On Jan. 8 the United States Olympic Committee chose the city of Boston as the American candidate to host the 2024 Summer Olympics. Proponents of the plan claim that the estimated $4.5 billion event will be privately funded by broadcast revenues, corporate sponsorships and ticket sales. They claim it will provide a boost to the local economy and will help solve Boston’s lingering infrastructure and transportation issues, including the need for new subway rail cars and extended rail lines. 

However, past Olympics have proven that the games often have the opposite effect on the regions in which they are held. Unfortunately for proponents of the Boston Olympics, Massachusetts residents appear to be educated about these past shortfalls. 

According to a poll conducted by Sage Consulting, 40 percent of Massachusetts residents oppose hosting the Olympics. However, when all respondents were asked if they would support the plan if tax dollars were used, 61 percent said they would not support the bid. In addition, an advocacy group dedicated to opposing the bid called “No Boston Olympics” has already been formed.

Throughout its history, Boston has reinvented itself in order to match the economic and cultural vibrancy of other major American cities such as New York and Philadelphia. Boston has gone from being a hub of international trade to a manufacturing center to a knowledge-based economy feeding off of high-tech companies and prestigious universities. Now, Boston is trying to improve its status once again. Hosting an event which will put Boston on the world’s biggest stage may seem like a logical step, however, history suggests that the Olympics often do not have any long-term positive effects on the regions they are held in.

The most important issue surrounding the plan for Massachusetts residents is whether the city will use tax revenue as a source of funds. Advocates of the plan claim that all of the funds will come from broadcast revenues, corporate sponsorships and ticket sales. However, critics point to a study conducted by the University of Oxford in 2012 showing that all Olympic events since 1960 have had cost overruns which average out to 179 percent. For example, the Summer Olympics held in Barcelona in 1992 had a cost overrun of 417 percent. The Olympics are therefore a financially risky investment which could end up costing taxpayers if private funds do not cover unexpected costs. 

Proponents of the Boston plan say they will put together an insurance package to protect against revenue shortfalls and cost overruns, turning to Chicago’s bid for the 2016 games as an example. However, the plan did not cover most of the total costs, and the city would have had to rely on taxpayer money if certain big investors pulled out, with only $1.1 billion of the $3.8 billion total estimated costs of the Chicago games being insured. 

The insurance policy for the Boston plan covers even less than the Chicago plan—covering only $25 million out of $4.5 billion. This means whatever combination of cost overruns, shortfalls in revenue from the events or private investors pulling out which may occur would need to fall under $25 million in order for taxpayer money to be kept out of the games. 

If taxpayers are asked to contribute, they likely will not see any significant return on their investment. The idea that the Olympics will result in long term economic growth is a myth. 

Some argue that the attention that comes with hosting the games will result in increased tourism and that infrastructure projects, such as improvements to public transportation, which are completed for the games have a lasting impact on the local economy. Applying this argument to Boston is suspect for multiple reasons. 

First, it is already the tenth-most-visited city in the country and is home to the seventh-most-visited tourist attraction in the world: the Faneuil Hall Marketplace. Many also question the extent to which the Olympics can increase tourism to the host city following the games. While locations which were relatively unknown before the event, such as Salt Lake City, have seen increased tourism following the games, more well-known cities such as London and Atlanta have failed to see similar results. 

Second, although proponents of the plan correctly claim that most of the infrastructure projects required for the games are already approved by a 2013 Massachusetts bond bill, they incorrectly imply that the funds for those projects are also secured by the bill. 

While the bond bill authorizes the projects, its passage does not oblige the state to fully fund all of the approved projects. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, the bond cap limit will only allow the state to use $2.25 billion each year. According to the foundation’s President, Mike Widmer, much more is needed to adequately pay for the event, requiring taxpayer money for these massive public transportation overhauls. Overall, those who study the Olympics consistently downplay its economic impact. Phillip Porter, an economist at the University of South Florida, says: “The bottom line is, every time we’ve looked—dozens of scholars, dozens of times—we find no real change in economic activity.” 

The Big Dig, a 20-year construction project aimed at fixing the city’s traffic problems, was another giant project which cost the city a lot of time, money and effort, the benefits of which many Boston residents feel are not worth what the city had to endure to achieve them. However, the project has had a long term positive impact on the city by relieving some of its traffic issues. History suggests that such a long term benefit will not accompany hosting the Olympics in 2024. 

A giant project which would most likely cost taxpayers and draw attention away from initiatives which would help the city combat inequality is not what Boston needs to continue improving. What the city really needs is improved public schools in poor areas and real funding for transportation fixes that will make it easier for people outside of the city to commute to work, thereby increasing the size of the workforce available to the city. The group “No Boston Olympics” has pointed out that $10 billion, the estimated actual cost of the games, could be used to build a South Coast Rail, an extension on the Green Line to Somerville, and solve the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s debt issues if it were used on transportation issues alone. 

The amount of disapproval for the plan expressed by Boston residents has been unprecedented for a reason. 

They realize that the next chapter of Boston’s history must be defined by continuing to embrace the city’s new identity as a hotbed of technology and higher education while working towards common sense solutions to issues of inequality which have persisted for generations. Plainly put, the Olympics are an empty spectacle which would do neither.