Why hosting the Olympics may not be a golden opportunity

JUDY WOODRUFF:

The move follows a months-long multimillion-dollar campaign that preceded even January's selection of Boston by the U.S. Olympic Committee as America's candidate city. High-profile athletes with Boston ties made pitches, and planners envisioned venues spread across metro Boston and Massachusetts.

But the bid soured soon after Boston was picked. As Bostonians learned of the cost details, their support plummeted. In a statement yesterday, the U.S. Olympic Committee's CEO, Scott Blackmun, said the USOC "does not think that level of support enjoyed by Boston's bid would allow it to prevail over great bids from Paris, Rome, Hamburg, Budapest or Toronto."

U.S. Olympic officials now have until September 15 to name a replacement candidate city. One possibility is Los Angeles, which hosted the Games in 1932 and 1984, and has already expressed interest.

The U.S. hasn't hosted a Summer Olympics since Atlanta in 1996, or any Olympics since the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games. Boston's doubts and decision underline the great costs borne by Olympic host cities. Rio de Janeiro, which will hold next year's Summer Games, is spending about $12 billion on the event. And Russia spent upwards of $50 billion to organize the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi.

The question that many are asking in the wake of Boston is whether it ultimately is worth hosting the Games. There are various ways of measuring that.

And we get two different takes. George Hirthler has been a communications strategist for 10 Olympic campaigns, including Atlanta's successful 1996 bid and Vancouver in 2010. And Andrew Zimbalist is a professor of economics at Smith College and author of the book "Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup."

And we welcome both of you.

So, let's talk about Boston first, Andrew Zimbalist, to you.

What would you add to what was just reported about what went wrong in Boston? Why were they chosen and then what fell apart?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST, Author "Circus Maximus": I think, from the very beginning, when Boston was selected back in January — and, by the way, the USOC said they selected Boston because it was the most walkable of the four competitors.

Ever since the announcement was made that Boston was selected, the Boston '24 Committee came out with a lot of incomplete and deceiving and misdirection-oriented information. And over the last several months, every couple of weeks, some new piece of information has been released that I think has lessened the trust of Bostonians and citizens of Massachusetts, who, after all, just a few years ago, went through the Big Dig construction in Boston, which was supposed to cost $2 billion and ended up costing over $20 billion.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7sa7SZ6arn1%2Bjsri%2Fx6isq2ejnby4e8eoqq2hnpx6sLjYpqeim6NiuqLFjKCmpZyVo3qwvM%2Boqa2tnp7Bug%3D%3D