Olympic Housing Issues

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 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

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

Although the Salt Lake City Olympics are remembered as one of the greatest in history, there were a few ethical and moral issues that surrounded the Olympic Games in 2002. When looking back at the 2002 Salt Lake City Games, two incidents stand out as being the worst ethical offenses related to the Games. First, there was the problem leading up to the Olympics involving former members of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee bribing the International Olympic Committee with gifts to win the vote as the host city for the 2002 Games. The second moral and ethical problem arose at the judges table during one of the figure skating events. Salt Lake City continues to pride itself on its Olympic success, and it is well deserved, but when analyzing the hidden affairs associated with the Games that year a couple problems are evident.

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

Most people think of the Olympics as just a way for the world to join together and athletically compete but hidden behind the curtain of glory and valor, natives suffer through poverty from the unbalanced economy that is correlated with the hosting of the Olympic games. CNN and other news channels manage to capture the fantastics of the games, but always seem to avoid the discrepancies within the host nation. Why should the innocent suffer at the expense of international entertainment and competition? The Olympic games not only harms the economic stability of its host nations, but also demoralize the natives of the country by weighing pointless entertainment

An entertainment or sports event, such as the MLB World Series, has a direct economic impact on the city that hosts the event because the city that hosts events such as these has to go through a series of new expenses and spending in order to be prepared for tourists. For instance, if a city is hosting the MLB World Series, the city is expected to have people from other cities, or even other countries looking for a place to stay during that given period of time. Therefore, companies such as hotels have to undergo a certain amount of spending to make sure that they have enough resources to meet the needs of these tourists. Another example, is that when an event such as the Super Bowl in the NFL occurs in a city, there are certain requirements

“No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas” (Advertising, Demonstrations, Propaganda* 98). This rule shows just what the Germans were hoping for, a peaceful, passive, war-free environment in which countries can get together and compete. Although we all know that quite the antithesis was upon the 1972 Olympics in Munich between September the fifth and September the sixth. The Munich Massacre, one of the worst massacres of all time, was driven by the vengefulness of the Palestinian group known as Black September, towards the people of Israel, or more relevantly, towards their Olympic team (Rosenberg). Since this confrontation between Palestine and

   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

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 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.

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.

First, building the facility creates construction jobs. Second, people who attend games or work for the team generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment. Third, a team attracts tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs. Finally, all this new spending has a "multiplier effect" as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation. Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium's economic impact.