If hosting the Olympic Games is the sure-fire moneymaker that governments routinely claim they are, then why doesn't anyone else get in on the action? Why don't deep-pocketed multinationals like Microsoft or a consortium of business interests join forces with a host city to showcase an Olympic Games event for the same reason the BC government claims to be pursuing the 2010 Winter Olympic bid? Profit motive.

The BC government is resting its case to host the Games on the economic multiplier argument. It works something like steroids, where outcomes magically far exceed inputs. Jack Poole, head of the Vancouver 2010 Bid, said that British Columbia could expect three bucks for every dollar invested if it were to host the Games. That's a profit return of 200% on investment. Incredible!

Poole is right about one thing, no other government investments show as high a payback. In fact, there are few, if any, private sector investments that show that spectacular a rate of return. Either Poole is an incorrigible optimist or there's something to these Olympic Games that the private sector should take a second look at.

The single greatest benefit of the private sector hosting the Olympic Games is the elimination of cost and risk to taxpayers. For every study forecasting the great economic forces to be unleashed by the hosting of an Olympic event, another study concludes it's all voodoo economics leading to deficits and questionable spending.

It's next to impossible to predict whether BC's hosting of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games would be a financial success like Calgary or a legendary failure like Montreal. It's a crap shot either way and anyone's guess if the odds are in BC's favour. So why risk scarce tax dollars at all if the private sector is willing to run the gambit for fame or infamy?

A private sector host surely has the means to pull-off a first rate Olympic production. Take for example the Gray Cup or the Super Bowl, two successful sporting events without government quarterbacking the production.

The private sector should have no trouble with the financing either. Seeing as the Vancouver bid is relying on revenues from corporate sponsors, television contracts and ticket sales to cover the operating budget, private sector management would be a shoe-in.

Capital costs like the construction of new sports venues and accommodations for athletes would be built for the same reasons they're built elsewhere in the world - market demand and sufficient investor return. If public demand calls for a bobsled track and a ski jump, an investor will fill the need.

It's true that the private sector is unlikely to spring millions of dollars to widen the Sea-to-Sky highway or lay track for a new light rail link from the airport to downtown Vancouver. But Premier Gordon Campbell says those projects were worthy investments in and of themselves and should not be added to the ledger of the Olympic bid budget. They'll get the green light despite the bid.

A private sector host like Microsoft is equally equipped as any other small country to leverage capital for an event watched by billions of viewers. Microsoft's revenues were $28 billion in 2002 compared to $30 billion for the Swiss government - a one-time frontrunner for the 2010 Games.

Alternatively, a consortium of business interests could form a bid corporation and issue an initial public offering that would allow individuals and businesses who stand to gain from the hosting of the Games in their own city to buy into the event. According to Mr. Poole's calculations, investors could expect dividends with a 200% rate of return.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) may have a thing or two to say about the private sector muscling in on one of the nation state's exclusive domain. But rules can always be changed to suite the times. And the time has come to end the nation state's monopoly on hosting an international sporting event that taxpayers the world-over are becoming increasing weary about subsidizing.

Burned once, twice shy was the lesson learned by taxpayers in Bern, Switzerland, who voted in a referendum to kibosh the city's bid for the Games. An unsuccessful world fair in Switzerland earlier in the year took the sheen off slick economic arguments used to rally support around the Olympic bid.

BC should be so lucky. Instead of troubling taxpayers with a referendum on whether or not to blow $600 million on a two-week sporting event, the Campbell government should just call off the party and withdraw its bid. The wisdom and enthusiasm the government shows for privatizing BC crown corporations should be extended to a private-sector-run Olympics as well.

Time for a reality check. The private sector won't jockey to host the Games for the same reason Bern gave it the thumbs down. The high costs and expectations set by the IOC are totally divorced from the public's ability to pay. Without the massive taxpayer subsidies, the Games would be little more than an inexpensive sporting contest between amateur athletes. Not a bad idea.