Abstract

The measurement of the economic impact of the biggest sporting events is a source of controversy between economists Overall, two main questions have to be asked:
how to carry out such a measure and which function has to be given to these results? The first question gives rise to important problems of methodology which the authors of impact studies do not always completely master. The second, which is more fundamental, has been abundantly treated mainly in English literature: are governmental subsidies or public aid for the construction of big stadiums justified compared to the extent of economic impact that these sporting events would create? It is then often demonstrated by academic economists that organizers ask for these subsidies in the name of an economic impact which would not, in fact, exist. Nonetheless, it appears to the author that this answer is not totally satisfactory, as the justification of the subsidy should not be only considered in relation to the amount of the economic impact of the event. So, the author is going to try in this chapter to show on which analytical bases it is possible to talk about all these controversial questions which reflect the increasing financial stakes linked to the biggest sporting events: does the construction of sport infrastructure have to be subsidized? Is public aid to professional clubs justified? To answer such questions correctly, it seems that there is often confusion between the economic impact and the economic efficiency of sporting events and this has to be avoided. The legitimacy of a project (a big stadium, for example) has to be measured against the social utility it gives rise to and not against the scope of its economic impact, for fear that it could end up with absurdity. The author will show in this way that, in the view of decisional help, only a complete calculation of the economic performance based on the global economic value of this project (and not a calculation of the economic impact) is valid. Einleitung (gekürzt und geändert)