When the Japanese people now faces dramatic cost overruns while preparing the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, they are not the first to learn a hard economic lesson. A recent academic study argues that the Olympic Games are naturally subject to severe cost overruns, while the IOC criticises the study for mixing budgets and attributing non-Olympic costs to the Olympic budget. This article examines claims and counter-claims in the debate about Olympic costs.
On August 21, West Ham played their first home Premier League match in the newly converted London 2012 Olympic Stadium, but unlike opponents Bournemouth or any other club in the world’s richest league the hosts are getting a free ride courtesy of the British taxpayer.
Choosing permanent Olympic host cities, one on each continent, could help the IOC secure cheaper and more sustainable events while living up to their own Olympic values, argues Igor Kovač in this commentary piece.
With the prospect of runaway expenses, the Japanese government last month pulled the brake and launched a new design contest for Tokyo’s new Olympic stadium. But the debate about who is to blame for the fiasco continues.
As much as 85 per cent of Danish and Dutch public investments in sport go into sports facilities like football fields, sports halls and aquatics stadiums. But simply building facilities does not make more people active and knowledge on how to make the most of the investments is sorely needed.
In Portugal, the local municipality of Leiria is paying 5,000 Euro per day in maintenance costs for a stadium that is now closed. And a further eight percent of the annual local municipality budget is spent repaying the mortgage of the stadium that was built for the European championships in football in 2004.