Economists have shown time and time again that the rosy estimates of economic benefits put forward by sports boosters are at odds with actual economic data from cities that host mega-events like the Olympics and the Super Bowl.
In the face of that evidence, the boosters often turn to the potential â€śindirectâ€ť benefits to be reaped. For the Olympics, the claim is that the games can serve as a huge advertisement for the host city. But of course, the image left isnâ€™t always positive.
The bribery scandal that surrounded Salt Lake Cityâ€™s 2002 Winter Olympics bid sullied the areaâ€™s squeaky clean image. The terrorist incidents at the 1972 and 1996 Summer Olympics cast their host cities in a bad light. Even successful events may do little to promote a city. The 2005 Super Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla. went off without a hitch, but many visitors left the city with the impression that it had little to offer tourists.
Vancouver is an appealing setting. But the warm weather and last minute scramble for snow might well damage perceptions of the city as a reliable winter sports destination. (Why book a ski vacation there when snow might be unpredictable?) That would be a shame, but it wouldnâ€™t be the first time that a big event had a negative effect on a cityâ€™s image.
Guest Bloggers are not employed or directed by The Christian Science Monitor and the views expressed are the blogger's own. Submissions are neither edited nor reviewed before they appear on CSMonitor.com. If you have any comments about a blogger, please contact us. To comment on this post, please go to the blogger's site by clicking on the link above.