There would be, when looking at round numbers.

The press reports a cost of of around 50 bln EUR. (Of course we are not sure about the source or accuracy of these reports).

The Russian Federation GDP is 62599.1 bln Ruble or 1,568 bln EUR in 2012, in current prices (Source OECD). This would constitute an effect of 3.2 percent of the 50 bln. The only contentious part is the accuracy behind the numbers reported in the press, and whether these expenditures qualify as either final consumption, gross fixed capital formation or exports. For the part that they are, they would augment GDP.

A good place to start would be:

The Olympic Effect

Andrew K. Rose and Mark M. Spiegel

NBER Working Paper No. 14854

April 2009

JEL No. F19,L83

ABSTRACT

Economists are skeptical about the economic benefits of hosting “mega-events” such as the Olympic Games or the World Cup, since such activities have considerable cost and seem to yield few tangible benefits. These doubts are rarely shared by policy-makers and the population, who are typically quite enthusiastic about such spectacles. In this paper, we reconcile these positions by examining the economic impact of hosting mega-events like the Olympics; we focus on trade. Using a variety of trade models, we show that hosting a mega-event like the Olympics has a positive impact on national exports. This effect is statistically robust, permanent, and large; trade is around 30% higher for countries that have hosted the Olympics. Interestingly however, we also find that unsuccessful bids to host the Olympics have a similar positive impact on exports. We conclude that the Olympic effect on trade is attributable to the signal a country sends when bidding to host the games, rather than the act of actually holding a mega-event. We develop a political economy model that formalizes this idea, and derives the conditions under which a signal like this is used by countries wishing to liberalize.

Let me add the following to the discussion: of course expenditures will show up in the accounting. But what I mean is: will the organization of these mega events lead to additional growth effects? It is interesting, because there can be serious crowding out or shifts of expenditures. My point of view is that there is no positive impact and I am worried about even a negative short-run impulse. The economic intuition is that especially government investment in infrastructure could have been used in a more productive way.

Looking at past history, it seems that apart from Barcelona 92, and London 2012, the rest of the olympic games were financial disasters. For example, it took 30 years to pay back the investments made for the olympic games of Canada, only to see the infrastructure abondoned and degraded. Sydney Olympics made a net loss of 2 Billion, and Beinjing Olympics did not yield the hyped up benefits.

The Barcelona 92 Olympics were very successful in promoting the city of Barcelona as a prime world tourist destination and really impacted the city in a positive way. As for the London Olympics of 2012, the BBC reported that the events have boosted the UK economy by a 9.9 Billion Pound sterling worth of trade and investments. But what remains to be determined is how much they have cost, and whether there is consistent ROI?

Goldman Sachs published a report entitled "THE OLYMPICS AND ECONOMICS", http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdfs/olympics-and-economics-.pdf

Dear Elmer

A think that a good background to analyze the effects of mega sport events provide economics of happiness:) and theory of white elephants.

Joanna, interesting view -- but does organizing megaevents raise happiness? Winning competions should have an impact, not holding them in your own country or city.

Dear Jan and other question followers

I agree that in its original form economics of happiness concentrates on investigation of one single person wellbeing. Hoverwe, when I was looking for explanation for hosting Euro2012 in Poland I have found this article: G. Kavetsos, S. Szymanski (2008) National Wellbeing and International Sports Events. Authors tested the following hypothesis: Hosting major sporting events raises reported happiness. Their findings suggest a significant and positive short term feelgood effect, but they find little systematic evidence for long term benefits, either before or after event.

In my opinion this provides reasons to interpretate e.g. behaviour of polish politicians opting for organizing winter olimpic games in Poland. Most time of this winter we had rain instead of snow. But in media we could hear only about benefits that could be derived from the opportunity of hosting olimpic games:). The ability to organize olympic games was also important topic to take public opinion away from more controversial topics. And what is more - according to theory of white elephants - this situation promotes mostly the party that is in the government.

Short-term positive feel-good effect doesn't seem like an outcome worth spending billions for. White elephants seem a much more accurate explanation. But why would democratic -- and accountable -- governments invest in white elephants and burden their countries with the associated debt?

I again agree with you. But I think that short-term positive feel-good effect could be very important especially when it coincides with the elections – eg. in May 2014 we have European Parliament elections.

Surely, the Polish bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics that you mentioned earlier cannot have much impact on the 2014 EP elections. And given that Russia is not in the EU, Sochi 2014 cannot have much impact either.

to prove that there can be find connections between this two occurrences I elclose data form GPW - Warsaw Stock Exchange.

I'm also intrested what arguments can be used to contradict the findings reveiled in G. Kavetsos, S. Szymanski (2008) article. It is iportant to me because in my phd thesis I Iinvestigate the process of initiating infrastructure projects under PPP. And supprisingly a great number of this project are sport facilities. I havent so far find any rational explanation why local authorities in Poland prefer sport facilites rather than try to fill infrastructure gap in such sectors like transport, water supply etc.

Looking for hints:)

Joanna, unless I am reading the graph wrong, the PL construction sector has gone down on the news of Poland hosting the Euro2012. Of course, other factors could have coincided with the timing of the announcement .

Maybe PL authorities have used PPPs to finance sports facilities because that is what was needed for the Euro2012? In the UK, as far as I know, PPPs are often used to finance building new schools and similar projects. But my knowledge in this area is only superficial.

Dear Jan

Thank you for very interesting perspective on political relations between local and central government in Poland in promoting PPP.