EACH OF the four cities in the final sprint this morning to host the 2016 Games will have faced dissent at home regarding the prospect of hosting the Games. Every city that gets into the race experiences the same worries and has to ask itself the same questions.

What will be the precise economic impact of hosting a Games? Will there be a larger legacy? Usually the answers which a city provides for itself are based on wishful thinking and sunny optimism. The more dismal of those drawn from the ranks of dismal economists have grown increasingly sceptical in recent times as to the very premise on which virtually every city’s estimate of economic impact is based.

Most cities when preparing a bid and considering how much money they will pour into that bid fail to include the opportunity cost of the bid. In other words what could the same money provide if not directed at the Olympic Games but on hospitals and schools, etc.

And the assessments of economic impact fail to address the depressing fact that the usual bandits generally make off with the loot. An Olympics is like an intensely-experienced Celtic Tiger. The construction industry generally gets fat and rich.

Hotel occupancies improve just slightly, but income doubles as demand drives up price.

Most other businesses fail to experience the great boon which hosting an Olympics promises because the Games mean a massive influx of competition. In Atlanta in 1996 vendors ended up suing the city having paid money in advance for vending sites only to discover that the amount of competition made them uneconomic.

And how much will a Games cost to stage. The counting ain’t over till it’s over. London’s Games in 2012 are still three depression- pocked years away. The projected cost has risen by over 50 per cent already.

Athens incurred massive debts finding that in a changing world it had to spend $1.5 billion on security for the Games and even the so called landmark wonder of the Los Angeles Games in 1984 which yielded profit for the US Olympic Committee and many private sponsors took 25 years of subsequent contributions from ordinary Californian taxpayers.

To host the Atlanta Games in 1996 the city spent $1.58 billion creating 24,742 full and part-time jobs, that’s almost $64,000 per job created, not counting the strain on health and educational infrastructures and the cost of increased crime levels which came about as a result of the massive influx of people who came to Atlanta looking for low paid work.

Even Sydney, an Olympic celebration remembered very fondly within the Olympic movement, has struggled with its own legacy. The Homebush Bay Olympic campus including the Olympic Stadium is a veritable ghost town and New South Wales spends close to $50 million a year just upkeeping under-used Olympic facilities.

But the four cities bidding today will pay no heed to the figures which are spewed out by grey men and women. Although they have spent the guts of half a decade reassuring the citizenry back home of the viability of the Games and the positive benefits which will accrue they know deep down that what matters with the Games is the sizzle and not the steak.

The appeal of the Games for the cities involved are probably best encapsulated by the Barcelona Games, the single most successful Games of recent times and an event which went a long way towards transforming a city.

Barcelona managed a massive urban transformation on the back of the Games and notably spread the economic impact to surrounding Catalonia and to Valencia and Aragon.

Between 1985 and 1992 Barcelona airport received a 119 per cent increase in international passengers. More importantly the perception amongst citizens was that the Games were a source of pride and enjoyment. In the seven years from the Games being awarded to Barcelona to the time of them being staged the impact on the city’s tax balance was hugely positive. In the years immediately afterwards it was slightly negative, but not enough to change the perception of the Games among taxpayers.

When the Games were over Barcelona was left with a vastly improved quality of life, the city’s gnarled traffic was now taken away on two new ring roads, there was a gleaming new airport and swathes of attractive low-cost public housing.

The Games represent many things to many people but when they work they offer a city a chance to regenerate itself and showcase itself and the benefits come in all sorts of intangible ways. At least that is what today’s winners will be telling their citizens.

Today's Timetable

8.30am IOC President Jacques Rogge addresses the IOC.

8.45am Chicago bid makes 45-minute presentation (plus 15 minutes for QA).

10.25am Tokyo presentation.

12.05pm Rio de Janeiro presentation.

2.45pm Madrid presentation,

4pm Report of IOC Evaluation Commission given to IOC members.

4.50pm Test vote.

5.10pm Voting takes place!

6.30pm-7pm Announcement Ceremony.