to its

theoretical structure.

Other ex-ante studies that have looked at the economic impact of Summer Olympic

Games are those of Brunet (1993, 1995) and Kim et al. (1989). Quantifiable data

describing expenditures, contracts, jobs, investments and tourism were based almost

exclusively on secondary research and the studies did not provide any predictions using

a type of modelling. Rather they were more theoretical in their approach aiming to

identify and collate evidence of the economic benefits of the Barcelona and South

Korea Games respectively. It is our understanding that the studies were conducted with

a view to capturing and aggregating disparate pieces of evidence regarding the

economic activities flowing from the conduct of the Games.

An attempt to offer an ex-post economic impact analysis of the Summer Olympics was

made by Baade and Matheson (2002). Their aim was to assess changes in employment

in Los Angeles and Atlanta that were attributable to the staging of the 1984 and 1996

Olympics respectively. In other words, their ex-post approach was targeted to estimate

the level of employment in the Games’ absence. To achieve this, they constructed an

econometric equation including as independent variables those of population, real per

capita personal income, wages, taxes as well as dummies variables for the occurrence of

the Olympics and the oil boom. Using standard regression analysis techniques, Baade

Page 17
and Matheson found that the coefficient for the Olympics variable was insignificant.

The econometric equation was then used to estimate changes in employment and

isolated the contribution of the Games by comparing this estimated value with the actual

employment levels.

Their results for employment growth were by far divergent with those released by ex-

ante studies of Economic Research Associates (1984) and Humphreys and Plummer

(1995) and have brought to light possible overestimation reported by the latter studies.

Another key finding was that the economy virtually returned to its ‘normal’ pattern

afterwards and any increase in economic activity attributable to the Games was

temporary. However, Baade and Matheson’s conclusions rest heavily on the model

being correctly specified, which invites one to wonder how sensitive these results are to

alternative specifications.

Covering the period of 1984 through 2012, all the ex-ante 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

Page 18
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.

Research in this field needs to further consider a substantial element, which is the

opportunity cost involved in hosting the Summer Olympic Games or other mega-events.

Host communities often pose the question of whether financing the Games is the most

effective and efficient use of the public money. In other words, if the public funds spent

on the Games were used in a different way, would the host economy receive a greater

return than it does when these funds are spent on Games investments? To answer this

one need look no further than Kesenne’s argument (1999) that even though a mega-

event does create net benefits, public funding should occur only if the mega-event yields

higher net benefits from an alternative project. In reality, of course, it is almost

unfeasible to measure the net benefits of all possible alternative projects; however some

important opportunity cost elements can be further investigated (Kesenne, 1999).

In addition, another aspect to be considered in subsequent research is the potential

economic retreat after the completion of the Games. When the level of income and

investments falls after the event, then the multiplier also follows. To illustrate this point,

findings from broader mega-event literature could be utilised to demonstrate that ‘one-

Page 19
time’ events have no lasting post-event effects in new business activities or employment

(Mount and Leroux, 1994; Spilling, 1998).

It is important, therefore, that prospective researchers be inspired by a recognition of the

shortcomings found in earlier ex-ante and ex-post studies and that they concentrate on

areas which most need the effort. This will help planners and potential hosts of mega-

events to improve their forecasting and decisions.

Page 20
Evangelia KASIMATI, Figure 1

New Money

Injected into

Accommodation
Food Transport Games tickets

a. b. c.
d. DIRECT
Inter- industry purchases Direct household Government
Leakages EFFECT
within the economy income revenue

Household purchases Household purchases

Savings
within the economy outside the economy

ALL BUSINESSES

a. b. c.
d. INDIRECT
Inter- industry purchases Secondary household Government
Leakages EFFECT
within the economy income revenue

Household purchases Household purchases

Savings
within the economy outside the economy

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the ‘Multiplier’ Approach, based on Liu

and Var’s study (1982 cited Crompton 1995, p.19). ‘Accommodation’ is

chosen to show how the multiplier concept operates, but should be similarly

implemented for ‘food’, ‘transport’ and ‘Games tickets’. The three direct

recipients of the injected money, after allowing for leakages, subsequently

spend this money in the same four ways, generating the indirect effect.

Leakages occurred since some money could be spent outside the host

economy. Moreover, some of the household income could leak out of the

economy by purchasing products from outside, or could not stimulate

economic activity by turning in savings.

Page 21
Evangelia KASIMATI, Table 1

Table 1: Economic Impact Studies of the Summer Olympic Games (1984-2012)

a/a State /Country Host/Bid city Year Study by Study’s Date Analysis Type of Approach
Dist. of Columbia Washington-Baltimore bid Fuller & Clinch Dec. 2000 Ex-ante I-O (IMPLAN)
7. 2012
Texas Houston bid Airola & Craig Jan. 2000 Ex-ante I-O (RIMS II)
Balfousia et al. Sep. 2001 Ex-ante Macroeconometric
6. Greece Athens 2004
Papanikos Mar. 1999 Ex-ante Multiplier
Arthur Andersen/CREA Jan. 1999 Ex-ante CGE (MMRF)
5. Australia Sydney 2000 NSW Treasury/CREA Nov. 1997 Ex-ante CGE (MMRF)
KPMG Peat Marwick May 1993 Ex-ante I-O
Baade & Matheson 2002 Ex-post Econometric
4. Georgia Atlanta 1996
Humphreys & Plummer June 1995 Ex-ante I-O (RIMS II)
Brunet 1995 Ex-ante No modelling
3. Spain Barcelona 1992
Brunet 1993 Ex-ante No modelling
2. South Korea Seoul 1988 Kim et al. May 1989 Ex-ante No modelling
1. California Los Angeles 1984 ERA Oct. 1984 Ex-ante I-O (RIMS II)
- Apart from the official reports, no economic impact studies were found for Moscow (1980), Montreal (1976), Munich (1972), Mexico City (1968),

Tokyo (1964), Rome (1960) and Melbourne (1956).

Page 22
Evangelia KASIMATI, Table 2

Table 2: Sydney Games Impact Summaries. Sources: KPMG, 1993; NSW Treasury/CREA,
1997; Andersen/CREA, 1999
Projected Figures Andersen/CREA NSW Treasury/CREA KPMG
Sponsor of Analysis Sydney OOC NSW Treasury Sydney Bid
Committee
Addition to Australian GDP A$96 6.5 billion A$96 6.4 billion A$92 7.3 billion
Addition to NSW’s GDP A$96 5.1 billion A$96 6.3 billion A$92 4.6 billion
International Arrivals in Australia 1.5 million 2.3 million 1.3 million
Additional Tourist spending A$96 2.7 billion A$96 4.3 billion A$92 3.0 billion
New Jobs 90,000 98,700 156,198
Australia Australia Australia
Period 1994-2006 1994-2006 1991-2004

Page 23
Evangelia KASIMATI, Table 3

Table 3: Summer Olympics Impact Summaries

Summer Olympics Sponsor of analysis Study by Total Economic Impact Tourists New Jobs Period
Washington-Baltimore Greater Baltimore Fuller & Clinch US$’00 5.3 billion 1.3 million 69,758 2012
bid, 2012 Alliance/Committee Washington-
Greater Washington Board of Baltimore
Trade/Initiative Metropolitan area
Houston bid, 2012 None Airola & Craig US$’00 4.3 billion 0.8 million 64,216 2012
Houston
Metropolitan area
Centre of Planning & Balfousia et al. 5.97 (a) 4.8 million 300,400 2000-2010
Athens, 2004 Economic Research (Medium scenario) Greece
Greek Hotel Chamber’s Papanikos US$’99 15.9 billion 5.9 million 445,000 1998-2011
Tourism Research Institute (Medium scenario) Greece
None Baade & Matheson Not examined Not examined 42,448 1994-1996
Atlanta, 1996 State of Georgia
Atlanta OOC Humphreys & US$’94 5.1 billion 1.1 million 77,026 1991-1997
Plummer State of Georgia
Barcelona, 1992 Supreme Sports Council of Brunet, 1993 & 1995 US$ 0.03 billion 0.4 million 296,640 1987-1992
Spanish Government/Olympic Spain
& Sports Studies Centre
Seoul, 1988 Seoul OOC Kim et al. WON 1,846.2 billion n.a. 336,000 1982-1988
(Income effect only) South Korea
None Baade & Matheson Not examined Not examined 5,043 1984
Los Angeles, 1984 Los Angeles
Los Angeles OOC ERA US$’84 2.3 billion 0.6 million 73,375 1984
Southern California
(a): Cumulative Temporal Impact in GDP (%) during the period 2000-2010.

Page 24
REFERENCES

Airola J, Craig S. 2000. The Projected Economic Impact on Houston of Hosting The

2012 Summer Olympic Games. Houston Working Paper, University of Houston.

Almon C. 1966. The American Economy to 1975. Harper and Row: New York.

Arthur Andersen. 1999. Economic Impact Study of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

CREA/University of Tasmania: Australia.

Baade RA, Matheson V. 2002. Bidding for the Olympics: fool’s gold? In Transatlantic

Sport: the comparative economics of North America and European Sports, Barros

CP, Ibrahimo M, Szymanski S (eds). Edward Elgar: London; 127-151.

Balfousia-Savva S, Athanassiou L, Zaragas L, Milonas A. 2001. The Economic Effects

of the Athens Olympic Games (in Greek). Centre of Planning and Economic

Research: Athens.

Brunet F. 1993. Economy of The 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games. International

Olympic Committee (IOC): Lausanne.

Brunet F. 1995. An Economic Analysis of The Barcelona '92 Olympic Games:

Resources, Financing, And Impact. In The Keys To Success, Miquel MD, Botella M

(eds). Autonomous University of Barcelona: Barcelona; 203-237.

Crompton JL. 1995. Economic Impact Analysis of Sports Facilities and Events: Eleven

Sources of Misapplication. Journal of Sport Management 9(1): 14-35.

Darcy S, Veal AJ. 1994. The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games: The Story So Far.

Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation 4(1): 5-14.

Economics Research Associates (ERA). 1984. Community Economic Impact of The

1984 Olympic Games In Los Angeles And Southern California. Los Angeles

Olympic Organizing Committee: Los Angeles.

Page 25
French SP, Disher ME. 1997. Atlanta and the Olympics: A one-Year Retrospective.

Journal of the American Planning Association 63(3): 379-392.

Fuller SS, Clinch R. 2000. The Economic And Fiscal Impacts of Hosting The 2012

Olympic Games on The Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Area. George Mason

Working Paper, George Mason University.

Hall CM. 1987. The Effects of Hallmark Events on Cities. Journal of Travel Research

26(2): 44-45.

Haxton PA. 1999. The Perceived Role of Community Involvement in the Mega-Event

Hosting Process: A case study of the Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

Unpublished PhD Thesis, Sydney University of Technology.

Hill CR. 1996. Olympic Politics. Athens to Atlanta 1896-1996. Manchester University

Press: Manchester.

Hiller HH. 1990. The Urban Transformation of a Landmark Event: The 1988 Calgary

Winter Olympics. Urban Affairs Quarterly 26(1): 118-137.

Hiller HH. 1999. Mega-events and urban social transformation: Human development

and the 2004 Cape Town Olympic bid. In The Impact of Mega-events, Andersson

TD, Persson C, Sahlberg B, Strom LI (eds). ETOUR: Sweden; 109-120.

Howard DR, Crompton JL. 1995. Financing Sport. Fitness Information Technology:

Morgantown.

Humphreys JM, Plummer MK. 1995. The Economic Impact on The State of Georgia of

Hosting The 1996 Olympic Games. Selig Center for Economic Growth: Georgia.

Jennings A. 1996. The New Lords of the Rings: Olympic Corruption and How to Buy

Gold Medals. Pocket Books: London.

Page 26
Kang HB. 1988. Accelerating the Future-State: Urban Impact of Hosting the 1988 Seoul

Olympic Games. In: Hosting the Olympics: The Long-Term Impact, Conference

Report. East Asian Architecture and Planning Program, MIT and Grad. School of

Environmental Studies. Seoul National University: Seoul; 17-32.

Kesenne S. (1999). Miscalculations and Misinterpretations in Economic Impact

Analysis. In The Economic Impact of Sports Events, Jeanrenaud C (ed.). Centre

International d’Etude du Sport: Switzerland; 29-39.

Kim JG, Rhee SW, Yu JC, et al. 1989. Impact of The Seoul Olympic Games on National

Development. Korea Development Institute: Seoul.

KPMG Peat Marwick. 1993. Sydney Olympics 2000: Economic Impact Study. Sydney

Olympics 2000 Bid Ltd: Sydney.

Leiper N. 1997. A Town like Elis? The Olympics: Impact on tourism in Sydney. In

Proceedings of the Australian Tourism & Hospitality Research Conference. Sydney.

McIntosh MJ. 2000. The Olympic Host City Bid Process: Facing Challenges and

Making Changes. In Focus on Olympism: Discoveries, Discussion, Directions,

Messing M, Muller N (eds). Walla Walla Press: Sydney; 312-321.

Mills ES. 1993. The Misuse of Regional Economic Models. Cato Journal 13(1): 29-39.

Mount J, Leroux C. 1994. Assessing the Effects of a Landmark Event: a Retrospective

Study of the Impact of the Olympic Games on the Calgary Business Sector.

Laurentian University: Ontario.

New South Wales Treasury. 1997. Research and Information Paper: The Economic

Impact of The Sydney Olympic Games. NSW Treasury & CREA/University of

Tasmania: Australia.

Page 27
Papanikos GT. 1999. Tourism Impact of The 2004 Olympic Games (in Greek). Tourism

Research Institute: Athens.

Porter PK. 1999. Mega-Sports Events as Municipal Investments: A Critique of Impact

Analysis. In Sports Economics: Current Research, Fizel J, Gustafson E, Hadley L

(eds). Praeger Press: New York; 61-73.

Preuss H. 2000. Economics of The Olympic Games: Hosting The Games 1972-2000.

Walla Walla Press: Sydney.

Ritchie JRB, Aitken EC. 1984. Assessing the Impacts of the 1988 Olympic Winter

Games: The Research Program and Initial Results. Journal of Travel Research 22(3):

17-25.

Robin D. 1988. Hosting the Olympic Games: Long-Term Benefits to Sport and Culture.

In: Hosting the Olympics: The Long-Term Impact, Conference Report. East Asian

Architecture and Planning Program, MIT and Grad. School of Environmental

Studies. Seoul National University: Seoul; 245-264.

Simson V, Jennings A. 1992. The Lords of the Rings: Power, Money and Drugs in the

Modern Olympics. Simon & Schuster: New York.

Spilling OR. 1998. Beyond Intermezzo? On the long-term Industrial Impacts of mega-

events: The case of Lillehammer 1994. Festival Management and Event Tourism

5(3): 101-122.

Steenge AE. 1990. On the Complete Instability of Empirically Implemented Dynamic

Leontief Models. Economic Systems Research 2(1): 3-16.

Walle AH. 1996. Festivals and Mega-Events: Varying Roles and Responsibilities.

Festival Management and Event Tourism 3(3): 115-120.

Page 28
Werling JF. 1992. MIDE: A Macroeconomic Multisectoral Model of the Spanish

Economy. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Maryland.

West GR. 1995. Comparison of Input-Output, Input-Output and Econometric and

Computable General Equilibrium Impact Models at the Regional Level. Economic

Systems Research 7(2): 209-220.

Page 29