Advantages Of Hosting The Olympic Games

The Olympics have shown over the decades that they can be affected by political conflict. However, it seems that this is the point of the Olympics, to illustrate national pride, by competition. Bloodshed should not be the way for pride of one’s country to be shown, but it should be shown through competition, in the words of the founder of the modern Olympic movement, Pierre de

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.

Ever since its inception in 1896, the Modern Olympics has hosted an invisible sport: politics. The Olympics calls for “a halt to all conflicts … [and to] strive towards a more peaceful world,” but politics soon spoiled its biennial message. “As the Olympics continue to dissolve into … a political competition … they no longer … justify the time and trouble,” Dave Anderson, Pulitzer Prize winner for his sports column, wrote in the New York Times in 1984. The Olympic spirit has routinely been used as an outlet for political agendas. With political and Olympic ambitions intersected, the great international sports festivity negatively affects all nations involved.

Throughout this journey, many factors had an impact on the Olympics. Some of the factors that changed the modern day Olympics are women competitors, women’s suffrage, nationalism, wars, and economic conditions. An increase of women's rights was given, pride for the nations was shown, wars still occurred, and economies have flourished. The longer the Olympic Games have aged, the closer the world’s state is to Pierre’s

Throughout the history of the Olympic games, there has been many changes on how the Olympic Games has come to be interpreted and how they are generally viewed in our modern era. These views range from, Nationalism fueled by the Olympic Games, Women trying to create equality through the Olympic Games, Economic supremacy shown by the Olympic games and the responsibilities held by countries and the self-preservation of a country when presenting the Olympic games. Each view states an interpretation of the Olympic games through the years of 1892-2002 showing a distinct view on the Olympic games depending on the times they were hosted at such as when the Olympic Games were hosted when women weren’t equal to men or who the Games were hosted

The olympics were shaped due to social reasons. Document 1’s author, Pierre de Coubertin, who is the founder of the modern Olympics, is a reliable asset to pursuing ideal peace with many other countries. The reason why he wants peace is because he wants to have the “disappearance of war” to be “utopians” which shows that he believes that the olympics one of the best answers to his goal. Similarly, in document 6, the Soviet Union’s Olympic organizing Committee also want to take part with “peace, democracy, and social progress.” This shows how more and more countries, even those with bad ties with others,

Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, believed that the Olympics were the true free trade of the future (Doc 1).” In 1892, at a time when Europe was showing rising political tensions, he may have thought this would be a good idea to help calm these tensions (Doc 1). Countries chosen to host the event benefit from the exposure. Japan, for example, greatly appreciated their being chosen for the Olympics. They felt it helped them recover after their defeat in the World War. This sense of appreciation for being chosen shows that the Olympic intentions were definitely good willed and did not just expose nations political tensions (Doc 5).

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

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

Former IOC president Avery Brundage aimed to “separate sport from politics”. Sadly it seems that countries will aim to use their teams as a tool, rather than an example of what they can achieve. This inability to separate sports from politics can be traced back over almost the entire history of the Olympic Games. However, this may be true, but there is a good side to this as well, mainly the countries involved can get lots of support from political and none political sources.

Mihalik, B. J. (2000). Host population perceptions of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics: Attendance, support, benefits and liabilities. In J. Allen, R. Harris, L.

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

The Olympic Games are a set of friendly competitions that bring countries from all around the world together, but many social, political, and economic problems in the past and present including racial and sexual discrimination and apartheid have prevented the Olympic Games from fulfilling their promise to bring countries together.

Higham (1999) discusses that there are numerous problems, which will be evaluated with hosting an Olympic games such as, development issues, local resident issues, short-term affects, and security issues. In terms of development issues, there is a significant cost dealing with large scale sporting events, and economic benefits are generally received more by big time business interests not the host community. So the host community doesn’t benefit as much as they potentially could by hosting the

The Olympics have come up with a problem and need a solution fast. The problem is whether the Olympics should have a permanent home or even multiple homes. Or should they stay the same where any country can host the Olympics? Before answering the question think of where and why the Olympics started. Ancient Greece is the birthplace of Olympics about 800 BC and they were later revived in the late 19th century. The first modern Olympics were in 1896 in Athen with 280 participants from 13 nations in 43 events. “The purpose of the modern Olympic Games is to promote peace and unity within the international community through the medium of sports”(reference.com). This quote is exactly right, permanent home deprives countries the chance to show national pride. There are other bonuses to not having permanent homes. It can help a failing country's economy become better and allows them to make history beyond sports. However permanent homes reduce cost of new facilities and it will reduce facilities being abandoned after the games.But in the end hosting the Olympics in different countries allows them to show pride, make history and boost economies, even with the expensive cost.