It only seems appropriate that the 2004 Athens Olympics opened on Friday the 13th. The ill-fated games almost never came to be; plagued with building delays, construction cost overruns, heightened security demands and labour disputes. Nonetheless, after a last minute Herculean effort to prepare all the venues, Athens was ready and the Olympics kicked-off on schedule.

As many Greeks watched the spectacular opening ceremonies with pride, the government accounting office was (and still is) busy tallying up the total cost of the Games. The original budget of $7.3 billion has increased three times and some analysts have predicted a final price tag of $15.8 billion. (Remember, provincial taxpayers will be covering any financial shortfalls for the 2010 Winter Olympics).

In other words, every man, woman and child in Greece will have a tax bill of $1,483 for the 16 day event. The spiraling costs will also push Greece's deficit beyond the European Union (EU) threshold of three per cent of GDP. Greece has until November 5, 2004 to get its financial house in order or the EU will downgrade its financial rating. As a result, the first round of big government cuts is expected to come in October with the draft budget for 2005.

So, Greek taxpayers are stuck with a bill of mythological proportions, government services will be slashed, the debt will grow and their financial rating will drop. But, at least the tourism industry saw a huge influx of dollars, right? Not so. Over 5,000 rooms were still available in Athens two days before the opening ceremonies. The stands at sporting events are nearly empty and tickets are selling for as low as $11.

While on tour in Athens, Premier Campbell and members of the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee (VANOC) should be asking, what went wrong? Why do some Olympics cost taxpayers more than others and what can we learn from the Greek experience?

The management of the Olympic Games is influenced by three main variables: budgeting, organizational structure and politics. Initial Olympic budgets are usually prepared seven to eight years in advance. Revenues and expenses for the Games are only rough estimates and are made even more difficult to forecast by International Olympic Committee (IOC) requirements. For example, all candidate cities must submit their bids in today's US dollars. Therefore, when the Bid Corporation, VANOC's predecessor, prepared the budget for the 2010 Olympic Games it was in 2002 US dollars. As a result, the Vancouver's bid budget is already $40 million short in inflation costs alone.

Unplanned expenses, like Greece's security costs, can also wreak havoc on an Olympic budget. In 1997 when Athens won its bid, estimated security costs were much lower than the $1.9 billion (US) they are expected to spend this year.

The IOC owns the Olympic brand and as a result has a great deal of discretion over a host city's Olympic organization committee, expenditures and revenue. For example, for the 2010 Olympics, the IOC will negotiate broadcasting fees and international sponsorship agreements and then determine what level of revenue will be shared with VANOC. Therefore, in Vancouver's "Bid Book" 8.7% of estimated revenue is from international sponsorships but the actual amount will depend on the IOC.

The highly speculative and unpredictable nature of Olympic budgeting mandates an adequate contingency fund be allocated. BC's Auditor-General has criticized the 2010 Olympics contingency fund as insufficient. The $139 million is expected to cover unplanned expenses and any shortfalls in revenue.

Civic pride and politics can also dramatically drive up the costs of the Olympics. The newly elected Greek government is blaming its last minute spending spree on the poor management of the previous government. BC has six years and two more governments before the 2010 Olympics; hopefully taxpayer interests will trump partisan bickering.

In any event, VANOC and the premier should affirm their commitment to taxpayers and adopt the following recommendations.

First, truth in budgeting should be the paramount principle when estimating the cost of capital projects and operating expenditures.

Second, all contracts should be open, transparent and competitive to maximize value for dollars.

Third, VANOC and the province should commit to an expanded role for the private sector. Public-private partnerships should be pursued for all capital projects; this will limit taxpayer risk and ensure the commercial viability of such projects.

Fourth, VANOC should be committed to transparency in all its decision-making and management. According to a VANOC spokesperson their first fiscal year ended July 31, 2004, the public should therefore be expecting the first round of audited financial statements by October 31, 2004.

If nothing else, Athens should demonstrate the importance of planning and honest budgeting. As we anxiously watch our athletes compete over the next few days, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation will be holding our breath, hoping that the premier and VANOC learned some valuable Greek lessons in Olympic management.