2024 파리 올림픽: 비용 효율적이고 지속 가능한 모델

기존 경기장이 95%인 2024 파리 올림픽은 가장 저렴하고 지속 가능한 올림픽을 목표로 97억 달러의 예산을 책정했습니다.

### 2024 파리 올림픽: 비용 효율적인 호스팅을 위한 새로운 모델
* 🏅 파리는 **2024년 하계 올림픽을 이전 대회보다 훨씬 적은 97억 달러의 예산**으로 개최할 예정입니다.
* 🏙 기존 경기장의 **95%를 활용**하고 경기 후 숙소로 전환될 **올림픽 선수촌을 포함해 3개의 시설만 새로 짓는 방식**으로 비용을 관리했습니다.
* 💰 운영 예산의 **96%는 티켓 판매, TV 판권, 마케팅 계약**을 통해 민간 자금으로 충당하여 공공 재정에 대한 부담을 줄였습니다.
* 📊 IOC의 올림픽 어젠다 2020은 **도시들이 기존 경기장을 사용할 수 있도록 허용**하고 신축 경기장에는 **올림픽 이후의 유산이 남도록 요구**함으로써 개최를 더욱 용이하게 하는 것을 목표로 했습니다.
* 🚇 파리의 광범위한 대중교통 네트워크와 기존 인프라는 **비용을 절감하고 효율적인 게임 물류**를 보장하는 데 핵심적인 역할을 했습니다.
* 🌍 2024년 올림픽은 **2017년 파리와 로스앤젤레스가 동시에 선정**되면서 공개 입찰을 통해 개최지를 선정하는 **첫 번째 올림픽**이 될 것입니다.
* 🛡 경제학자들은 보안 비용이 **예산 3억 4천만 달러를 초과**할 수 있다고 경고하며, 과거 게임들은 **보안에 최대 20억 달러**를 지출한 바 있습니다.
* 🏗 2032년 브리즈번과 같은 미래 개최 도시는 **새로운 인프라가 필요한 도시**를 대상으로 **새로운 호스팅 모델의 지속 가능성**을 테스트할 예정입니다.

Over 10,000 competitors, over 8 million tickets sold,
and about 3 billion people tuning in to watch what most of us consider the pinnacle of sports - the Olympics. Here comes the first. And this time it's in Paris. But the Olympics is a lot more than just this and this
and this. It's an extremely expensive undertaking, in many cases
causing more harm than good to its host city. And I covered it before. Cities are dropping out because they were spending tens
of billions of dollars on the hosting process. This chart shows the host city's initial budget versus
what they ended up spending. They're quite different. Like this or this or this. The London 2012 Olympics ended up being nearly four
times more than what they initially set out to spend. That's detrimental to a host's budget, especially
problematic for cities and countries with an already weak economy and extreme inequities like the state of
Rio that defaulted as a result of a heavy debt load in

2016. Or Greece, whose debt crisis became so
catastrophic it was put on a fiscal monitoring by the European Commission just a year
after hosting the games. But Paris is looking to be a bit different. The city budgeted $9.7 billion, spending about half on
infrastructure and the other half on operating costs, and so far it's looking good. We expect the Paris 2024 Summer games would be the
cheapest of the 21st century because the needs were really limited, so other events
were not as high as previous games. So how did France pull it off and can they become the
blueprint for future host cities projects? This is Thomas Bach, the president of the
International Olympic Committee. It's a clip from 2017 when he announced Paris as the
host city of the 2024 Summer games. We are all therefore delighted to see that your plans
include a record number of existing and temporary venues.

The key here is the record number of existing and
temporary venues. Paris's initial budget was set to $6.97 billion when
it officially won in 2017. It revised its budget to 8.1 billion. The city ended up with 9.7 billion, still well below
the past five Olympics. Olympic budgets are split into two parts: operating
costs and infrastructure costs. Operating costs are typically the more manageable of
the two. It's essentially the necessary cost to get the games
up and running, like security, transportation, medical services, customs, immigration, and more. Paris was already strong in many of those areas. The IOC set an operating budget of $4.8 billion. As a result, infrastructure costs have always been a
bit of a thorn in the side of host cities. In the past, prior cities have overspent by billions
of dollars on construction of new venues, Olympic villages, and building new or expanding existing public
infrastructure for the games.

To get all of that construction done before the opening ceremony starts, it becomes an expensive race against time. In Paris's case, construction costs were manageable at $4.9 billion. 95% of the venues were already in place. Only three were built. There is the Olympic Village that is the largest project for the game, and you have a new swimming pool in Saint-Denis. I think it's a bit less than 200 million. And then you have a new sport facility within the city limits of Paris. The Olympic Village will be turned into housing and student accommodation. They expect to have 2800 units after the games, so that will be a huge boost for the local areas. You may be wondering who pays for all of this. It's generally split into private and public funding. It's when the weight of public funding becomes too heavy that a host fails, like in Rio and Athens cases. For Paris and France's case, it hasn't been so, at least for now.

That's because 96% of the total operating budget is funded by things like ticket sales, TV, and marketing deals. Paris won its bid in 2017 amid a time of immense turmoil for the IOC. Up until then, every Olympics since the 1960s had run over its budget by an average of 172%. Rio is perhaps the most eye-popping example, at 352% over budget. A problematic subway line that was supposed to connect fans to the Olympic venues cost the city about $3 billion. It was overbuilt by 25%. The renovation project of a neighborhood cost $4.2 billion, and neither were on time. Brazil hosted the games as it went into its deepest recession in nearly a century. The same reason why it didn't make sense to build them before the Olympics is the reason why, after the Olympics, they're underutilized or unused. And what are they doing there?

Well, first of all, they cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Secondly, they cost tens of millions of dollars to maintain over time. These so-called white elephants are an ongoing problem for for host cities. As we saw earlier, a big part of the pair's bid was. It's the record number of existing and temporary venues. While Paris hasn't avoided the usual overspending, it's a fraction of what other cities deviated from their original budget. The method of the government has always been this would be cheap games, the cheapest in recent history, and they would not burden our public deficit or our debt and would benefit everyone. If you compare the size of the budget to French GDP, it's only 0.3%, so that's rather limited. And it's much lower than, let's say, a Athens in 2004 that represented a larger share of Greek GDP. Paris is also uniquely positioned to host a big event, with its 100 million annual visitors accounting for 7

to 8% of its GDP. Paris has an extensive metro network, but also many
train lines, and I think this was a really positive for the gains, meaning that most
people, tourists will use the transportation infra to go to the different venues. With mounting criticism, the IOC adjusted its bidding
process. In December 2014, the IOC released the Olympic Agenda
2020, the goal to make hosting easier on cities. What agenda 2020 did at the time was to restate a
policy or policies that the IOC started in the 1990s, and the
intention was to promote financial security for the host city and
also to promote sustainability. Promoted a little bit of greater flexibility on the
part of the IOC in terms of allowing host cities to use existing venues rather than to build new
venues, and that was, at least on the margin, a good thing for the host cities. Under the Olympic Agenda 2020 and its 2016 amendment
the new norm if a city needs new venues, new

Construction must have long-term legacy post-Olympics. The overall economic and environmental impact was not changed very much, and as a result of that, they continued to have more and more problems. In fact, worsening problems with getting potential host cities to actually express an interest in hosting. We finally got to the point in 2017 where five cities dropped out of the competition to host the 2024 games. The ones that are about to happen, only Paris and Los Angeles remained in the competition in 2017. It was the first time in IOC history that two hosts were chosen for back-to-back Olympics. By locking in two cities at once, the IOC wouldn't have to worry about facing another mad dash to land a host after cities dropped their bids. When you have a fully developed city like Paris or Los Angeles hosting the games, and they already have the vast majority of the venues, this is obviously a smaller problem. And that's good news.

That's good news. In 2019, the selection process changed altogether, this
time by closing off the bidding process. While Paris is considered to be one of the
cheapest modern Olympics, it all hinges on what kind of economic
windfall the games will see. While the IOC estimates that the games will generate
7.3 to $12.1 billion, other estimates are much more modest. One study estimates GDP growth of 0.5% in the third
quarter, before falling back to 0.1% for the following three months. S&p Global Projects Paris tourism and spending related
to Olympic activity will grow tax income by 5%. Paris projects its 2024 revenue to hit over $200
million, about an 85% jump from 2023. But being a major tourism hub and holding the world's
biggest sporting event may have some adverse side effects, like increased pressure on Paris's already
busy metro lines. Tourism not being high as expected, or security costs
becoming increasingly more expensive as the games

progress. The main pain point would be the transportation
network, because many people would go at the same place at the same time for the different competition, and
this could add a pressure to the network that is already saturated. The transportation authorities said they would add
extra capacity on metro lines and train lines, but maybe this won't be sufficient to absorb higher
ridership, so we could see network disruptions from time to time. I think this is expected. Air France estimates a loss of about $200 million from
June to August, as traffic to and from Paris lags behind other major European cities due to the
Olympics, and some tourists are avoiding the city altogether. But economists like Zimbalist believe the
biggest risk to Paris's cheap budget is security. They say that the security costs in the budget are
approximately $340 million. I don't think that number is realistic. They have already admitted to having more than 50,000
security personnel who will be working the games.

But beyond direct personnel costs, we know that there
are a lot of other costs you're involving. You're engaging heavy military equipment for for the
games. You're buying equipment to, to contest any drones that
are being used by terrorists or other people. You're doing all sorts of things that go way
beyond the security costs. And previous Olympic Games have been known to spend
over a billion, up to $2 billion in security. So they're giving us a number 340, $350 million. And it's just not a realistic statement of of what the
security costs are. The Olympics have their host cities locked up until
2034 so far. Each city's plan will get an insight into whether or
not the new guidelines are sustainable. Paris and LA will follow similar blueprints with
little to no building needed. Brisbane in 2032 will test how flexible the IOC's new
recommendations truly are. Brisbane will have 11 new venues, with about half
being permanent since the Olympic Agenda 2020 and the

new Norm plans were enacted. The bidding process might be more challenging for
potential host cities trying to win the 2036 games and beyond. Previous hosts used the Olympics to put their
emerging cities on the world stage, showcasing large-scale infrastructure projects in the hopes of
attracting tourism and commercial business. With decades of overspending from both emerging and established
cities, the IOC may avoid picking a city that may need a lot of new infrastructure to host. And now that the bidding and selection process is done
behind closed doors, bidders won't know who they're up against or even if their bids were seriously
considered. Zimbalist believes that the solution for hosting the
Olympics may not depend solely on whether or not a host city has the existing infrastructure or the capital
to spend on large-scale projects. The real solution, he says, is one central location
for the Olympics. So I think the logical longer-term solution is to have
one permanent host for the Winter games

the Summer games. So, it doesn't have to, we don't have
to rebuild it every time, and the city would have more and more experience to be able to handle all of
all of the very, very complicated operational and security issues that surround the
Olympics. Now, that's not an easy thing to do overnight
politically, but I think it's important to start discussing that. Maybe initially, you have 2 or 3 cities that are in a
rotation. That's the direction in which I think this whole
process should be moving.

How Paris Pulled Off One Of The Cheapest Olympics

Welcome to the official YouTube channel for CNBC. From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.

For real-time news updates from around the world, visit: http://www.cnbc.com

For CNBC's primetime TV lineup, visit http://tv.cnbc.com

For CNBC's International YouTube channel, visit: http://www.youtube.com/cnbcinternational

CNBC

2024 파리 올림픽: 개최에 대한 색다른 접근 방식

2024 파리 올림픽의 예산은 97억 달러로, 이 중 절반은 인프라에, 나머지 절반은 운영 비용에 배정되어 21세기 올림픽 중 가장 비용 효율적인 대회로 기록되었습니다.

파리 올림픽의 성공 비결은 기존 경기장과 임시 경기장을 최대한 활용하여 예산을 지난 5번의 올림픽보다 낮게 책정할 수 있었다는 점입니다.

보안, 교통, 의료 서비스를 포함한 올림픽 운영 비용은 국제 올림픽 위원회가 48억 달러로 책정한 반면, 인프라 비용으로 인해 개최 도시들은 역사적으로 수십억 달러의 과다 지출을 해왔습니다.

파리 올림픽 건설 비용과 자금 조달

파리 올림픽 건설 비용은 49억 달러로 관리 가능한 수준이었으며, 경기장의 95%가 이미 완공되었고 신규 건설은 단 3곳에 불과했습니다.

전체 운영 예산의 대부분인 96%를 티켓 판매, TV 및 마케팅 계약으로 충당하여 공공 자금에 대한 부담을 줄였습니다.

올림픽 선수촌이 주택과 학생 숙소로 탈바꿈하여 대회가 끝난 후 2800세대를 제공하는 등 건설 프로젝트는 지역 경제에 큰 활력을 불어넣을 것으로 기대됩니다.

올림픽 의제 2020이 파리 개최에 미치는 영향

IOC의 올림픽 어젠다 2020은 개최 도시의 재정적 안정성과 지속가능성을 높이기 위해 신축 대신 기존 경기장을 활용하는 것을 목표로 삼았습니다.

긍정적인 변화에도 불구하고 개최지 선정 과정은 여전히 난관에 부딪혔고, 2019년에는 새로운 선정 절차로 이어졌습니다.

파리는 2024년 올림픽을 통해 상당한 경제적 부양을 기대하고 있지만, 도시의 인프라와 재정에 미칠 수 있는 잠재적인 악영향에 대한 우려도 있습니다.

파리 올림픽의 도전 과제와 재정적 영향

파리 올림픽은 당국의 수송 능력 증대 계획에도 불구하고 파리 교통망에 부담을 줄 것으로 예상됩니다.

이 행사로 인해 에어프랑스는 상당한 재정적 손실을 입을 것으로 예상되며, 경제학자들 사이에서는 예산의 보안 비용에 대해 많은 논쟁이 벌어지고 있습니다.

다가오는 파리 올림픽과 향후 개최 도시는 새로운 IOC 지침의 지속 가능성에 대한 통찰력을 제공할 것입니다.

올림픽 개최지 선정의 새로운 기준은 잠재적 개최 도시들이 향후 올림픽을 유치하는 것을 더욱 어렵게 만들 수 있습니다.

대규모 인프라 프로젝트에서 운영 및 보안 문제를 처리할 수 있는 능력으로 초점이 옮겨가면서 하계와 동계 올림픽 모두에 한 개의 영구 개최지를 선정하되, 두세 도시가 돌아가며 개최하는 방안이 제안되고 있습니다.

이 변경안은 올림픽마다 인프라를 재건할 필요성을 없애고 개최 도시가 대회 운영에 더 많은 경험을 쌓을 수 있도록 하는 것을 목표로 합니다.