So you're saying that by underwriting events the government is losing opportunity cost by not funding say infrastructure
or are you're saying that by underwriting events the government is losing opportunity cost by not reducing debt ?
Im saying (in this case) tourism wa (?) Is spending $xxxx on an event, there are other events or campaigns that cannot happen. The opportunity cost is the benefits that these foresaken arrangements would have provided
For example, instead of ir, if tourism wa underwrote an exclsive australian tour of the Bolshoi to perth
Also you math doesnt account for internal transfers
For instance, if
Kwality goes and spends $300 on the night (all up), this isnt $300 of nee economic activity for wa. Kwaility hates non sandgropers, so he hasnt left the state since he got back from ww2. If he didnt go to this event, he would have spent his money elsewhere in wa on booze, bongs, hookers, and wcepornhub.com
So the economic benefit is only from those sales of people who came into wa for the event, or those in wa who would have spent outside the state if not for the event
Otherwise you are just xhanging how the money is spent, not where (wa)
A lot of marketing is around some of these events, and some state bodies put a value on this. The f1 gp is a classic. "Melbourne" is a sponsor, and it with the ausopen underpins the states global marketing campaign
I dont think this is a factor for ir because ive seen zero ads so far in vic (and we will be the prime target market)
Finally you have feel good factor. It costs money, generates little, and is the main reason polis underwrite sporting events