SCIENCE (No Plagairism, A++ Work, On Time)
Discussion Question
businessincalgary.com | BUSINESS IN CALGARY December 2014 99
A
s a key segment of the Canadian tourism industry,
sport tourism has grown to be a $3.6-billion annual
business. Leading Calgarys strategy is the Calgary
Sport Tourism Authority (CSTA), an innovative, citizen-led,
single point of entry for major event bid opportunities.
The CSTA is a collaboration of citizens and leaders in
grassroots-sport, business, tourism and community. Since
its inception in 2005, the authoritys mandate has been
to provide a platform for advice, research and strategic
direction in attracting events to Calgary. The scope of the
CSTAs expertise and responsibility includes investing in
amateur regional competitions to executing the feasibility
and bid programs to host some of the largest events in the
world, including major international multi-sport games.
Its work and progressive multi-stakeholder structure
merited the CSTA acclamation as a Canadian model of best
practice and as 2014 Sport Tourism Organization of the Year
by the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance. The CSTAs work
also put Calgary on the international stage earlier this year
when the city was named as an Ultimate Sports City (Best
Small Sports City category) and fifth overall globally by
SportBusiness International.
Led by chairman and noted community leader Doug
Mitchell and executive director Marco De Iaco (also VP
sport and major events, Tourism Calgary), the CSTA has
overseen many bid programs and invested in hundreds of
sport and major events, including the Juno Awards, IIHF
World Junior Championship, relocation of Canadas Sports
Hall of Fame, Ironman 70.3, CN Canadian Womens Open
LPGA, Canadian Track and Field Championship, Cavalia,
Shaw Charity Classic PGA Champions Tour, UCI 2.1 Tour
of Alberta, Canadian Open Volleyball Championship and the
World Water Ski Championship.
It is estimated that the economic contribution of events
secured and supported by the CSTA since its inception have
generated over $350 million in gross economic activity.
The CSTAs work also results in over 50,000 hotel room
nights booked in Calgary-based hotels each year, making
this segment one of the most important to Calgarys tourism
economy.
The CSTA pursues events that deliver community,
economic and legacy benefits, ensuring Calgary and
Calgarians reap the maximum benefit. In fact, through
the City of Calgarys Civic Sport Policy, Calgary city council
has mandated that major event bids be evaluated and
executed through the CSTA to ensure an appropriate level
of due diligence, stakeholder input and strategic insight are
considered.
As a leader in the event bidding industry, the CSTA also
has a strategic lens on the future of sport and major event
hosting. In 2011, the authority commenced the development
of Legacy 2.0; a 20-year vision and plan to secure and
sustain Calgarys future as a world-class sport city. The
CSTA is focused on growing Calgarys capacity as one of
the pre-eminent winter sport cities in the world, but also
ensuring that rights-holders consider Calgary as a year-
round destination to host their events.
The balance of the CSTA board is comprised of other well-
known Calgarians, stakeholders and passionate citizens.
Board members include: Ken King, president and CEO,
Calgary Sports and Entertainment; Dale Henwood, president
and CEO, Canadian Sport Institute; Guy Huntingford, CEO,
Urban Development Institute; Bob Hamilton, chairman,
WinSport; Bruce Graham, president, Calgary Economic
Development; Rod McKay, chairman, Tourism Calgary; Kurt
Hanson, director of recreation, the City of Calgary; Richard
Main, chairman, Calgary Hotel Association; and, Don
Ingram, CEO, CamCar and Associates.
Calgary Sport Tourism Authority:
A Canadian Model of Excellence in Sport Event Bidding
Copyright of Business in Calgary is the property of OT Communications and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use. Calgary Sport Tourism Authority: A Canadian Model of Excellence in Sport Event Bidding. (2014).Business in Calgary,24(12), 99.
Chengli Tien, Huai-Chun Lo, & Hsiou-Wei Lin. (2011). The Economic Benefits of Mega Events: A Myth or a Reality? A Longitudinal Study on the Olympic Games.Journal of Sport Management,25(1), 1123. https://doi-org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1123/jsm.25.1.11
Robinson, J., & Revill, J. (2015, Jun 10). FIFA suspends 2026 world cup bidding process; move comes amid a widening corruption scandal implicating previous bid contests.Wall Street Journal (Online)Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1686975770?accountid=8289
Schoettle, A. (2013). NCAA overhauls bidding for championships.Indianapolis Business Journal,34(14), 3A
Bidding
Before you can manage certain sporting events, it is common for facility, city, or organization to bid to host the event. Bidding occurs frequently in the sports industry as different cities, organizations, and facilities attempt to host a sporting event for their own benefit. The Olympic Games bidding process is discussed in detail in the course materials and serves as a quality example for the bidding process in other sporting events.
To earn a bid, you first have to develop a proposal that clearly articulates why you have the type of facility, city, location, staff, finances, and overall ability to host and manage this event successfully. Organizations that own events are going to choose the facility, location, and organization that will give them the most opportunity to succeed financially and run a quality sporting event.
Some of the items that go into a proposal can include a statement on why you are motivated to host this event, the political support you have in your area, financial details demonstrating your ability to handle the associated cost, the quality and details regarding your facility, accommodations, transport infrastructure, and general logistics associated with the event.
Week 4 Forum | Opinion Piece
Please read the open ended resources (readings) found in the Week 4 Content.
Write an “op-ed” or opinion piece related to an issue regarding the major sport event bidding process. Your topic should cut across various sport events and the process that takes place when cities, nations, etc. bid for major events (e.g., Olympic Games, Super Bowl, X-Games, etc.).
Focus on a particular event and use the examples you find in your research on how that bidding process was carried out and how that host site was eventually awarded. Was this process fair? Where there other political and sociological factors at work? The objective of this assignment is to be “opinionated” and discuss your views on a contemporary and possibly controversial subject related to the bidding process for sports events. When replying to classmates, be sure to state whether you agree or disagree with their article and explain why. You may look online for examples of other “op-ed” pieces on other topics for guidance on how to structure yours.
You are required to respond to the initial posting from the Instructor as well as respond to at least two additional postings of a fellow learner.
Please review the specific discussion directions, including minimum word requirements, as well as information on the discussion grading rubric, at the top of the page under the Discussions.
Guidelines
Submission of a minimum of 300 words (excluding sources FIFA Suspends 2026 World Cup Bidding Process;
Move comes amid a widening corruption scandal
implicating previous bid contests
Robinson, Joshua; Revill, John . Wall Street Journal (Online) ; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]10 June
2015: n/a.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
[…]the past few weeks, the U.S.–which hosted the World Cup in 1994–had been considered among the front-
runners to host the 2026 event.
FULL TEXT
Soccer’s world governing body bought itself some time on Wednesday before beginning the most important
process on its agenda–selecting a host for the 2026 World Cup–even as it rushes to elect a new president .
FIFA said the 2026 bidding process, which was due to begin this fall, was on hold because of the separate U.S. and
Swiss investigations that led to the arrest of several FIFA officials in Zurich in May. The organization also
confirmed that it would hold an extraordinary executive committee meeting in July to set a date for a new
presidential election, which is expected to fall in December.
“Today there is no leadership at FIFA, so it’s normal that it’s been suspended,” Michel Platini, the head of the
European soccer confederation and a potential candidate for the FIFA presidency, said at a news conference in
Paris.
In the shorter term, the scandal continues to affect FIFA’s day-to-day operations. Embattled Secretary-General
Jerome Valcke, in Russia on Wednesday to inspect preparations for the 2018 World Cup, spoke for the first time
about his link to a $10 million payment from South Africa during bidding to host the 2010 tournament.
The U.S. indictment alleged that the transfer, approved by a senior FIFA official, was a bribe solicited by former
FIFA executive committee members Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer, along with one other alleged co-conspirator, in
exchange for their votes in support of South Africa.
Mr. Blazer admitted that he and other executive committee members accepted bribes to vote for South Africa in
his plea agreement, but didn’t specify an amount.
FIFA declined to comment on specific allegations, while Mr. Warner has denied all wrongdoing. But, according to
FIFA protocol, Mr. Valcke would have needed to be aware of any payment that size as secretary-general, a role he
began in 2008.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1686975770?accountid=8289
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1686975770?accountid=8289
“I will answer all the questions. I have nothing to hide,” Mr. Valcke said, insisting he had no knowledge of the
payment’s purpose beyond South Africa’s stated goal of supporting “the African diaspora in Caribbean countries
as part of the World Cup legacy.”
FIFA has said the payments were initially authorized by Julio Grondona, an Argentine official who served as
chairman of FIFA’s finance committee at the time. He died in 2014.
“I’m signing all the contracts of FIFA,” Mr. Valcke added, the Associated Press reported. “You have decided that
after [FIFA President Sepp Blatter], my head is to be cut. Fine. But don’t say it is because of this $10 million.”
Separately, Mr. Valcke said beginning the process to find a host for 2026 now would be “nonsense.” The
tournament might be more than a decade away, but FIFA had been planning to select a host at its congress in
Kuala Lumpur in 2017. Bidders would have normally registered their interest in the coming months.
It was unclear on Wednesday precisely where the decision had originated inside FIFA, but people familiar with its
thinking said there was little doubt that the postponement made sense.
Until the past few weeks, the U.S.–which hosted the World Cup in 1994–had been considered among the front-
runners to host the 2026 event. But growing ill will toward the American authorities among FIFA voters, insiders
said, could scuttle that plan. Even Mr. Blatter, who announced last week he would be stepping down , suspected
that the American probe came out of the U.S. defeat to Qatar in the bidding for the 2022 World Cup.
U.S. Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati declined to be interviewed.
In a change to previous procedures, FIFA’s 209-member congress will make the final decision on the event’s hosts
from a list of as many as three bids.
The bidding processes for the 1998, 2006, 2010, 2018 and 2022 tournaments are currently being scrutinized.
Switzerland’s Office of the Attorney General has said it is looking into the award of the 2018 World Cup to Russia
and the 2022 event to Qatar.
The decision to delay the bidding process for 2026 was described as “sensible” by Alan Tomlinson, a professor at
University of Brighton in the U.K. and author of several books about FIFA. He said it would be a mistake to launch a
new bidding process while “the old ones are being investigated.”
“A decision by 209 rather than 24 voters [from the executive committee] is an enormously complex challenge, and
even more vulnerable to potential exploitation and abuse,” said Mr. Tomlinson.
Write to Joshua Robinson at [emailprotected] and John Revill at [emailprotected]
Credit: By Joshua Robinson and John Revill
DETAILS
Subject: Soccer; Tournaments &championships; Deaths
LINKS
Check for full text in other resources
Location: United States–US South Africa
People: Blazer, Chuck Platini, Michel
Company / organization: Name: Federation Internationale de Football Association–FIFA; NAICS: 813990;
Name: Associated Press-NYC; NAICS: 519110
Publication title: Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y.
Pages: n/a
Publication year: 2015
Publication date: Jun 10, 2015
Section: World
Publisher: Dow Jones &Company Inc
Place of publication: New York, N.Y.
Country of publication: United States, New York, N.Y.
Publication subject: Business And Economics
e-ISSN: 25749579
Source type: Newspapers
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 1686975770
Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1686975770?accountid=8289
Copyright: (c) 2015 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Last updated: 2019-05-28
Database: ProQuest Central
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1686975770?accountid=8289
https://apus.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01APUS_INST/01APUS_INST:01APUS??url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ:abiglobal&atitle=FIFA%20Suspends%202026%20World%20Cup%20Bidding%20Process;%20Move%20comes%20amid%20a%20widening%20corruption%20scandal%20implicating%20previous%20bid%20contests&title=Wall%20Street%20Journal%20(Online)&issn=&date=2015-06-10&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Robinson,%20Joshua;Revill,%20John&isbn=&jtitle=Wall%20Street%20Journal%20(Online)&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/
Database copyright 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://about.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact
FIFA Suspends 2026 World Cup Bidding Process; Move comes amid a widening corruption scandal implicating previous bid contests ECONOMICS AND FINANCE
Journal of Sport Management, 2011, 25 11-23
2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.
The Economic Benefits of l/lega Events:
A [/lyth or a Reality? A Longitudinal Study
on the Olympic Games
ChengiiTien
National Taiwan Normal University
Huai-Chun Lo
Yuan Ze University
Hsiou-Wei Lin
National Taiwan University
This study concerns research related to mega events, such as the Olympic Games, to determine whether the economic
impact of the Olympic Games on the host countries is significant. This study uses two methods, panel data analysis and
event study, to test hypotheses based on the data from 15 countries that have hosted 24 summer and winter Olympic Games.
The results indicate that the economic impact of the Olympic Games on the host countries is only significant in terms of
certain parameters (i.e., gross domestic product performance and unemployment) in the short term. These findings provide
decision makers with comprehensive and multidimensional knowledge about the economic impact of hosting a mega event
and about whether their objectives can be realized as expected.
As “global properties” (O’Reilly, Lyberger, McCar-
thy, & Sguin, 2008, p. 392), mega events may have a
tremendous impact, which, in general, can be found in
economic, tourism, physical, social, cultural, psychologi-
cal, and political aspects of a hosting region (Parent, 2008;
Ritchie, 1984; Ritchie & Aitken, 1985). Although some
may still argue about what can be properly categorized
as mega events, the summer and winter Olympic Games
without a doubt can be classified as such (Fairley, Kellett,
& Green, 2007; Toohey & Taylor, 2008).
Due to the increasing influence of the Olympic
Games and the attention it receives worldwide, a number
of countries derive pride and prestige from hosting this
event and regard it as a showcase to the world or an
opportunity to achieve certain objectives. Regardless of
a country’s specific objectives, the competition to win
the bid for hosting the Olympic Games has become more
intense, especially since the commercial success of the
1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. Not only the competi-
tion, but also the scale, complexity, and cost to host the
Olympic Games have grown, thus creating some concems
for taxpayers as well as for bidders, who should carefully
consider the rewards and risks in pursuing this Olympic
dream. Take the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, for
example; it cost the host city and country over US $10
million to bid and US $ 10.7 billion to host (Burton, 2003),
and such costs exceed the annual gross domestic product
(GDP) of some nations (e.g.. The Bahamas).
Is it worth staging a mega event, such as the Olympic
Games? This is an important research question, which
was also addressed by Salt Lake Olympic Chief, Mitt
Romney, who considered it a fair question (Foy, 2002).
Because a wide range of effects can be anticipated as a
result of hosting mega events, this question should be
asked in terms of the objectives that each host country
expects to achieve. These objectives may vary from
nation to nation, but the overall objective can involve a
strategic and economic focus. “For example, the Athens
2004, Turin 2006, Beijing 2008, and Vancouver-Whistler
2010 Olympic Games bid and organizing committees
all presented the Olympic Games as beneficial to their
respective cities to gain new facilities and increase trans-
fer to event preparation and hosting knowledge” (Parent,
2008, p. 135). Hence, from a strategic perspective, the
objectives may include bringing the country into the
limelight or spotlighting the city/state or region; from an
economic perspective, the objectives may include attract-
ing investment or creating jobs (Nixon & Frey, 1996;
Preuss, 2000). Among these objectives, “it is the eco-
nomic value accruing to the host that is commonly used
as the basis for gathering public backing for such events”
(Lee & Taylor, 2005, p. 595). This study will therefore
Tien is with Dept. of East Asian Culture and Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China. Lo is with the
Division of Finance, College Management, Yuan Ze University, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China. Lin is with the Dept. of International Business,
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China.
11
12 Tien et al.
focus on the economic impact of the Olympic Games
upon the host countries, aiming to ascertain whether
staging the Olympic Games is economically worthwhile
and whether the anticipated economic benefits from the
Olympic Games are a reality or a myth.
Prior studies from various perspectives report mixed
findings in terms of mega events’ contributions to the
host area’s economy (Owen, 2005; Veraros, Kasimati,
& Dawson, 2004). To explore the economic impact of
the Olympic Games, this study attempts to answer the
following research question: Is it worth staging a mega
event, such as the Olympic Games? The present study
takes an ex post approach by using the panel regression
model and event study to test each of the key economic
parameters to uncover findings that are convincing
enough to ascertain the economic benefits of mega events.
Hosting a mega event requires tremendous infrastructure
and construction, and this takes a number of years to
complete. Hence, the economic impact may not be sig-
nificant during, right before, or right after the year of the
Olympic Games, so a longer period of time is required to
study the event’s overall effects. The present study uses
a nine-year time span (four years before the Olympic
Games, the year of the Olympic Games, and four years
following the Olympic Games) to examine the economic
impact of hosting the Olympic Games, including GDP
performance, unemployment, and investment.
The findings of the current study indicate that host-
ing the Olympic Games does not produce a long-term
impact on the host countries, but it does produce a short-
term impact on the GDP and unemployment of the host
countries (the significant impact only occurs before the
Olympic Games, not during or after the Olympic Games).
Hence, hosting the Olympic Games only generates a
short-lived impact on the host countries, which is con-
sistent with the finding of Baade and Matheson (2002).
In particular, the current study finds that the impact on
the GDP and unemployment is more significant in those
countries that host the summer Olympic Games, which
require more spending than the winter Olympic Games.
This study thus makes two fundamental contributions
to the literature on mega events. First, it illustrates in a
longitudinal manner any economic impact on host coun-
tries arising from the hosting of the summer or winter
Olympic Games. Prior studies focused on a single country
(Brunet, 1995; Hotchkiss, Moore, & Zobay, 2003; Hum-
phreys & Plummer, 1995; Madden, 2002), on a single
economic aspect (Kavetsos & Szymanski, 2008; Samitas,
Kenourgios, & Zounis, 2008; Veraros et al., 2004), or on
a single game phase (Pyo, Cook, & Howell, 1988), but
not on a selection of host countries from a longitudinal
perspective including the pre-Games phase, the Games
phase, and the post-Games phase. The findings should
enrich future researchers’ understanding of the economic
impact of hosting the Olympic Games on a selection of
host countries from a long-term perspective. Second, the
current study explores the economic impact of hosting
the Olympic Games during different Games phases, such
as the pre-Games phase, instead of merely the Games
phase. This expansion in scope may explain why some
prior studies find hosting the Olympic Games to have a
weak or insignificant impact. Therefore, the importance
of using a longitudinal approach to analyze or extend
related issues is highlighted.
This study is comprised of five sections. The first
section provides an overview of mega events and their
impact. The second section addresses the method and data
analyzed from countries that have hosted the Olympic
Games since 1964, while the third section presents the
results of the models run in the Stata, SPSS, and SAS
software programs. Finally, the fourth section addresses
the conclusion and implications based on the findings,
and the final section discusses limitations that can be
addressed for future resetu’ch.
Literature and Hypotheses
Mega Events: The Olympic Games
Scholars still debate what mega events are; however, the
Olympic Games can undoubtedly be categorized as a
mega event (Home & Manzenreiter, 2006; Roche, 2000).
Thus, the current study analyzes mega events, with a
focus on the Olympic Games.
According to the Olympic Charter (n.d.), “Olympism
is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a bal-
anced whole the qualities of body, will, and mind” (p. 12).
Blending sport with “culture and education, Olympism
seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort,
the educational value of good example and respect for
universal fundamental ethical principles” (p. 12). Olymp-
ism emphasizes the existence of a peaceful society with
human dignity achieved through sport events to elaborate
a state of mind based on equality; this makes the Games
more than just a sport competition.
Scholars disagree about the origin of the ancient
Olympic Games, but it is certain that Greece originally
held the Olympic Games in the BC era (Barney, 1996;
Davis, 2008). The Olympic Games are best known in
their modern form, however. The modern Games were
first held in 1896 in Athens, Greece. Ever since that time,
they have steadily expanded and have attracted thousands
of participants and millions of viewers worldwide. The
impact from such an event is always expected to be
tremendous, but also various and uncertain. Thus, the
objectives for hosting the Olympic Games may vary from
nation to nation.
Host Countries’ Objectives
Mega events help to meet the economic and cultural needs
and rights of local citizens and, if they are successful,
“long-term positive consequences in terms of tourism,
industrial relocation, and inward investments” can be
expected (Roche, 1994, p. 2). Thus, the value of and
objectives for hosting the Olympic Games should reach
beyond medal counts and extend to more wide-ranging
effects (e.g., economic, tourist-related, environmental,
Economic Benefits of Mega Events 13
sociocultural, psychological, and political; Ritchie, 1984;
Ritchie & Aitken, 1985) because the overall effect of
different Olympic Games is “measured in the infrastruc-
ture, social, political, ecological, and sporting impulses”
(Preuss, 2000, p. 122). In other words, the impact of
hosting the Olympic Games can far surpass financial
benefits. As a matter of fact, the Olympic Games and
their host countries have greatly emphasized sustainable
development (i.e., the Green Games of Sydney 2000, the
Games of Culture of Athens 2004, the People’s Olym-
pics of Beijing 2008, and the One Planet Olympics of
London 2012), which is, as the United Nations (n.d.)
defines it, “development that meets the needs of the
present without comprising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs” (p. 6). Hence, sustainable
development refers to “a path of socio-economic devel-
opment tbat is financially balanced, socially equitable,
ethically responsible, and adequately integrated in the
long-term ecological balance” (Furrer, 2002, p. 2) of the
environment. It is three-dimensional in nature: economic,
social, and environmental (Furrer, 2002). Since mega
events may have wide-ranging effects on host regions,
countries host mega events for a variety of reasons. In
general, this study conceptualizes these reasons in terms
of both economic and strategic objectives. The economic
objectives include GDP performance, employment, and
investment. The strategic objectives include regional
image and identity, urban infrastmcture, and cultural and
political improvements.
Impact of the Olympic Games
Successful events not only improve earnings, employ-
ment opportunities, and govemment revenues, but also
raise “awareness and knowledge of the country or region
involved” (Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005, p. 840). Prior stud-
ies have been conducted on the Olympic Games from
various perspectives, such as that of power and politics
(Hargreaves, 2000; Hazan, 1982; Lenskyj, 2000), culture
(Blain, Boyle, & O’Donnell, 1993), urban policy and
environments (May 1995; Roche, 1994), tourism (Kang
& Perdue, 1994; Lee, Var, & Blaine, 1996), destination
image (Gibson, Qi, & Zbang, 2008; Lee et al., 2005),
and economics (Kim, Rhee, Yu, Koo, & Hong, 1989;
O’Brien, 2006; Porter & Fletcher, 2008; Preuss, 2000,
2004). The present study focuses on economic sustain-
able development. The rationale behind this approach is
that macroeconomic objectives and impacts should still
be the major concems for most host countries. “It is the
economic value accruing to the host that is commonly
used as the basis for gathering public backing for such
events” (Lee & Taylor, 2005; p. 595). In fact, prior studies
have addressed the impact of mega events on economic
issues using ex ante forecasts or ex post examinations.
The latter approach may be more useful in “providing a
filter through which the promises made by event boosters
can be strained” (Baade & Matheson, 2004, p. 346) and
in examining “a local economy for evidence of the net
impact of professional sports” (Coates & Humphreys,
1999, p. 603), but the amount of such literature is much
smaller (Coates & Humphreys, 1999). To fill the gap,
this study focuses on the economic impact of both the
summer and winter Olympic Games on host countries
by using a quantitative, ex post approach.
The Economic Impact. This study distinguishes finan-
cial impact from economic impact. The financial impact
may narrowly refer to the impact on the budgetary or
financial balance of the organizing committees of the
Olympic Games; however, the economic impact may
refer more broadly to the impact on the general economy
of a host country (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2004).
Hence, the current study examines possible economic
objectives, such as boosting GDP performance, reducing
unemployment, and attracting investment.
“In world sports, the Olympic Games are unparal-
leled in their scale” and in “the potential impact they
can have on the economies of host cities, regions, and
countries” (O’Brien, 2006, p. 240). Regarding GDP per-
formance, the arguments have been mixed because the
impacts can be uncertain (Kim, Gursoy, & Lee, 2006).
The initial investment for hosting the Olympic Games can
be tremendous, and, thus, uncertainties may occur and
lead to both opportunities and risks. From the perspective
of opportunities, successful Olympic Games may trigger
economic growth and development (Metropolis, 2002,
as cited in Furrer, 2002). However, from the perspective
of risks, hosting the Olympic Games may be too expen-
sive to generate economic rents and may further lead to
worse situations when huge investment projects become
“White Elephants” after the events or when these projects
create adverse effects that may crowd out a nation’s other
important projects. Lenskyj (2000) created a summary
of criticism against the Olympic Games that includes
distortions in the local economy and hindrances to sus-
tainable economic development. Taking into account the
opportunities and risks, comprehending the impact of the
Olympic Games on host countries’ GDP performance
may be difficult because this strategy to boost GDP
performance through hosting mega events is considered
“a potentially high-risk strategy for stimulating local
economic growth” (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying,
2001, p. 113). Prior studies on a single host country bave
resulted in mixed findings (Brunet, 1995; Humphreys &
Plummer, 1995; Madden, 2002), but such studies from
a longitudinal perspective are scarce. Hence, the impact
of hosting the Olympic Games on the GDP performance
of the hosting regions requires further examination, so
the current study constructs the first hypothesis in a null
form to explore this issue:
Hypothesis 1: Hosting the Olympic Games has no
effect on GDP performance.
Host countries regard the reduction in unemployment
as an expected benefit of hosting tbe Olympic Games.
For example, the increase in the number of tourists and
the opening of new facilities (e.g., hotels, sport venues)
create jobs and thus reduce unemployment. Prior studies
14 Tien et al.
on the 1996 summer Olympic Games show a positive
correlation between hosting the Olympic Games and
employment (Hotchkiss et al., 2003). However, few stud-
ies have longitudinally tested the impact on employment
opportunities on an entire country, which may receive
less benefit than the hosting city, and done so using a
selection of both summer and winter Olympic Games.
Further testing is needed to ascertain whether hosting the
Olympic Games may impact employment opportunities;
thus, the current study constructs the second hypothesis
in a null form to explore this issue;
Hypothesis 2: Hosting the Olympic Games has no
effect on unemployment.
A successful major event creates confidence in
the city and favors subsequent investment (Metropolis,
2002, as cited in Furrer, 2002). Other than direct invest-
ment in the events and their related infrastructure (e.g.,
transportation and housing), hosting the Olympic Games
can be regarded as an attempt to attract international
investment or to establish new trade relationships in
macroeconomic terms. However, few studies have tested
investment in a longitudinal manner using a selection of
botb the summer and winter Olympic Games. Further
testing is still needed to determine whether hosting the
Olympic Games may impact investment; thus, the cur-
rent study constructs the third hypothesis in a null form
to explore this issue;
Hypot
