Olympic gamble: Goodbye Toronto, hello Calgary and Quebec City?

You didn't have to listen that closely to hear the sighs of relief coming from Toronto after its mayor ended the city's Olympic flirtation.

By now, the arguments for passing on a mega-event like the Olympics are so airtight that it's tough to dispute the economic analysis that debunks claims that hosting is a net benefit to tourism, trade or employment. More viscerally, images of vacant stadiums and crumbling venues around the world also don't help the Olympic case.

For a mere $20 US, tourists can wobble around on Segways in the Bird's Nest, a classic $460-million overreach by Beijing, which boasts 91,000 now largely empty seats. In sheer dollar terms, Russia has that beat with its $9.4-billion road to nowhere, a staggering ode to corruption and Olympic boondogglery.

White elephants of that magnitude are hard to envision in Canada, but they do illustrate the costs an eager host city is willing to incur, particularly in the scramble to finish construction before the curtain is raised.

As Toronto put aside its 2024 ambitions, speculation immediately turned toward the prospects for Calgary or Quebec City takinga shot at 2026. If either were to throw a tuque into the Olympic ring, the odds that a successful bid will avoid the winner's curse aren't good. But that doesn't mean it's not possible.

"There are a couple of things that could work," Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College and the author of Circus Maximus: The Economics of Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup, told CBC News.

"One of them is just a city playing hardball [with the International Olympic Committee] and saying, 'There's only so much we're going to invest in this.' You also have to plan carefully and be frugal."

Spectacle vs. prudence

The pressures of winning a competitive bid against cities willing to promisea bigger spectacle makes prudence an idea that's nice in theory, but tough to pull off in practice.

Los Angeles and Barcelona are often held up as models of how the Olympics can be done right, but duplicating their success isno easy trick.

Circa 1984, hosting wasn't the prize it is today. Protests and violence distinguished Mexico City in 1968. Four years later Munich ended in tragedy, while cost overruns in 1976 had just made Montreal a fiscal cautionary tale for other potential hosts.

A lack of other suitors allowed Los Angeles to negotiate a sweet deal with the IOC, which guaranteed to cover any losses. Today, bidders don't hold nearly the same amount of leverage.

While the pendulum is swinging against the IOC the low point occurring when four European cities pulled out of the race for 2022 only a few candidates are needed to spark a bidding war.

A propaganda blitz by the IOC that culminated in its so-called Agenda 2020, a nod toward instilling more financial responsibility back into the proceedings, now appears to be helping recuperate the Olympics in the minds of some. Absent Toronto, the list of bidders for 2024 includes heavy hitters such as Paris, Rome and, once again, Los Angeles.

Could Calgary or Quebec City craft a winning bid that's also fiscally responsible? Perhaps, but history isn't on their side.

"Even though [the IOC] talks about liking frugality and liking affordability, they have to say those things," said Zimbalist. "What they really want is a spectacular Olympics, so cities playing hardball might be the kiss of death for any real hope to host the Games."

How to do it right

In 1992, Barcelona became the gold standard for how to mix urban planning and the Olympics. A decade removed from Franco's authoritarian rule, Barcelona saw the Olympics as a chance to further emerge from that shadow. A Canadian city looking to use that same blueprint will need to ensure the Olympics fits into preexisting plans and not the other way around.

Evidence of the Barcelona model in action shows up in Vancouver's SkyTrain line to the airport and its new convention centre. Vancouver, at least in terms of municipal self-interest, also benefited from more than half a billion in federal and provincial money that only materialized because of the Olympics.

"I don't think we would have got it otherwise," Robert Vanwynsberghe, a University of British Columbia professor who's researched the after-effects of the 2010 Olympics, told CBC News in an interview.

"I think that's the principle reason cities are thinking about this, especially in the Canadian context."

On the other side of the ledger, Vancouver's Athletes Village was a serious misstep, as were broken promises concerning affordable housing.

Warm and fuzzy

Beyond dollars and cents, the Olympics also come with softer benefits like civic pride, lasting memories, and athletic legacy that need to be weighed. Hard as it is to put a price tag on that value, the public popularity and political palatability of the Olympics is more certain.

In a city with warm and fuzzy feelings about 1988, Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi caused a ripple by leaving the door open on a bid after Toronto passed. When asked again by CBC News if serious thought were being given to 2026 he took the chance to pour some cold water on the possibility.

"I get lots and lots of people with lots and lots of ideas calling me every single day and I usually say, 'Let's flesh this out a little more'," Nenshi said. "This is one of those where it's probably worth doing a little more fleshing out."

Olympic economics are defined by blown budgets and underperforming revenues. At the same time, the Games are also a great party and loved by voters. That's worth something. The question for every city is figuring out how much.