Re-analysis, measurement and misperceptions of cost overruns at Olympic Games

The so-called ‘Oxford Study’ by Flyvbjerg et al shows Olympic cost overrun of 170-750% with a substantial risk further above this range in the future. aim paper is to re-analyse results using method accordance international convention comparing across time and geographies. dataset used has abundantly more governmental data than Oxford Study. Study for period 2000–2016 could not be replicated. It argued why statistical analysis their reliability are misleading, thus leading discovery six typical misperceptions. In contrast those authors, overruns (Olympics 2000–2014) direct non-OCOG investments 13–178%. Further, it that costs Games represent less 0.28% GDP; hence, clear cannot cause severe national economic crisis. This provides discussion on underlying assumptions study, providing valuable insights politicians who intend submit an bid, contextualises caused fixed deadlines long planning horizons. I disagree claim al. hosts give blank cheque IOC contend demands tight coupling Host City Contract, negating assertion.