The World Cup economic windfall boosting Boston gives rise to a question: Could the Hub host the Olympics?

Certainly Bostonians have more than risen to the occasion in terms of welcoming international visitors to our city and showing them a good time (and vice versa, Tartan Army). But it takes more than great hosts and a convivial atmosphere to pull off an epic sporting event.

It takes money, lots of it, political transparency, and a process open to public scrutiny and feedback. In other words, no, we couldn’t.

Public reception to the 2014 Olympics bid was tepid at best, as it would entail multiple construction projects. And when big construction projects are presented in Boston, taxpayers get suspicious. Big Dig, anyone?

Boston 24 announced it estimated the Games would produce at least $4.8 billion in revenues from television broadcast rights, ticket sales, corporate sponsorships and other revenues, the Associated Press reported. They assumed nearly $4.6 billion in costs, including $176 million for a temporary Olympic Stadium, $90 million for the athletes’ village, about $754 million to build other Olympic venues and another $132 million to rent other locations.

They reportedly announced all this to answer critics who said the privately funded Boston 2024 withheld details of the bid to prevent the public from assessing whether the Games could be staged, as promised, without the need for taxpayer money.

We learned the answer to that soon enough.

In this case, as the Herald reported that year, details from Boston 2024’s so-called bid book indicated that plans sent to the U.S. Olympic Committee called for the Hub to fund “land acquisition and infrastructure costs” at Widett Circle, where a temporary Olympic stadium was being proposed. It came after months of promises that the group planned to run a privately funded Olympics.

“They’ve been saying for months, ‘No taxpayer (money),’ ” said Evan Falchuk, a vocal bid critic who pushed for a statewide ballot question on hosting the games. “Then you read what they told the USOC. … It’s a devastating blow to their credibility. There’s a reason why voters don’t trust what they’ve heard and (Boston 2024 has) got a lot of work to do to earn that trust.”

And all this talk of money came before any cost overruns made an appearance. London’s budget for the 2012 Summer Games escalated by about 300%, ending somewhere in the $14 billion range. What were the chances we’d fare any better?

No wonder Bostonians gave the Olympics idea the cold shoulder.

But what of the city’s World Cup success story? For starters, Gillette Stadium is already built, and the only large element requiring a cash infusion was the MBTA, which shelled out $35 million to upgrade Foxboro Station in advance of the Cup. They’ll make a nice chunk of that back, as the T spiked round-trip Commuter Rail ticket prices between South Station and Gillette Stadium for fútbol fans to $80.

In this case, Bostonians are on the winning side, reaping benefits from free-spending (and thirsty) visitors, and reveling in the good vibes.

It would be great for the city if megaprojects, or even minor ones, came with the guarantee of financial transparency before shovels hit the dirt. Optimists should look at White Stadium before calling it a day.