1. Economic dimension of the Olympic Games Group - 3 P Suresh Kumar - 204 P Sriram -196 Saurav Daga -178 SaurabhSoreng -177 Saurabhjawaharya -173

2. The economic dimension of the Olympic Games No Trends On the one hand the economic dimension depends on why the city wants to host the Games On the other hand it strongly depends on the development level and size of the host city.

3. Financing the project &investments in infrastructure (Dimension1) “expensive” and “cheap” Expensive Games are “expensive” if they require extensive investments in traffic infrastructure, communication systems, housing and sports facility construction. Eg Barcelona and Seoul and Beijing Munich, Montreal and Athens Maximin compensating short-term expenditures with long-term benefits Cheep Games were “cheap” if cost were largely limited to organising and staging the Games EgLos Angeles and Atlanta Maxim-was maximising short-term profit or avoiding any deficit.

4. Dimension2 Long-term, and often less considered benefits Enhancing of their image The creation of a higher level of awareness in the world Stimulate tourism Arguments as a location for the settling of industry & other economic and social impacts

5. Games costs in relation to national accounts Table shows that Olympic Games have no important economic dimension in relation to national accounts Montreal, Canada organized with out country support , completely financing them itself. The private revenues of the OCOG amounted to a mere 5% of the funds required. The remaining 95% were provided by special financing means and the public sector. Olympic debt $2.729 billion

6. Mega sport events in comparison to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games

7. Dimensions Revenues from ticket sales, sponsorship, TV-rights and licensing were chosen to cover the business economic dimensions Macroeconomic dimensions are represented by the number of athletes and sports events which indicate costs related to investments in sport facilities and the organisation. The number of tickets is related to spectators who spent their money in the host city

8. The dimension “Time” The start and the end of economic impacts Preparing to stage the Olympic Games is a huge effort of adopting the city’s infrastructure to the needs of the event-Games are awarded to the host city seven years in advance Begins-during the bid process, increase considerably during the preparation phase

9. Economic Impact

10. Anticipated VS actual

11. The development of revenuestelevision rights

12. Revenues from marketing Sponsoring – 2nd pillar of Olympic financing Before 1984 – no marketing Since 1996 – long term broadcast and sponsor agreement 1985 – TOP by IOC  Funding to 199 NOCs, OCOGS, and the IOC 2000 – 35 % of ad time during Olympic broadcasting 1984 onwards – No of sponsors reduced & increased the revenues

13. No of enterprises advertising Vs OCOG revenues from sponsoring

14. Revenues from ticketing Important source since 1986 Atlanta and Sydney ticketing – 23 % of OCOG budgeting Total ticket sales revenues from Munich 1972 to Beijing 2008 Total number of entrance tickets and share of tickets sold from Munich 1972 to Beijing 2008

15. Revenues from “special financing means” Coin as financing source – 1st time in Finland – Helsinki game 1952 Peek of this source 1972 Olympic Stamps – In Athen 1896 and Tokyo 1964

16. The Dimension “Space” The smaller the region, the more autonomous money comes in and the bigger is the economic impulse for the city  Similar effect if if the Games are staged in developing countries Live TV coverage since 1964 , Internet coverage since 1996 – Global Village

17. Conclusion In financial pt of view, staging Olympics is much bigger than all other major sport events Over years, financing sources became global (USA Key role – 70% TOP sponsors, 55 % TV rights) 2 decisive important changes Financial surplus = Revenues – operating cost (OCOG can be confident) Games reached a dimension that requires huge sporting facilities and adequate infrastructure  More no of tickets, more media representatives