Andrew Zimbalist is an author and economics Professor at Smith College. We cover the economic and social impact of bringing the Olympic Games to a city, why prospective hosts are more reluctant than ever to bid, and what can be done to reform the Games for the better.
176
Background / Overview
The Olympics, governed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), is a biennial event alternating between Summer and Winter Games, with the Summer Games being significantly larger in scope and economic impact. Founded in 1896, the modern Olympics were designed to foster international athletic competition and cultural exchange. The IOC, a nonprofit organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland, oversees the selection of host cities, negotiates broadcast and sponsorship deals, and redistributes revenues to National Olympic Committees and International Sports Federations.
The business model revolves around host cities, which undertake massive infrastructure projects to stage the Games, and the IOC, which controls the intellectual property, broadcasting rights, and sponsorship agreements. Host cities bear the brunt of the costs, while the IOC captures a significant portion of the revenue without incurring direct operational expenses. The Olympics is not a traditional business with profit motives but a global spectacle with economic implications for host cities, often resulting in substantial financial losses.
Key dynamics include:
- Monopolistic Power of the IOC: The IOC operates as an unregulated international monopoly, leveraging its control over the Olympic brand to extract significant concessions from host cities.
- Bidding Process Evolution: Historically, cities competed aggressively to host the Games, driving up costs. Since 2019, the IOC has shifted to a private, less transparent bidding process to mitigate public backlash and declining interest.
- Economic Misalignment: Host cities incur costs far exceeding revenues, with limited long-term economic benefits (e.g., tourism or job creation), making the Olympics a high-risk, low-reward proposition for most hosts.
Ownership / Fundraising / Recent Valuation
The IOC is a nonprofit entity, not owned by shareholders, and does not distribute profits. Its leadership, including the president, receives no salary but enjoys significant perquisites (e.g., private travel, luxury accommodations). The IOC’s revenue, primarily from broadcast rights and sponsorships, is redistributed to support the Olympic movement, including National Olympic Committees and sports federations.
Host cities finance the Games through public funds, municipal bonds, and private investments. Costs are often underestimated to secure political approval, leading to significant cost overruns (averaging 250% since 1960). For example:
- Paris 2024: Estimated cost of $9 billion, with revenues in the mid-single-digit billions.
- Tokyo 2020: $35 billion spent.
- Sochi 2014: $51–65 billion.
- Beijing 2008: $45 billion.
No traditional valuation (e.g., EV/EBITDA multiples) applies to the IOC, as it is not a profit-seeking entity. However, the Olympic brand is a valuable intangible asset, with broadcast deals (e.g., $4–5 billion per Summer Games) and sponsorships reflecting its global appeal. Host city “valuations” are better understood as sunk costs, with no clear return on investment.
Key Products / Services / Value Proposition
The Olympics delivers a global sporting and cultural event, with the following components:
- Sporting Competitions: 35–40 venues hosting events across numerous sports, attracting 11,000 athletes and millions of spectators.
- Global Broadcast: A media spectacle reaching billions, with NBC alone paying $4–5 billion for U.S. rights per Summer Games.
- Sponsorship Opportunities: Domestic and international brands (e.g., Coca-Cola, Visa) pay for association with the Olympic brand.
- Tourism and City Branding: Host cities aim to leverage the Games for tourism and global visibility, though this rarely materializes long-term.
- Infrastructure Development: Cities build or renovate venues, transportation, and hospitality infrastructure, often with questionable post-Games utility.
Value Proposition:
- For the IOC: A prestigious brand that commands premium broadcast and sponsorship deals, with minimal financial risk.
- For Host Cities: Potential for urban development, tourism, and global prestige, though these benefits are often overstated.
- For Broadcasters/Sponsors: Access to a massive global audience and association with a positive, unifying event.
- For Athletes/Participants: A platform for international competition and recognition.
The uniqueness lies in the Olympics’ ability to command global attention and extract significant resources from host cities despite consistent financial losses for hosts. This dynamic stems from the IOC’s monopolistic control and the emotional appeal of the Olympic brand.
Segments and Revenue Model
The Olympic business model can be segmented into economically separable units:
- IOC Operations: Revenue from broadcast rights, international sponsorships, and licensing.
- Host City Operations: Revenue from ticket sales, domestic sponsorships, and tourism, offset by massive infrastructure costs.
- Ancillary Stakeholders: Broadcasters, sponsors, and local businesses benefiting from Olympic-related activity.
Revenue Model:
- IOC Revenue:
- Broadcast Rights: $4–5 billion per Summer Games, with NBC as the largest contributor. Host cities receive ~20% ($800 million–$1 billion), the IOC retains 10% for operations, and 70% is redistributed to sports federations and National Olympic Committees.
- International Sponsorships: $1–1.5 billion, shared partially with host cities.
- Total IOC Revenue: ~$5–6 billion per Summer Games.
- Host City Revenue:
- Ticket Sales: $750 million–$1 billion.
- Domestic Sponsorships: Variable, contributing to total revenue of ~$4–5 billion for Summer Games.
- Tourism: Limited, often negative during the Games due to displacement of regular tourists.
- Revenue Dynamics:
- The IOC’s revenue is predictable and high-margin, driven by long-term broadcast and sponsorship contracts.
- Host city revenue is insufficient to cover costs, with no significant aftermarket or recurring revenue streams post-Games.
Unique Aspects:
- The IOC’s revenue is decoupled from operational costs, as host cities bear the financial burden.
- Host cities face a “winner’s curse,” where competitive bidding historically inflated commitments, leading to cost overruns.
- The shift to private bidding since 2019 reduces transparency but may lower costs by limiting competitive escalation.
Splits and Mix
Revenue Mix:
- IOC: 80% broadcast, 20% sponsorships.
- Host City: ~25% tickets, ~25% domestic sponsorships, ~50% IOC revenue share.
- Geographic Mix: Revenue is global, with the U.S. (via NBC) contributing the largest broadcast share.
- Customer Mix: Broadcasters (e.g., NBC), sponsors (e.g., global brands), and ticket-buying spectators.
EBITDA Mix:
- The IOC operates at near-100% EBITDA margin, as its costs (staff, operations) are minimal relative to revenue.
- Host cities have negative EBITDA, with costs ($15–60 billion) far exceeding revenues ($4–5 billion).
Historical Trends:
- Broadcast revenue has grown steadily but faces potential stagnation due to media fragmentation (e.g., streaming platforms like YouTube, Netflix).
- Host city costs have escalated, driven by inflation, corruption, and scope creep (e.g., adding “bells and whistles” post-approval).
- The mix of cities willing to bid has shifted, with fewer developed nations participating due to cost concerns.
KPIs
- Cost Overruns: 250% average since 1960, with every Games exceeding budget.
- Revenue per Games: $4–5 billion for Summer Games, slightly less for Winter Games.
- Venue Count: 35–40 for Summer Games, requiring significant infrastructure.
- Tourism Impact: Net negative during Games, with no consistent long-term boost.
- Job Creation: Temporary construction jobs, often inflationary, with no lasting impact.
Acceleration/Deceleration:
- Revenue: Broadcast revenue growth may slow due to media fragmentation.
- Costs: Continued escalation due to inflation and complex logistics.
- Bidding Interest: Deceleration, with fewer cities bidding (e.g., only Paris and Los Angeles for 2024/2028).
Headline Financials
Metric | Summer Games (Typical) | Notes |
Revenue | $4–5 billion | Tickets ($750M–$1B), domestic sponsorships, IOC share ($800M–$1B). |
Cost | $15–60 billion | Infrastructure, security, Olympic Village, media centers. |
EBITDA | Negative ($10–55B loss) | Costs far exceed revenue. |
FCF | Negative | High capex, no recurring cash flows post-Games. |
Capex | $10–50 billion | Venue construction, transportation, security infrastructure. |
Cost Overrun | 250% | Every Games since 1960. |
Long-Term Trends:
- Revenue CAGR: Positive historically, but potential plateau due to media fragmentation.
- EBITDA Margin: Negative for host cities, near-100% for IOC.
- FCF: Non-existent for host cities, as capex and debt service consume cash flows.
Unique Financial Dynamics:
- Host cities face a one-time revenue spike during the 17-day event, with no aftermarket or recurring revenue.
- The IOC’s financial model is capital-light, with revenue flowing directly to operations or redistribution.
- Cost overruns are driven by political underestimation, inflation, corruption, and logistical complexity.
Value Chain Position
Primary Activities:
- Event Planning: IOC and host city organizing committees coordinate logistics, venues, and security.
- Infrastructure Development: Host cities build or renovate venues, transportation, and hospitality facilities.
- Broadcasting: IOC negotiates deals with networks (e.g., NBC), which produce and distribute content.
- Sponsorship: IOC and host cities sell branding opportunities to global and domestic sponsors.
- Ticketing: Host cities manage ticket sales for spectators.
Value Chain Position:
- The IOC operates upstream, controlling the Olympic brand and intellectual property.
- Host cities are midstream, executing the event and bearing operational costs.
- Broadcasters and sponsors are downstream, leveraging the event for audience reach and brand association.
Go-To-Market Strategy:
- The IOC markets the Olympics as a global spectacle, targeting broadcasters and sponsors with long-term contracts.
- Host cities market to tourists and domestic audiences, though tourism benefits are overstated.
Competitive Advantage:
- The IOC’s advantage lies in its monopolistic control over the Olympic brand, a cornered resource with no direct substitute.
- Host cities have no competitive advantage, as they compete against each other, driving up costs.
Customers and Suppliers
Customers:
- Broadcasters: NBC, BBC, and other networks paying for rights.
- Sponsors: Global brands (e.g., Coca-Cola, Visa) and domestic sponsors.
- Spectators: Ticket buyers, though a small revenue contributor.
- Tourists: Limited, with displacement of regular tourism.
Suppliers:
- Construction Firms: Build venues, infrastructure, and Olympic Villages.
- Security Providers: Supply personnel (e.g., 50,000–80,000 for Paris 2024) and technology.
- Hospitality Sector: Hotels, restaurants, and transportation providers.
- Local Governments: Provide public funds and regulatory approvals.
Unique Dynamics:
- Suppliers (e.g., construction firms) benefit from inflated contracts, often fueled by corruption.
- Customers (broadcasters, sponsors) face limited bargaining power due to the IOC’s monopoly.
Pricing
Contract Structure:
- Broadcast Rights: Multiyear deals (e.g., NBC’s $4–5 billion for U.S. rights), with fixed payments.
- Sponsorships: Tiered agreements, with global sponsors paying premium rates.
- Tickets: Variable pricing based on event popularity, averaging $750 million–$1 billion in revenue.
Pricing Drivers:
- Brand Value: The Olympics’ global appeal commands premium pricing.
- Monopoly Power: The IOC faces no competition, allowing it to dictate terms.
- Mission-Criticality: Broadcasters and sponsors view Olympic exposure as essential, reducing price sensitivity.
Unique Aspects:
- Host cities have no pricing power, as costs are dictated by IOC requirements and competitive bidding.
- The IOC’s pricing is stable and predictable, insulated from market fluctuations.
Bottoms-Up Drivers
Revenue Model & Drivers
How $1 of Revenue is Made:
- IOC: $0.80 from broadcast rights, $0.20 from sponsorships. Revenue is capital-light, with minimal variable costs.
- Host City: $0.25 from tickets, $0.25 from domestic sponsorships, $0.50 from IOC revenue share. Revenue is one-time, tied to the 17-day event.
Revenue Drivers:
- Volume: Number of events, venues, and spectators. Summer Games (35–40 venues) generate more revenue than Winter Games.
- Price: Broadcast and sponsorship deals are driven by the Olympic brand’s prestige and global audience.
- Mix: Shift toward digital streaming may reduce broadcast revenue growth.
- Industry Fundamentals: Media fragmentation threatens revenue growth, while sponsor demand remains robust.
Unique Dynamics:
- No aftermarket revenue (e.g., spare parts, maintenance contracts) exists, unlike industrial businesses.
- Host city revenue is capped by event duration, with no recurring streams.
Cost Structure & Drivers
Cost Structure:
- Variable Costs:
- Security: $1–2 billion (e.g., 50,000–80,000 personnel for Paris 2024).
- Athlete logistics: Feeding, transporting, and housing 11,000 athletes.
- Event operations: Staffing, utilities, and temporary venues.
- Fixed Costs:
- Infrastructure: $10–50 billion for venues, Olympic Village, transportation, and media centers.
- Maintenance: $10–30 million annually per venue post-Games.
- Debt service: Interest and principal on bonds issued to finance construction.
- Cost Breakdown:
- Infrastructure: 70–80% of total costs.
- Security: 10–15%.
- Operations: 5–10%.
- Operating Leverage: None for host cities, as fixed costs remain high post-Games with no recurring revenue.
Cost Drivers:
- Inflation: Construction costs rise over the 7–10-year planning period.
- Corruption: Inflated contracts increase costs (e.g., construction firms paying for contracts).
- Scope Creep: Political pressures lead to “bells and whistles” post-approval.
- Logistical Complexity: Coordinating 35–40 venues, 11,000 athletes, and millions of tourists.
Unique Dynamics:
- Costs are front-loaded, with no economies of scale post-Games.
- Maintenance costs for unused venues create long-term liabilities.
- Corruption and political underestimation exacerbate cost overruns.
FCF Drivers
Net Income: Negative for host cities, as costs exceed revenues by $10–55 billion. Capex: $10–50 billion, entirely maintenance/growth capex with no recurring benefit. NWC: Minimal, as ticket sales and sponsorships are cash-based. Cash Conversion Cycle: Short, as revenues are collected during the Games, but irrelevant due to massive capex.
Unique Dynamics:
- No FCF generation for host cities, as capex and debt service consume all cash flows.
- The IOC generates positive FCF, as its costs are minimal.
Capital Deployment
Capex: Host cities invest in venues, transportation, and security, with no return on investment. M&A: Not applicable. Organic Growth: Limited to tourism or urban development, which rarely materializes.
Unique Dynamics:
- Capital allocation is politically driven, often prioritizing short-term prestige over long-term economics.
- No reinvestment opportunities post-Games, as infrastructure becomes a liability.
Market, Competitive Landscape, Strategy
Market Size and Growth
Market Size:
- Revenue Pool: $4–5 billion per Summer Games, $3–4 billion per Winter Games.
- Cost Pool: $15–60 billion per Summer Games, $10–20 billion per Winter Games.
- Segments: Broadcast rights (80%), sponsorships (15%), tickets (5%).
Growth:
- Volume: Stable, driven by fixed event cycles (every four years).
- Price: Broadcast revenue growth slowing due to media fragmentation.
- Absolute Growth: Flat to declining, as fewer cities bid and costs escalate.
Industry Growth Stack:
- Population: Global audience growth supports broadcast value.
- Inflation: Drives cost escalation.
- Adoption: Streaming platforms may fragment viewership.
3 KDs of the Industry:
- IOC Monopoly: Controls brand and revenue streams.
- Host City Costs: Drive financial losses.
- Global Appeal: Sustains broadcast and sponsorship demand.
Market Structure
- Competitors: No direct competitors to the IOC, as the Olympics is a unique event.
- Structure: Monopoly, with the IOC as the sole governing body.
- MES (Minimum Efficient Scale): High, as only large cities with significant resources can host.
- Cycle: Not cyclical, but bidding interest wanes due to cost concerns.
Traits:
- Regulation: None, as the IOC is unregulated.
- Macro Factors: Inflation, geopolitical instability, and media fragmentation impact economics.
- Litigation: Minimal, though corruption scandals have occurred.
Competitive Positioning
- IOC: Dominant, with no substitutes and strong pricing power.
- Host Cities: Weak, as they compete against each other, reducing bargaining power.
- Risk of Disintermediation: Low, as the Olympic brand is unique.
- MES: Large-scale infrastructure requirements limit the number of viable hosts.
Market Share & Relative Growth
- IOC: 100% market share, as the sole provider of the Olympic Games.
- Host Cities: No market share, as each Games is a one-time event.
- Growth vs. Market: Broadcast revenue growth lags broader media market due to fragmentation.
Competitive Forces (Hamilton’s 7 Powers)
- Economies of Scale: Limited for host cities, as fixed costs (venues) do not scale post-Games. The IOC benefits from scale in negotiating broadcast deals.
- Network Effects: Minimal, as the Olympics does not rely on user-driven networks.
- Branding: Strong for the IOC, as the Olympic brand commands premium pricing and global recognition.
- Counter-Positioning: Not applicable, as no competitors challenge the IOC’s model.
- Cornered Resource: The IOC controls the Olympic brand, a unique asset with no substitute.
- Process Power: Host cities lack process power, as logistics are complex and prone to overruns. The IOC’s streamlined operations (contract negotiation) are efficient.
- Switching Costs: High for broadcasters and sponsors, who rely on the Olympics for unique exposure. Low for host cities, as they do not “switch” but face one-time costs.
Key Advantage: The IOC’s cornered resource (Olympic brand) and branding power create a defensible moat, while host cities face no competitive advantages.
Strategic Logic
- Capex Cycle: Host cities make massive, one-time investments with no recurring benefit. Defensive capex (e.g., meeting IOC requirements) dominates.
- Economies of Scale: Absent for host cities, as infrastructure becomes a liability. The IOC benefits from scale in revenue generation.
- Vertical Integration: Not applicable, as the value chain is fragmented (IOC, host cities, broadcasters).
- Horizontal Integration: Not applicable.
- New Geos/Products: Each Games introduces new host cities, but this increases costs rather than value.
- M&A: Not applicable.
Unique Strategic Insight:
- Successful hosts (e.g., Los Angeles 1984, Barcelona 1992) align Olympic investments with pre-existing urban development plans, reversing the dynamic of working for the IOC.
- The IOC’s shift to private bidding reduces cost escalation but sacrifices transparency, potentially alienating host cities (e.g., Brisbane’s dissatisfaction).
Market Overview and Valuation
Market Overview:
- The Olympics operates in a niche market of global sporting events, with no direct competitors (e.g., FIFA World Cup is distinct).
- Demand is driven by broadcasters and sponsors seeking global exposure, but media fragmentation threatens growth.
- Supply is constrained by the IOC’s monopoly and the high MES required to host.
- Long-term viability is questionable due to declining bidding interest and unsustainable host city economics.
Valuation:
- IOC: Not valued traditionally, as a nonprofit. Its brand value is reflected in $4–5 billion broadcast deals.
- Host Cities: Negative NPV, as costs ($15–60 billion) exceed revenues ($4–5 billion) with no recurring cash flows.
- Market Multiples: Not applicable, but broadcast deals suggest a high “implied valuation” for the Olympic brand.
Unique Dynamics:
- The IOC’s value is insulated from host city losses, creating a one-sided economic model.
- Host cities face a “prestige trap,” where political and emotional motivations override financial logic.
Key Takeaways
- IOC’s Monopolistic Advantage:
- The IOC leverages its control over the Olympic brand to extract significant revenue ($4–5 billion per Summer Games) with minimal costs, redistributing most to sports federations.
- Its nonprofit status and lack of regulation enhance its power, creating a capital-light, high-margin model.
- Host City Economic Misalignment:
- Host cities face massive costs ($15–60 billion) and consistent overruns (250% since 1960), with revenues ($4–5 billion) insufficient to break even.
- No recurring revenue or aftermarket streams exist, and long-term benefits (tourism, jobs) are negligible.
- Unique Business Model Dynamics:
- The IOC’s revenue is decoupled from operational risks, which are borne entirely by host cities.
- Competitive bidding historically inflated costs, though private bidding since 2019 may mitigate this.
- Successful hosts (e.g., Los Angeles, Barcelona) align Olympic investments with pre-existing urban plans, reversing the IOC’s dominance.
- Financial Profile:
- Revenue: $4–5 billion, driven by broadcast (80%), sponsorships (15%), and tickets (5%).
- Costs: $15–60 billion, with 70–80% infrastructure, 10–15% security, and 5–10% operations.
- EBITDA/FCF: Negative for host cities, positive for the IOC.
- Capital Intensity: Extremely high, with no return on investment.
- Hamilton’s 7 Powers:
- The IOC’s cornered resource (Olympic brand) and branding power create a defensible moat.
- Host cities lack competitive advantages, facing high costs and no economies of scale.
- Market Outlook:
- Declining bidding interest and media fragmentation threaten long-term viability.
- Proposed solutions (e.g., permanent host sites) could reduce costs but face resistance from the IOC’s self-interested leadership.
Conclusion
The Olympic business model is a study in contrasts: the IOC enjoys a monopolistic, capital-light model with predictable revenue, while host cities bear unsustainable costs with no lasting economic benefits. The model’s uniqueness lies in its ability to extract massive resources from cities despite consistent financial losses, driven by the IOC’s control over a globally revered brand. Successful hosts like Los Angeles and Barcelona demonstrate that aligning Olympic investments with pre-existing urban plans can mitigate losses, but such cases are rare. The shift to private bidding and declining interest from cities signal a need for structural reform, such as permanent host sites, to ensure long-term sustainability. For investors or analysts, the Olympics offers a cautionary tale of prestige-driven economics, where emotional and political motives often outweigh financial rationality.
Transcript