1984 Los Angeles Games

London is currently hosting the Olympics this year and in preparation back in 2009 the event was predicted to “provide economic gold at a time of economic need,” however hosting the Olympics is an extremely costly business with the upgrades, new sports facilities, and security that it will cost much, much more than expected.

The Olympics is a money pit and there is very little evidence of any success derived from hosting an Olympic games. The last three Olympic games are still looking for the return in their investment.

There is an argument as to whether or not the United States should bid to host the Olympic Games. There are many positive and negative reasons as to help decide whether it will be or not be a good idea. Some positive reasons would be improvements in all types of transport, increase potentially in tourism and business activity. Some of the negative aspects would be potential costs and burdens to the community and an increase in costs and taxes. Many people are going back and forth arguing over this topic. The United States should bid to host the Olympic Games.

There are many intangible benefits to constructing a new stadium or arena for a city. First and foremost, it creates a sense of identity within the

Should the Olympics stay in one place? The Seattle Times says, “If the Olympics stayed in one place that would deprive nations of showing their pride.” One example of the Olympics traveling was in 1964. The Tokyo Olympics marked a shining moment in Japan’s history after that devastating bomb in WWII that was dropped on them. Second, a poll was taken in 2012 and it showed British men felt proud that the Olympics were in London. There are also bad things about the Olympics traveling though. However, sadly the last few Olympics have been leaving places bankrupt like Sochi, it costed them $50 billion dollars. Tim Wendel states, “The price on the Olympics will only go upward.” Staying in one place will also cost less, but it will also take away

Experts also believe that a way of compensation for the athletes are the facilities that they

It is evident that hosting the Olympics games is no walk in the park. The countries trusted with this task have to spend billions to make the games a reality. Some people believe that the countries, even after spending billions of dollars benefit from the games, while others believe that the money can be spent elsewhere more efficiently. To reach a conclusion, one must study all of the different impacts in all of the different sectors the games have.

The Olympic Games are recognized globally by billions of people. This event is the biggest sporting event not only because it comes once every four years, but also because the world’s best athletes come together to compete for world fame and glory. Hosting the games seems like an honor for most people, however there is numerous risks involved

There are many factors in every country that transform the impact of the Olympic Games, but in general, the economic costs outweigh the benefits, while the social impacts are mostly positive. As such, countries in general should not host the Olympic Games for their own national interest, but they should first understand the impacts of the Olympics in relation to their own country before making a final

Sponsor cities of the Olympic Games are wasteful spenders because the cost outweighs the benefits due to excessive spending of billions of dollars used to look alluring to the IOC. The poor use of resources and facilities after the event is over, and the larger cost over profit the city makes overall in the end.

Every four years a different country hosts the Olympics. Every two years its either the Winter or Summer Olympics. It is two thousand sixteen and in August, everybody eyes are going to be glued to their televisions when Rio host the two thousand sixteen Summer Olympics in Brazil. Many cities around the world put bids in advance to hold the Olympics. The Olympics are a big deal and you have to have the resources to host it. You need to have facilities for the sports, transportation, Olympics villages for the athletes to stay, a stadium for the opening and closing ceremonies, and most of all money. Cities tend to lose money when hosting the Olympics. Sometimes the facilities they use get abandon and are never used again. They are many reasons for a city to host the Olympics, but there are three reasons to not. Reasons for not hosting it because it is expensive, there no guarantee of profits or increase tourism in the host city, and to many buildings being left abandoned

Are the Olympic Games a waste of money? The Olympic Games are an international event where athletes from every country come together to compete. Many fans and spectators attend this event to cheer for their country. The number of spectators keeps on increasing every four years as the event gets more popular. As this is an international event the cost of hosting it is huge. The total output of the 1976 Montreal Games was $1.48 billion whilst the 2012 London Games was a total of $14.6 billion. Stadiums are built for different disciplines, national representatives are invited to perform in the opening and closing ceremony, as a result the stadiums need a high level of security. Where the hosting country receives the money from, whom it will benefit and what it does to the country, will be the three main points I will be covering in this essay.

The Olympic Games is one of the biggest and most unrivaled sporting events in the entire world. At first it may seem like a huge plus or advantage for a city or nation to host this event. However on the contrary there are a lot of negative aspects that occur when a nation hosts this event. While the event is taking place, from the outside it looks like a state of the art, prestigious event that it is. Some of the problems that are caused by hosting Olympic games deal with, stadium development, local resident life, security issues, and many others that will be discussed. One of the big problems when dealing with a mega event such as the Olympic Games is the stadiums, which get built, and how they get abandoned or not used after the games are finished. This is one of the major problems surrounding the Athens 2004 games. Many of the stadiums and infrastructure are left untouched and abandoned to this day.

Why the Olympic Games Should Have a Permanent Home. In the 2016 Olympic summer games, Rio spent more than 20 billion dollars in it. Just the stadium alone costs 2 billion dollars. The Olympics should stay in one place for the summer and winter games.

After the 1984 Los Angeles Games showed for the first time that mega-events could produce an economic surplus, mega-sport events, particularly the Olympic Games, acquired central status for city and national government development agendas (Andranovich, Burbank and Heying, 2001). And the appeal of hosting a mega-event, or more specifically a mega-sport event, has grown significantly over the