My research on the Olympics has focused primarily on two questions. First, why do American cities seek to host an Olympic games given that it is a costly undertaking with uncertain economic benefits? The answer that my co-authors and I developed was that cities pursue the Olympics as way to rebuild and redefine the city's image as part of what we termed a "mega-event strategy,” using the games as a way to attract attention and visitors as part of a consumption-oriented development of some American cities. The second question is: who opposes the Olympics in American cities and why? Our answer to this question was that opposition was not part of a broader anti-growth effort, but was aimed primarily at preventing very specific harms, such as an unwanted sports facility in a neighborhood or taxpayer money being used to build venues. Our more recent research has focused on the ways in which opposition to the Olympics in American cities has become more sophisticated and more transnational, e.g., sharing resources with other Olympic opponents in cities in other states or countries.

In our early research on the nature of opposition, we found that nearly all opposition was based on avoiding or mitigating specific harms that residents expected due to proposed  Olympics-related development. For example, prior to the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, environmental activists were strongly opposed to the Olympics being used to further development in Big or Little Cottonwood canyons. Once Olympics promoters agreed to add "no-development in the Cottonwood Canyons" language to the ballot proposal, environmentalists largely muted their opposition. In more recent research on the nature of opposition to the Olympics in American cities (Chicago, Boston, and Los Angeles), we found that opposition groups had become more sophisticated in their organizational efforts, use of social media, and work with other groups including opponents in other cities.

Cities bid for the Olympics through a process that is run by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the process has changed a great deal over time. In the early years, the selection of cities to host the games was usually done behind the scenes as a deal between members of the IOC and city officials. Later (roughly the late 1980 to 2010), the process became more competitive internationally between cities and the IOC created a highly structured process of bid proposals and selection by a vote of IOC members. When it became more difficult to have a large number of cities compete against each other, the IOC changed the process again and it has evolved into what the IOC uses today. The current process involves two stages: the first is a process the IOC calls "continuing dialogue" and the second, more serious, stage is "targeted dialogue." These “dialogues” are essentially a series of backroom interactions. This process is thus no longer a multi-city competition for IOC votes but is now a series of ongoing discussions between members of the IOC, the NOC—National Olympic Committee, in the US, this committee is the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, or USOPC—the possible candidate city. While there is still a vote by IOC members, that vote is now pro forma as all the detailed work of arranging the bid has been done behind the scenes. Public support for the bid in the city, state or region is important to the IOC. One of the IOC’s unstated reasons for moving most of the bidding process out of the public eye is to make it more difficult for opponents to organize public opposition to a city hosting the games.

Given the increase in opposition to hosting the Olympics in a number of cities around the world, the IOC appears to be adapting by negotiating with low-risk cities to serve as future hosts. Salt Lake City fits this pattern because the city has held the games before, did so successfully, and has remained engaged with the USOPC, IOC and various national and international sports organizations over the years. Because Salt Lake City had hosted the games in 2002 and maintained a number of Olympic venues—ski jumping, speedskating, cross-country skiing—and had an active Olympic bid committee lead and staffed by people with Olympic experience, it was an easy choice for the IOC to return in 2034.

The benefits/risks to hosting an Olympics are usually considered in two categories: One, economic gains/losses; and two, intangible benefits/risks. For Salt Lake City, there are potential economic benefits to be generated by hosting another Olympics. Money will be spent on venues and transportation, visitors will come to Utah, and people will be hired to work in hotels, restaurants, etc. Of course, along with this spending are opportunity costs, which is to say that taxpayer money used to help hold the games could have been used for other public purposes that might have produced more valuable outcomes, such as reducing homelessness or providing childcare for low-income workers. The Gardner Policy Institute has issued a report on the economic benefits of hosting the 2034 games claiming a net economic output of $6.6 billion from $2.6 billion in direct spending. As any objective economist would note, this estimate is an exaggeration of the overall economic impact based on an extremely favorable set of assumptions. The reality is that any estimate of economic benefit at this point is extremely speculative because conditions, economic and political, may change. Consider for example the Tokyo 2020 summer games. Tokyo was another city that had hosted the Olympics before – it should have been an easy, low-risk event. Except, of course, for the global pandemic which meant that the games were delayed for a year and then held under circumstances where visitors were not allowed into the country and spectators were not at the games. Whatever economic benefit the city of Tokyo anticipated was certainly not realized.

The intangible benefits are usually associated with image. In 2002, the Salt Lake Games were regarded as a way to put Utah or Salt Lake City “on the map.” While the games did go well, there is no evidence that hosting the games changed the views of people in Europe or Asia about Utah or Salt Lake City. Hosting the event for a second time may mean that any intangible benefits are harder to achieve. In sum, it is hard to know whether being a city that has hosted a Winter Olympics twice carries any real tangible or intangible benefits. The most likely benefit is that by hosting the games in 2034, Salt Lake may be positioned to be one of several rotating locations if the IOC moves to a model of having only a few host cities and using them on a rotating basis.

The IOC expects host cities or regions to be supportive of hosting the games. The IOC usually requires the city to provide some survey data to show support for the games, but the IOC does not worry very much about how the survey was conducted or how the questions were asked. One of the strengths of Utah's efforts to get the 2034 Winter Games was that surveys conducted in the state showed strong support for bringing the games back. The IOC was also pleased that Utah had continued to maintain and use its Olympic venues such as the speedskating oval and ski jump. The re-use of existing facilities is something that the IOC claims to promote under its “sustainability” criteria. Despite the recent emphasis by the IOC on sustainability, whatever that might mean, there is almost no evidence to indicate that this criterion has become important to the IOC’s choice of where to hold future games.