Panel ‘slices and dices’ benefits of Games
Economists answer questions and debate value of hosting 2026 Winter Olympics
When it comes to deciding on a vote for or against hosting the 2026 Winter Olympics, economists say looking strictly at dollar values won’t give Calgarians the full picture.
Academics, athletes and stakeholders had an Olympic-sized meeting of the minds at Mount Royal University on Wednesday to debate the pros and cons of Calgary hosting the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
Just one day after city council nearly killed the Olympic bid with an emergency vote, the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Symposium was a chance for both the Yes and No sides to answer Calgarians’ questions while debating the economic and community benefits of hosting the Games.
Trevor Tombe, with the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, said the Games’ potential economic benefits touted by Calgary’s bid corporation — such as the creation of more than 15,000 jobs and a $10-to-$1 return on investment — don’t add up.
“We should look at the Olympics not as an economic-development strategy for the city,” Tombe said. “We had a tough recession and the recovery has been slower for many than we would hope, but the Olympics is not something that’s going to solve those problems.”
Norm O’Reilly, professor and assistant dean at the University of Guelph, echoed Tombe’s comments, saying there’s a difference between economic “impact” compared to economic “activity.”
He said economic impact can be measured in new dollars coming in to Calgary that wouldn’t filter into the city otherwise — such as revenues from Olympic tourism — while economic activity is dollars spent on making the Games happen, including paying staff, security costs, and venue construction and refurbishments.
“If you look at (the cost) on its own, it’s probably not enough to say, ‘hey, this is a no-brainer for a financial decision.’ You’ve got to look at the other stuff,” O’Reilly said.
Tombe said those intangibles include such things as “community pride, national spirit, promotion of sports” and “a catalyst for maybe future development in the city that it’s hard to put our finger on today.” He added the Olympics aren’t “something that’s going to be the cure for a lot of the unemployed Calgarians that are looking for work today.”
Many symposium spectators asked what the taxpayer cost of a proposed cost-sharing agreement between the city, Edmonton and Ottawa would be.
Tombe said it’s unlikely potential Olympic costs to Calgarians will appear as a separate line item on a tax bill, but did say the federal contribution shouldn’t increase taxpayers’ bills because Ottawa’s share “is a reallocation of dollars” from Sport Canada.
As for the city’s $390-million share of the bill, Tombe said that could break down to “about a one to 1.5 per cent increase in residential and non-residential property taxes” or “maybe 25 bucks a year,” depending on how the city decides to bankroll any Olympic funding.
Mary Moran, CEO of Calgary 2026, stood by the bid corporation’s economic numbers with regard to the creation of 15,400 new jobs and a $10-to-$1 return on investment.
“Everybody has a different opinion,” Moran said of the economic breakdown.
“As (O’Reilly) said, every economist slices and dices it differently. But I can tell you it doesn’t matter what the costs go to — is it going to create jobs?
“Is it going to have GDP growth? And will it build our brand and reputation worldwide? And the answer to that is yes.”
Calgarians will go to the polls to cast their votes for or against an Olympic bid on Nov. 13. Advance voting takes place Nov. 6 and 7.
The plebiscite was almost quashed Wednesday after Coun. Evan Woolley filed a recommendation asking council to kill the bid.
On Thursday, Reuters reported the Argentine Olympic Committee could be a late entry for a 2026 bid.