Benefits to the Uk of Hosting the Olympic Games in 2012

London was not the only option when it came to the 2012 summer Olympics. France was also in the running and was actually pretty close to getting the gig. London won the bidding race with 54-50 votes from the International Olympic Committee. The need of some economic spark for London’s economy may have been the reason why the vote went their way. London’s economy had been stuck in a recession for almost a nine-month period. The question was: “Are the Olympics going to provide a positive benefit for London’s economy?”

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.

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.

Through the twenty-eight Summer Games and the twenty-three Winter Games, numerous cities have prospered from welcoming the Olympics. Research found that in general within two days of the Olympics’ arrival, there is a cumulative increase of two percent in the host cities’ economies (Dick and Wang). Across the globe, host cities have benefited

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

One of the advantages of hosting the Olympic Game is that it often leads to improvements in infrastructure within and around the host city. In order to deal with a large influx of people into the host city, improvements are made to the host city's transportation systems to increase efficiency. Walsh (2012) states that ten railway lines and 30 new bridges

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.

Why the Olympics Should Have A Permanent Home At least once in these past few weeks, with the 2016 Brazil Olympics happening a few weeks ago, you probably heard that Brazil was unprepared, or didn’t have a lot of money for the games. What could’ve solved this problem? Well it might just be making a permanent home for the Olympics. There are many reasons the Olympics should have a permanent home.

With over two hundred countries participating, the Olympic Games is easily considered as one of the largest multisport event known to history. The Olympics are held at a different country, and even more rarely at the same city. For a country to be chosen to host the Olympics, the country’s National Olympic Committee (the country’s representatives for the Olympics) nominates a city (from the country they represent) that they think has potential in hosting the Olympics nine years prior to when they wish to host the Olympics. It is a two year process that consists of: Application Phase, Candidate Phase and the Election of the Host City. The country that wins the election is given seven years to prepare for the Olympics. (International

The 2012 London Olympic Games, lasting from 25 July to 12 August 2012, was one of the largest events ever hosted in the UK. During this world-wide sport event, 4 billion people watched the opening ceremonies on television; more than 10,000 athletes from over 200 countries participated; 20 million people visited the city; and approximately $14 billion were generated (Kubo, 2014).

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

In the article “ROI for Rio? Economists question wisdom of hosting Olympics”, Craig Dale (2016) discusses about the economic problem of Rio Olympic Games, the history and malpractice of the Olympic Games and the benefits of the Olympic Games for hosting countries. First, the author described that the economy of Brazil was positive and developing well when Rio won the right to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. However, now Brazil suffered terrible recession and the government is facing an impeachment trial. Rio does not have enough money to host this game. Second, the author explored the history and malpractice of the Olympic Games. Countries spent more and more money and always spent more than they planned to host the Olympic Games. In the

Businesses in New South Wales won A$1bn worth of contracts from the Sydney games and an additional A$300mn was generated by local business. Over 55,000 people received employment related training. If London hosted the Olympic games, thousands of UK firms could be involved in supplying everything from construction to manufacturing, catering to merchandise.

The legacy of the 2012 London Olympic Games left a lasting impression on the world stage. After all, the opening and closing ceremonies, and the games themselves were an unforgettable experience for millions of people across the globe. However, it was the host city and the British Isles that truly benefited from this monumental event.