Although events like the Olympics do produce benefits, the international experience suggests that the ephemeral and exaggerated benefits privilege the elite at the expense of the poor; socioeconomic inequalities tend to be exacerbated; and the taxpayer picks up the astronomical bill.

Sport, which was once a form of entertainment based on ability and healthy competition and traditionally embodied a sense of honour, prestige and national pride, has now emerged as an essential political, social and economic force - for example, the competition to host the Olympic Games and Fifa World Cup.

A common argument is that such global sports events provide opportunities for local economic development and attract foreign investment. Although such events do produce benefits, the international experience suggests that the ephemeral and exaggerated benefits privilege the elite at the expense of the poor; socioeconomic inequalities tend to be exacerbated; and the taxpayer picks up the astronomical bill.

Organisations like Fifa, the International Olympics Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation (which are not known for transparency and public accountability) have basically developed a franchise model that delineates the form and structure of sporting events in significant detail. Furthermore, as I have written before, the bidding country commits to absorbing any cost overruns, a guarantee that is like signing a blank cheque.

There are many examples of cities still paying off crippling debt after hosting the Games. It has been argued that staging the Olympics is like an investment on...