The Pros And Cons Of Hosting The Olympic Games

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.

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.

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.

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

Should the Olympics stay in one place? The Seattle Times says, “If the Olympics stayed in one place that would deprive nations of showing their pride.” One example of the Olympics traveling was in 1964. The Tokyo Olympics marked a shining moment in Japan’s history after that devastating bomb in WWII that was dropped on them. Second, a poll was taken in 2012 and it showed British men felt proud that the Olympics were in London. There are also bad things about the Olympics traveling though. However, sadly the last few Olympics have been leaving places bankrupt like Sochi, it costed them $50 billion dollars. Tim Wendel states, “The price on the Olympics will only go upward.” Staying in one place will also cost less, but it will also take away

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

Have you been thinking about the olympics lately, because I have. The reason I am researching this is because of the rumor of keeping or getting rid of the olympics. The main reason that I am researching the olympics is because the olympics might be hosted in Denver Colorado.

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.

Mihalik, B. J. (2000). Host population perceptions of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics: Attendance, support, benefits and liabilities. In J. Allen, R. Harris, L.

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

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.

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