 |
December 16, 2025, 03:00:39 PM |
|
It's true that hosting sporting events creates jobs, boosts tourism, and provides international exposure. However, it's important to question whether these impacts outweigh the costs ? Ultimately, what's expected is not economic activity, but economic value.
Most of the jobs created are temporary, low-wage, and end soon after the event, while infrastructure costs, such as stadiums, transportation, and security, are permanent and publicly funded. If these facilities lack a clear post event use, the economic benefits quickly evaporate, while maintenance costs continue.
Regarding tourism, not all visits are net gains. When countries host international sporting events, there's a crowding-out effect where regular tourists avoid the host country due to rising prices, high crowding, and logistical disruptions. This means that increased visits during the event don't necessarily significantly increase total annual visits.
Countries' reasons for competing to host are often not solely economic, but also non-economic factors such as political prestige, domestic legitimacy, nation branding, and elite interests. From a fiscal perspective, regional events like the SEA Games rarely generate net profits unless they leverage existing infrastructure/assets, tightly control costs, create a legacy plan, and shift as much of the costs to the private sector as possible without compromising the public interest, and have a concrete long term utilization plan.
|