If this is true, why is there no evidence? Tourism in cities that have hosted the olympics doesn’t have an increase - certainly for london it didn’t. There’s no economic benefits in the years following for the host country that have been observed. It is doubtful that these second order benefits exist at all.

Even for “name recognition” as an end in itself - cities like London and Tokyo are hardly backwaters in need of a PR boost.

If tackling obesity is such a priority, I’m sure there’s more direct and effective ways to tackle it with 11 billion quid.

> If this is true, why is there no evidence?

How well can companies evidentiate their brand awareness campaigns? How well can an actress calculate returns from having attended a talk-show? Evidence of absence cannot reliably be inferred from an absence of evidence.

> Even for “name recognition” as an end in itself - cities like London and Tokyo are hardly backwaters in need of a PR boost.

Familiarity is not the same as salience. Coca Cola is known by virtually the entire world, that doesn't make them stop the ads or branding campaigns.

> If tackling obesity is such a priority, I’m sure there’s more direct and effective ways to tackle it with 11 billion quid.

Conceivable doesn't mean doable. There are many direct and effective ways of improving a great many things in the world, yet they don't happen.

Just like a great startup idea doesn't translate to a billion dollar revenue, political implementation doesn't spring into existence just from good ideas either.

>How well can companies evidentiate their brand awareness campaign?

Remarkably well actually. You can do things like ask people questions about the olympics and the sponsor city and then put them into cohorts based on their answers. From that, you can look at how much spending occurred in the target city from each cohort.