Critics of economic impact studies that purport to show that mega-events such as the Olympics bring large benefits to the communities “lucky” enough to host them frequently cite the use of inappropriate multipliers as a primary reason why these impact studies overstate the true economic gains to the hosts of these events. This brief paper shows in a numerical example one way in which mega-events may lead to inflated multipliers and exaggerated claims of economic benefits.
BaadeR., & MathesonV. (2001). Home run or wild pitch? Assessing the economic impact of Major League Baseball's All-Star Game. Journal of Sports Economics, 2(4), 307–327.
2.
CBS News. (2006, June 8, 2006). Vatican laments World Cup prostitution.
3.
CromptonJ. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events: Eleven sources of misapplication. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 14–35.
4.
DwyerL, ForsythP., & SpurrR. (2004). Evaluating tourism's economic effects: New and old approaches. Tourism Management, 25(3), 307–317.
5.
HumphreysJ. (1994). The economic impact of hosting Super Bowl XXVIII on Georgia. Georgia Business and Economic Conditions, May-June, 18–21.
6.
LucasR. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1, 19–46.
7.
PorterP., & FletcherD. (2008). The economic impact of the Olympic Games: Ex ante predictions and ex poste reality. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 470–486.
8.
SiegfriedJ., & ZimbalistA. (2000). The economics of sports facilities and their communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 95–114.
9.
SiegfriedJ., & ZimbalistA. (2002). Note on the local economic impact of sports expenditures.
