Home » Business » Biz Commentary
The Olympics bring wider benefits than economic impact
By Peter Grant |
July 18, 2012, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THE London 2012 Chairman, Lord Coe, has expressed his view that the economic impact of the Games will be òextraordinaryó and, from the time of the initial London bid, politicians and the Games organizers have stressed this point. Unfortunately Lord Coe?s optimism on this topic is almost certainly misplaced.
The evidence that we have from an analysis of major sporting events is that they bring very little economic benefit to the countries staging them. The same is even more true about the other significant claim made when London first bid for the Games, that it would lead to a significant increase in sports participation, especially among young people.
The negligible economic and participation evidence is not recent. As early as 2002 an internal report by the Department for Culture Media and Sport in UK concluded that òthe quantifiable evidence to support each of the perceived benefits of mega-events is weak ... they appear to be more about celebration than economic return.ó
Economic advantage
The London Games do, however, have one important economic advantage over many other recent hosts and that is in the legacy usage of the main facilities. Both the velodrome and aquatics center will provide badly needed top-quality venues for London (and for future world championships) and it seems certain that the long-term use of the Olympic Stadium will be for football.
So does this research prove that the Olympic pessimists are right, that the Games are a complete waste and that the money should have been spent on something more productive? I would actually say not and my optimism, despite the probable lack of economic and sporting benefits, comes from a wider historical analysis.
From the very first, the Olympics of Ancient Greece were of more social, religious and political rather than sporting or economic importance and this trend has accelerated since their re-founding in 1896. Both the Melbourne and Sydney Games were significant milestones for Australia to demonstrate their emergence as a post-colonial state and those in Tokyo, Mexico City, Seoul and Beijing together with the forthcoming event in Rio showcases their countries? emergence onto the òworld stage.ó
For other countries the incentive for hosting the Olympics is perhaps more to demonstrate that you are, still, a world power, that your voice counts and that you are capable of staging the most complex regular event in the world.
So the idea that the Olympic Games are a sporting and economic event is a very narrow one. The Games are almost certainly much more important in social and political terms.
Dr. Peter Grant is a Senior Fellow in Philanthropy, Grantmaking and Social Investment at Cass Business School London. The opinions are his own.
The evidence that we have from an analysis of major sporting events is that they bring very little economic benefit to the countries staging them. The same is even more true about the other significant claim made when London first bid for the Games, that it would lead to a significant increase in sports participation, especially among young people.
The negligible economic and participation evidence is not recent. As early as 2002 an internal report by the Department for Culture Media and Sport in UK concluded that òthe quantifiable evidence to support each of the perceived benefits of mega-events is weak ... they appear to be more about celebration than economic return.ó
Economic advantage
The London Games do, however, have one important economic advantage over many other recent hosts and that is in the legacy usage of the main facilities. Both the velodrome and aquatics center will provide badly needed top-quality venues for London (and for future world championships) and it seems certain that the long-term use of the Olympic Stadium will be for football.
So does this research prove that the Olympic pessimists are right, that the Games are a complete waste and that the money should have been spent on something more productive? I would actually say not and my optimism, despite the probable lack of economic and sporting benefits, comes from a wider historical analysis.
From the very first, the Olympics of Ancient Greece were of more social, religious and political rather than sporting or economic importance and this trend has accelerated since their re-founding in 1896. Both the Melbourne and Sydney Games were significant milestones for Australia to demonstrate their emergence as a post-colonial state and those in Tokyo, Mexico City, Seoul and Beijing together with the forthcoming event in Rio showcases their countries? emergence onto the òworld stage.ó
For other countries the incentive for hosting the Olympics is perhaps more to demonstrate that you are, still, a world power, that your voice counts and that you are capable of staging the most complex regular event in the world.
So the idea that the Olympic Games are a sporting and economic event is a very narrow one. The Games are almost certainly much more important in social and political terms.
Dr. Peter Grant is a Senior Fellow in Philanthropy, Grantmaking and Social Investment at Cass Business School London. The opinions are his own.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
