When they ended The Olympics of Paris last year there was something that did not end: the National Debateextensible to many other games in other planet enclaves, about its true legacy. For critics with the event, the Supreme Audit Institution of France has just given them all the world’s gasoline, one in the form of a devastating economic report.
The real weight of the games. As we said, the Courtes Cours has reviewed Uploaded the public cost of the Olympic and Paralympic Games of Paris 2024, encrypting the contribution of the State and the territorial collectivities In 6,650 million eurosthat is, about 700 million more than expected in June.
In its report presented to Parliament, the Rue Cambon institution details that the updated figures include both the expenditure on the organization, that amounted to 3,020 million (With a very high weight of security), such as infrastructure destined, which reached 3,630 million, first incorporating the disbursements of local authorities and works to guarantee the use of SENA, estimated at 331 million. In spite of certain cost overrun surplus of 75.7 millionwhich avoided resorting to the state guarantee.
Comparison with other editions. The Cour holds that Paris games were almost Twice less Regarding costs for public coffers that, for example, those of London 2012, although it alerts on the security chapter, whose infrapreting was remarkable: compared to the 200 million calculated in the candidacy dose, the real expense amounted to 1,440 million.
This deviation, far superior to that provided for in the 2024 Finance Law, constitutes the main reason for concern indicated by the magistrates.
“Modest” impact. He Report Introduce This time an evaluation of the public income associated with the event, which total 293.6 million euros coming from fiscal collection, the special transportation of transport and advertising sales of France Télévisions.
However, these figures must be corrected by Fiscal exemptions (57 million, as in the case of Omega sponsor) and for the so -called “eviction” effect on sectors such as tourism. Cour concludes that the impact on the economy was limited: just 0.07 % of GDP In 2024, compared to 0.25 % estimated by INSE for the third quarter of that year. Beyond the short term, it insists that it is premature to assess the effects in the medium and long term.
Debate and criticism. Le Monde told that the Methodology of the Cour has generated friction with the Olympic responsible. The Cojop reproaches that The report It has included expenses that do not consider directly linked to games, such as subway prolongations, burial of electric lines or cost overruns of the renewal of the Grand Palais, as well as the construction of schools.
Also questions that they were not taken into account The amortization nor the proportionality in the use of shared infrastructure. According to Tony Estuet, president of the Organizing Committee, the real public cost did not exceed 2.5 billionso he denounces problems of rigor and a systematic bias against the project.
The debate about the legacy. One of the central points of the controversy is the tangible inheritance of Paris 2024. While the Government defends that investment in transport, housing and the Decontamination of SENA They represent lasting improvements, social groups denounce phenomena of gentrification, eviction and a “social makeup” that benefits the international image of France more than its most vulnerable citizens.
The Cour too He raised doubts on the true capacity of these investments to transform urban life in the Parisian region.
A historical ballast. The debate on Paris 2024 is inserted in a long tradition of games that end up being financial watchmaking bombs For host cities. From Montreal 1976, which took three decades to pay A monumental debtuntil Athens 2004, often cited as one of the factors that They worsened the crisis Greek financial, Olympic venues have experienced chronic cost overruns.
The reason? The committees They usually inflate calculations Return of investment in the candidacy phase, presenting optimistic projections that rarely materialize. The case of London 2012 showed that even when the games are presented as “reasonable”, the budget weight It ends up duplicating The initial forecasts.
The COI crisis. Plus: The International Olympic Committee has been going through a Crisis of legitimacy and headquarters. Less and fewer cities are willing to assume the associated financial and political risks: Los Angeles 2028 was awarded without competition After the withdrawal of other candidacies, and the last winter edition in Beijing 2022 had to be held In artificial facilities In full desert, an example of the anomalies facing the organization.
Cortina-Milán 2026 too It has been questioned by APPROVESlogistics improvisations and political tensions between regions and central government. In this context, Paris 2024 reflects both the symbolic greatness and the structural fragility of an increasingly difficult Olympic model to sustain.
Success with doubts. If you want, immediately, Paris 2024 has been considered an organizational and sports triumph, projecting that image of France as a country capable of hosting a global first -order event. In fact, both Cour and Cojop They have seen In Paris’s experience, a model to consider the Olympic Games of Winter of 2030 In the French Alps, to which They will be allocated Six of your seven recommendations.
However, the debate about its true financial and social legacy is far from closing. French experience feedsIn addition, an argument that crosses borders about the future of games: if they will continue to be an aspiration for cities or simply a risk that most will prefer to avoid.
Image | Public domain, WHOISJOHNGALT
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings