NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With help from hometown heroes like the Obamas, Chicago is aggressively lobbying to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. But making the games profitable would not be an easy win.
Chicago is competing with Tokyo, Madrid, Spain and Rio de Janeiro in wooing the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen. A decision is expected Friday.
Chicago 2016, the organization leading the effort to host the games, expects a cost of $3.8 billion, including a "rainy day" fund of $450 million in case of unforeseen increases.
But there's good reason to be skeptical of that projection, said Robert Livingstone, producer of GamesBids.com and a leading expert in the Olympic selection process. Host cities routinely overrun their Olympic budgets, he said.
"It's going to be more expensive than we think it's going to be, because it typically is," Livingstone said. "I think every [host] city is going to lose money. It's not an efficient event."
The bidding process alone is costing Chicago about $100 million, even if it doesn't win, Livingstone noted.
An argument often made by host city advocates is that presenting the international spectacle is good for a local economy. But such "trickle-down effects," like benefits to local businesses, are "almost impossible to measure," Livingstone said.
"I think a lot of people look at the Olympics, and they try to justify it by how much money it adds to the economy," said Livingstone. "[But] if you're in this to make money and improve your economy, you're in it for the wrong reasons."
A Chicago 2016 spokesman, who asked not be named, stood by the $3.8 billion projection. "Our numbers are completely feasible thanks to the infrastructure already in place, the number of venues already built and the temporary nature of the majority of those we're planning to build," he wrote, in an e-mail.
Planes, trains and stadiums
Olympic budgets and preparation differ widely from city to city.
Athens, host of the 2004 summer games, budgeted $8.3 billion, including $5.8 billion to overhaul its infrastructure, with a new subway network, airport, roads, railway and tram system.
"It depends upon what you have to do to host the Olympics," said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Northhampton, Mass., who has written on the subject of sports economics. "Some cities are more equipped at day one [in terms of arenas and other facilities.] "Some cities need to build infrastructure, others don't. Some cities need to build hotels, others don't. Some cities have security they need to build up, others don't."
It also depends on what the cities want to do. While Athens focused on badly-needed infrastructure to accommodate the Olympics, Beijing spent more heavily to turn the 2008 summer games into a lavish spectacle. Beijing spent an estimated $40 billion on infrastructure and on such eye-popping venues such as the Bird's Nest stadium, Zimbalist said.
The stadium isn't even used for sports events anymore; it's being converted into a shopping mall and hotel. Zimbalist said the building of such extravagances is the risk they turn into under-used "white elephants." But he added that Beijing got what it wanted: to present itself to the world as a major player.
Original Post
And there are much bigger fish to fry than them! Which is really what we need to be concentrating on most.
... I dunno about that ... 
)
to save face, huh?