Persuasive Essay: Should Your City Host The Olympics?

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.

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?

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

An argument I've heard is, "If it's such a good idea, why doesn't someone in the private sector build a water park?" The private sector must see a large enough profit to continue any venture. The city would not have to turn a large profit in order to maintain and manage such a facility. A privately owned facility would need to charge a much higher admission fee.

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

One of the main reasons I believe we should fix our fields is that it would attract more sports teams. Sports teams need a practice field and it usually ends up being a public school’s athletic field. If the school was to improve our fields, it would in turn attract more teams. Attracting more teams would mean that there would be more competition to play on our fields. Having lots of competition to play on the school’s fields would eventually lead to them paying extra money to be able to practice on them. Renovating the sports fields will then make the school much more money. Although it might cost a lot of money to improve the fields, in the long run

The Olympic Park, Although being constantly threatened, continues to be open and on a positive visitor trend since 2012. The NPS has done fantastic work keeping the Olympic Park open to the public 24 hours a day. From the lengths they go to they definitely deserve approval they have and continue to make changes for the better, making that rating grow

After nearly two years, the debate continues concerning the incorporation of Olympic Valley. After careful analysis of the economic viability of this action, the Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc., released its findings on July 24th. In their report, Preliminary Draft Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, RSG, states that the incorporation of Olympic Valley does not appear to be feasible at this time.

   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

Sponsor cities of the Olympic Games are wasteful spenders because the cost outweighs the benefits due to excessive spending of billions of dollars used to look alluring to the IOC. The poor use of resources and facilities after the event is over, and the larger cost over profit the city makes overall in the end.

There Olympics games are really expensive. When a city is hosting the Olympics, they tend to go all out for the opening ceremonies and facilities, going over their budget. If the city is going to go over budget, they should that they could make the money back. A perfect example of that is the two thousand four Summer Olympics held in Athens, Greece. Greece was only going to spend four point six billion dollars as that was their official costs. But the prices rose up as

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

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.

2018 is a big year for the Gold Coast; hosting one of the biggest events in Gold Coast’s history. On the 4th April 2018, an estimated 6600 athletes and team officials will fly to Brisbane airport from over 70 nations and territories. During the week of the Commonwealth Games – 18 sports and 7 para-sports are being contested and broadcasted to a global audience of an estimated 1.5 billion people (http://trademinister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2017/sc_mr_170404.aspx). The main reason the Gold Coast won the bid to host the Commonwealth Games was that the venues that needed to be built to support certain sports – 80% were already built and ready to be used (http://www.risklogic.com.au/2017/07/is-queensland-ready-for-the-commonwealth-games/ ).