Boston’s 2024 Olympic bid contained a number of financial risks, most of which could have forced the public to cover unexpected costs, according to a long-anticipated report on the now-defunct bid.

The Cambridge-based Brattle Group referenced the International Olympic Committee’s financial guarantee, which requires host cities to cover any budgetary shortfalls related to the Olympics, in saying state and local coffers would have been responsible for any games-related risk.

“The taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be the ultimate risk bearers,’’ the report read, noting that the IOC and the United States Olympic Committee were not on the hook for shortfalls.


The report was released Tuesday morning, more than three weeks after the United States Olympic Committee opted to move on from Boston as its bidding city. The report was commissioned by Gov. Charlie Baker and other state leaders in the spring.

It became a flashpoint toward the end of bidding committee Boston 2024’s tenure when Baker said he refused to take a position either in support or opposition of the bid until after the report was released. Baker’s reluctance to take a position was one factor that led the USOC to drop Boston’s bid, which for months suffered due to low public support.

The report rattled off several areas of risk or potential cost to the public.

For example, the report included a look at tax exemptions for the IOC, one of the many requirements of the international organization. It noted that Boston 2024 did not appear to include either costs or revenue associated with the Paralympics in its budget. The report also suggested Boston 2024 had underestimated venue costs by $970 million based on past Olympics, and that it utilized lower-than-industry-standard built-in contingencies for construction projects. That conflicts with Boston 2024’s claims that it had budgeted conservatively in its Olympic bid.


“This independent analysis completed by experts hired by the state confirms that Boston 2024 was a risky deal for taxpayers,’’ opposition group No Boston Olympics said in a statement. “The healthy skepticism expressed by voters and leaders in the State House was warranted. Massachusetts dodged a bullet.’’

In a lengthy statement, Boston 2024 disputed some of the Brattle Group’s findings, arguing Brattle’s cost estimates were based on past Olympics and not on Boston 2024’s own specific cost breakdowns. For example, it said its plans for temporary or leased venues would be cheaper than past Olympics’ permanent venues. And Boston 2024 said it had included the Paralympics in its budget, contrary to the Brattle report’s claim.

The report suggested Boston 2024’s projected surplus could have easily been wiped away, leaving the public on the hook. “[T]he projected surplus of $210 million in 2016 dollars was less than five percent of [Boston 2024]’s estimated costs of $4.595 billion,’’ the report read. “This indicates that were [Boston 2024] costs to have increased by five percent, the entire surplus would have been negated.’’

Another example of risky budgeting cited by the report was a Boston 2024 estimate that relocating an MBTA bus facility would have cost $61 million. The MBTA estimated the real cost would have been between $200 million and $300 million. The cost would have been covered privately, according to Boston 2024’s plan.

Boston 2024’s bid relied on outside developers taking on significant work in service of the bid, such as by preparing the site of the Olympic Stadium at Widett Circle. The report said developers and their insurance policies may have been able to pick up the costs associated with “smaller adverse events,’’ but that “larger adverse events that push the master developers into insolvency could have created significant cost shifting to the Commonwealth.’’


The Brattle report also said Boston 2024 was overly optimistic in estimating what it would have cost the state to fund some needed infrastructure projects. The cost to improve the JFK Station could have been another $40 million to $50 million beyond Boston 2024’s $60 million estimate, the report said.

The Brattle report, which cost the state up to $250,000, did not offer a recommendation on the bid, instead serving as an analysis to help state leaders form an opinion.

Baker said in a statement that even with the Olympic bid come and gone, the report is “an objective examination for future planning and infrastructure projects in and around Boston.’’

Senate President Stan Rosenberg was more pointed in his assessment.

“Even though the bid was withdrawn, this report demonstrates that there were a series of real risks associated with bringing the games to Massachusetts,’’ Rosenberg said.

Read the full report here.

What a Boston Olympics could have looked like