In 1996, as the Sydney Olympics loomed, a fundraising document went out for a unique investment in the stadium slated to host the upcoming Games. The prospectus was decorated with pictures of long-jumpers, footballers, a gigantic Olympic torch. "This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for all Australians to share in this historic moment," the prospectus said. These "Gold Package" offers cost $10,000 each. They were not only a chance to acquire a share-market investment and hopefully earn dividends but also carried a rare sweetener: a guaranteed seat to Sydney Olympic events. Big name investment banks, including Macquarie and ABN Amro, hoped to raise $283.8 million with this offer alone. The funds were for building the proposed $615.2 million stadium at Homebush. The investment was a fizzer. Numbers of people taking up the offer were poor, writedowns mounted, dividends weren't flowing. The train wreck provides a cautious footnote when it comes to the risks and rewards of backing sports infrastructure. That will a be key issue as Brisbane 2032 faces the big question — how do you fund an Olympic Games? The Queensland government last week unveiled its facilities plan, and a key message was private sector finance was an option. It's worked elsewhere — the Games Independent Infrastructure and Coordination Authority (GIICA) cited how Perth's $1.8 billion Perth Stadium was built via public and private investment in 2017. The total amount needed for Queensland is unclear. The Crisafulli government has accepted estimates of the new 63,000-seat Brisbane Stadium at Victoria Park costing $3.785 billion. The proposed Brisbane Arena, not for the Games and near the Gabba, would meanwhile cost an estimated $2.385 billion, according to GIICA's 100-day review. But no prices are available yet for everything, from a new inner Brisbane pool complex to a Toowoomba equestrian centre and an athlete village on the Sunshine Coast. And while the state and federal Games infrastructure budget is $7.1 billion, deputy premier Jarrod Bleijie told GIICA that excludes "transport infrastructure, precincts and athlete villages". Will private funders be interested? Investment industry sources had mixed views on the market appetite for stadium assets. GIICA sounded optimistic. Market discussions suggested private funders could stump "up to half of the capital cost" of Brisbane Stadium and the arena, it said. The private sector could create a consortium to build, finance and maintain a stadium. In Perth, for instance, the government makes regular payments to the venture with the asset to be returned eventually to the state. The government also provided 60 per cent of the finance during construction. Tension exists in such private-public partnerships: the state wants to shift some risk of construction cost blowouts or patronage shortfalls on to the private sector. But the private sector wants a return that, if successful, profits them for taking the risk. The potential to misjudge risk in infrastructure projects is real. Original investors in the ventures building and running Brisbane's Clem7 tunnel and Airport Link toll roads torched over a billion dollars. Still, some sports-linked assets might more readily attract attention. John Lee, who headed a state taskforce on Stadiums Queensland in 2018 and served as chief executive of the Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs, said attracting private investment for athlete villages would be relatively simple. That was because the villages, often converted into accommodation after the Games, were relatively low risk investments for the private sector, he said. Big stadium, less interest? Mr Lee, now a consultant for Egis which was heavily involved in the Paris Games, also believed private investors would eye the proposed major indoor arena near the Gabba. Such a venue might have many bookings throughout the year, plus public transport, a large population, and a variety of hospitality options nearby, mimicking a vibe to Caxton Street near Lang Park. "There's activity 24-7. That's what you want adjacent to an arena," Mr Lee said. But Mr Lee argued a large stadium — with more than 50,000 seats — would struggle to attract private sector investment for either the construction or ongoing ownership. One risk lay in the cost of running massive stadiums. Filling those final 10,000 seats is more expensive than attracting an initial base of spectators to events, he said. "That cost of having more and more people comes at a capital expenditure cost that becomes eye-watering," he said. Stadiums can be 'difficult' Karl Morris, investment services firm Ord Minnett's managing director and Brisbane Broncos chairman, said private investors in sporting assets would want to see returns that compensated for the risk involved, such as for potential cost blowouts. He said for any investors in building, maintaining and operating a venue, patronage was another key risk factor. Mr Morris said potential ways to reduce investor concerns about risk could include government incentives. Among potential government sweeteners multiple sources floated were offers of nearby housing land in exchange for projects, state tax relief or speeding up of approval processes. Would mum and dad investors back private sector investment for Queensland sports infrastructure? Mr Morris said for some everyday investors, issues beyond simple investment returns might play a part — the benefit of getting a seat could be an enticing factor. Damien Frawley, former chief executive of state-backed investment powerhouse QIC and Wallaby rugby union player, argued precedents existed for successful public-private partnerships for event infrastructure. He cited the involvement of Hostplus, a $115 billion superannuation giant he currently chairs, in a consortium that built the $1.5 billion International Convention Centre in Sydney. Investors would examine sporting infrastructure opportunities, and ways to share costs and potential risks with government, Mr Frawley said. "The [investment] return is where it's going to come down to," he said. The flip side of private funding is it theoretically means taxpayers ultimately shell out more for an asset than if the state paid for the infrastructure up-front. But the positive aspect is the fallout to the public purse should be reduced if feared risks actually crystallised. Mr Frawley said another issue to consider was the "opportunity cost" — if the government financed infrastructure all itself, then that might divert funds from being spent on other state needs or projects.