“Indeed, a substantial, well-researched academic literature shows that if anything the reverse is true: hosting big sporting events is an economic burden.”
But not if you’re a Union Leader.
Brendan Barber…the man who thinks not turning up for work and spending lots of money you don’t have is the way to prosperity.
“We can’t muddle through greening our economy – we need investment, planning and an Olympic-style national crusade.”
All morning the BBC has been informing us that Barber insists that spending as we did on the Olympics shows that such investments can provide us with a economic legacy that fills the Chancellor’s coffers…..nice to see a Union leader in tune with the Government then.
The difference being that the BBC do not gainsay Barber…unlike when the Government similarly insisted that we would have an Olympic legacy measured in real gold not just medals….always a vain hope I would have thought rather obviously.
Not so long ago the BBC told us that the government’s hopes for an Olympic Spring in the finances were delusional…….
‘It will be years before we know whether UK plc will get its money back, let alone make a profit on the Games, but most economists agree major sporting events rarely bring lasting financial reward.
The government will have its work cut out to buck the trend.’
Happiness is only legacy from Olympics
For years, a favourite word of London’s Olympic organisers has been “legacy”. The games were not just meant to be a fortnight of joy, but rather they would boost Britain’s economy and “inspire a generation” to play sport. David Cameron, prime minister, has named Lord Coe, chairman of the London organising committee, as the country’s Olympic legacy ambassador, and spoke of “making sure we turn these games into gold for Britain”.
It feels intuitive that hosting such a memorable event should leave a legacy. But economists who study the topic almost all agree that it doesn’t. Britain will probably get only one intangible benefit: increased happiness.
Politicians in any hosting country invariably promise economic benefits. However, Stefan Szymanski, sports economist at the University of Michigan, says not one credible academic study backs this up. “Indeed, a substantial, well-researched academic literature shows that if anything the reverse is true: hosting big sporting events is an economic burden.”
Didn’t hear much of that kind of clear thinking this morning from the BBC.
Seems that the same message has different meanings when spoken by different people when the BBC comes to interpret it.