Cost and Benefit of Hosting the Olympic Game

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.

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.

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

When a country is selected to host the Olympics, they prepare years in advance for the games. Many times new stadiums, housing complexes, and training facilities are built yet the games will only last a few weeks. Billions of dollars are poured into assembling all the necessary components for this giant event but many people argue that all the money being spent on this event could be used to better the nation. For example, when the Olympics were held in Athens, facilities were built from the ground up and looked amazing while in use. However, after the games ended, the venues were hardly used and were just a burden to the country. As a result, countless Greek citizens criticized the government for their poor use of money. To add insult to injury, the money gained from the games did not equal or surpass the money spent, resulting in more criticism from various people. Same situation with Brazil, many areas inside of this country are populated, poor, and rundown but the national government still decided to host the games. Billions of dollars were spent to ready the country instead of actually helping improve it for

The Olympic Games should not have a permanent home because it could lead to many conflicts around the world and within countries. One good example of this is It would deprive countries the chance to show national pride. Whitt Flora said "The olympics represent the ultimate opportunity to showcase a national identity on the global stage." on page 3. If the Olympics have a permanent home then the same country shows there pride every 4 years. In the 2012 Olympics in Great Britain many polls showed that a vast majority of men showed a sense of national pride because Great Britain was hosting the games. If there is permanent host for the Olympics that sense of national pride might not be as big. Another good example that proves this is Hosting

"The Olympics are a wonderful metaphor for world cooperation, the kind of international competition that's wholesome and healthy, an interplay between countries that represents the best in all of us,” said John Williams, the composer for theme music for the Olympics (8). The Olympic Games are international sports festivals that began in ancient Greece. The first ancient Olympics can be traced back to 776 BC when people held this religious festival to honour Zeus, the father of all the Greek gods and goddesses. The participants were male citizens from Greece, and these athletes participated in only one event — foot race. Unfortunately, this ancient Olympics did not last forever. The first olympic in 776 BC in Olympia was an significant event

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.

Countries utilize both the vast market and the attractiveness to increase ticket sales, sales in merchandise and tourism in their country. For the 2012 Olympic in London, it was estimated that 471,000 people visited from overseas primarily for the Olympic/Paralympics. ("Visits to the UK for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics - ONS", 2013, p. xx-xx) Not only does the country benefit from the ticket sales, but other businesses in the city (Hotels, restaurants, attractions, etc.) will flourish in business due to all the international trades that are occurring. The Olympic also provide jobs since the preparation, and the execution of the event requires a large staff as well as people with different skills. (Performers, construction workers, marketers, designers, etc.) Thanks to the Olympics, the United Kingdom saw a boost of £9.9 Billion ($17,805,486,600 CAD) in trades and investments. ("London 2012 Olympics 'have boosted UK economy by £9.9bn'", 2013) Hosting the Olympics can also make a psychological impact. With the great success Japan had in hosting the 1964 Olympics, (the first Asia Olympics as well as a method of being reaccepted by the rest of the world after World War Two), news that Japan will be hosting the Olympics 2020 significantly brought their citizen’s morale up after being hit with

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

With the Olympic games being held in Sydney this year, I wondered if perhaps the performance of the economy was being affected in part by the fiscal stimulus provided by Olympic construction in Sydney and other parts of the country. Australia’s economy has been performing well recently, suggesting that there might be some effect. Over the last five years, growth in Australia’s gross domestic product has averaged 4.35%, almost a full point above it’s thirty year annual average of 3.5%, and the unemployment rate is near a ten year low. According to one estimate, the Olympics will tack on an additional six and a half billion dollars, about 1.6% of the GDP, to Australia’s GDP over the

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.

Olympic Games, as a global event, any Olympic Games will have a different impact on the environment, society, culture and economy of the host city and country. Especially since the 1980s, with the scale continues to expand, the impact of the Games on the host city and country of more concern. Another important issue will be social communities. For Olympic Games host city, it will has lots of change, like environment, social communities, local economic, etc.… But the host city still got something attractions and cultural staff. For example, Canada Whistler Winter Olympic Games, First, because of economic development, job opportunities increase, leading to increased consumer demand. Second, the Olympic Games will have a great demand for