Benefits of Hosting Major Sporting Events

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.

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.

Thus we can see why public money is eagerly donated. The full costs of a stadium and the damage it does to communities are often years in the future, long after the politician is known for being the hero that save our local team and has moved on to bigger and better things, now with the campaign funding of the very teams that they built homes for and the fans who continue to pay. Team owners can choose new cities but cities can’t choose new teams thanks to the leagues government-sanctioned monopolies over franchise placement, mayors for example, feel they must offer owners anything they want. “Politicians continue

There are direct impacts to the environment for every sport event that happened, be it small scale or global. Mega –sport events are progressing every now and then since they are stimulators of major programs of improvement and regeneration for means of expressing the personality and enhancing the status of cities that are holding these events. Mega-sport events are then catalysts of development and change of the venues both in the local and national level (James and Dodours,

I am going to discuss the topic of National Football League stadiums and their public funding. The purpose of the study is to find out if funding of NFL stadiums is “bad business,” The research I will look at the impacts that a stadium has on the economy in the city. Cities’ like to have attractions that they can draw from and be proud of. Most cities have some form of sport arena, and more are being built or are planned to be built. As with any business there are positives and negatives when hosting a sports team. Cities pay multimillions to help fund and build sport stadiums for teams. I hadn’t researched or looked into this topic before, so I was very intrigued by this. At the end of this paper I will give my own personal opinion.

Sports Stadiums are an iconic staple of American tradition. However not everything about these venues is positive. Team owners take advantage of laws and fans to meet their own goals. Citizens and city officials from various locations have taken up their grievances with the NFL in the past. And it has gotten to the point where even political parties join together to bring to light issues with the organization. NFL stadiums are not good for cities because they take advantage of tax payers, hurt citizens on an economic level and cost them billions in subsidies.

The issue at hand, however, is that power has shifted from the cities to the teams themselves. Professional athletic organizations have started taking advantage of cities by threatening to relocate unless they get public subsidies for expensive stadium renovations and construction. With this in mind it is imperative to ask today’s question: Do public subsidies for professional athletic organizations benefit their local community?

As a sporting mega-event, the Olympic Games have numerous social impacts on the people, not only on those from the host country, but on individuals all over the globe.

Sports teams are a symbol of a cities pride. Take for example the Chicago Cubs. They create a sense of loyalty toward that city. However, none of that would happen without a stadium. Stadiums and teams can play a very important role in a cities economy, or they could also be irrelevant. To decide whether or not they are useful or not you must first understand each side of the argument. So first, let’s examine the pros of having a stadium within your city. Then, we will discuss the harms of having one. And finally, decide which side is more beneficial for the economy.

In the United States, new sports stadiums are commonly seen as a vital part of the redevelopment of a city having a great economic growth with the production of jobs and a positive income builder. After this, the owners of the pro sports teams with millions and millions of dollars of subsidies for the construction of new stadiums and arenas and expect these facilities to generate economic benefits exceeding these subsidies by large margins. However, a growing body of fact indicates that professional sports facilities, and the franchises they are home to, may not be engines of economic benefit anywhere claims Sachse, “. In reality, sports franchises typically account for a very small proportion of the total economic output of the cities in which they reside.” Some economical studies on the amount of income and employment in US cities find no evidence of positive economic benefits associated with past sports facility construction and some studies find that professional sports facilities and teams have a net negative economic impact on income and employment. It just shows that these results suggest that at best, professional sports teams and facilities provide non-pecuniary benefits like civic pride, and a greater sense of community, along with consumption benefits to those attending games and following the local team in the media; at worst, residents

   Abstract:  The Stadium  construction boom continues, and taxpayers are being forced to pay for new high tech stadiums they don’t want.  These new stadiums create only part-time jobs.  Stadiums bring money in exclusively for professional leagues and not the communities.  The teams are turning public money into private profit.  Professional leagues are becoming extremely wealthy at the taxpayers expense.  The publicly-funded stadium obsession must be put to a stop before athletes and coaches become even greedier.  New stadiums being built hurt public schools, and send a message to children that leisure activities are more important than basic education.  Public money

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

Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community's resources--people, capital investments, and natural resources like land--become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.

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.