The report estimates the final cost of the Olympics and Paralympics at $11.6 billion, after $32.3 million was cut from the budget of the main stadium. That includes a savings of $11.3 million by scrapping a planned fabric wrap around the venue.
Olympic Delivery Authority chief executive David Higgins said organizers have saved a total of $1.2 billion since construction began.
A dramatic example is that the anticipated $4 billion benefit for cities in the US of hosting the 1994 World Cup were later found to have resulted in a net cost to the host cities' economies of $9.26 billion. With independent academics now accepting that no economic benefits can be expected from hosting the Olympics or a FIFA World Cup, attention has turned to what is called ''legacy planning''.
The London 2012 Olympics legacy is intended to be urban renewal. But prosaic legacies are not being marketed in Australia.
With four years still to go, that figure will dwarf overall spend for Canada's Vancouver Olympics of about £3.5bn.
The 2014 Games in Sochi, on Russia's southwestern coast, are already dogged by massive controversy and allegations of corruption.
Many homes are in the process of being demolished to make way for the six-stadia Olympic Park.
"The most enduring legacy," Britain promised in the bid, would be "the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there."
Yet while building progresses on schedule in the future Olympic Park—Europe's biggest construction site and one of the biggest regeneration projects in British history—locals fear the broad urban renewal so central to the bid could become a lesser priority. Since winning the right to stage the Games five years ago, London has gone through a deep recession and a collapse in the real-estate market that hasn't spared the Olympics. Private funding that was supposed to help pay for the athletes' village, for instance, couldn't be found, saddling the public purse with the entire construction cost.
Organizers also expect to use all of London's majestic sites as telegenic backdrops. The marathon course will take runners past Buckingham Palace and cyclists will race past Trafalgar Square. Wimbledon and its famed Centre Court will stage tennis matches.
But these Olympics aren't only about sending pretty pictures around the world, Coe said, or about providing the best atmosphere for athletes.
His vision is broader.
"The greatest driver of social cohesion in most of our communities is sport," Coe said. "The way the Games have galvanized communities the length and breadth of the country is extraordinary."
The truth, however, is that most such events don’t provide much economic stimulus, and often turn out to be money losers. This isn’t to say that cities or countries shouldn’t try to host these events — but, as the Soccernomics authors argue, they should at least realize that what they’re doing is paying for the right to host a big party. The same is generally true for public funding of new sports arenas, as the economist Dennis Coates made clear not long ago.
[W]hile the world champion Springboks are set to play their archrivals, the New Zealand All Blacks, at Soccer City next month, other rugby sides are reluctant to move from their homes to the new stadiums, indicating tough prospects ahead for the future upkeep of the new venues.
"I think that clearly there will have to be good balance of both football and rugby together to ensure proper use of the stadiums," said Danny Jordaan, the chief organiser of South Africa's hosting of the World Cup.