What Makes A Structurally Disastrous Olympics

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.

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 direct impacts to the environment for every sport event that happened, be it small scale or global. Mega –sport events are progressing every now and then since they are stimulators of major programs of improvement and regeneration for means of expressing the personality and enhancing the status of cities that are holding these events. Mega-sport events are then catalysts of development and change of the venues both in the local and national level (James and Dodours,

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 Commonwealth Games is an event that the whole country is looking forward to. The opportunities for athletes, sponsors and the community are immeasurable. In this article, we will endeavor to show what benefits there will be, how possible issues will be resolved and what a great experience it will be for all those that attend.

Unless the country that wins the bid, has a logistically engineered infrastructure already in place. The country will lose lots of money on the games. Olympics infrastructure could be defined by subways, housing, stadiums, arenas, pools, winter skiing courses, ice rinks, bus systems, and anything else necessary for the games. One good example of this is Salt Lake City 2002, they had a logical infrastructure. Not to mention good placing of the winter skiing, bobsled, and skeleton courses. Because of this Salt Lake City spent only $2.5 billion instead of a whopping $18-$51 billion like London, Rio de Genaro, Beijing, and Sochi. Too many of the emerging economic states that have hosted the Olympics have fallen into financial distress. Greece, Rio de Janeiro, and Lake Placid are good examples of places that sustained large amounts of debt. Even though Lake Placid took on great debt, the Olympic facilities are used very often. They are used for ski training, and practice, the housing on site is what some of the U.S. Ski Team (moguls, aerials, and park) use for housing. Although only the A and B team are allowed to use the housing. But it does give happiness back, ‘A recent study showed that before and after the games the people of Rio de Janeiro were exited and satisfied by the games.’

According to research the pankration was mighty god Zeus favorite game because the athlete had to be good in both wrestling and boxing to compete and it showed the true test of a man strength. Olympic fighter back in ancient Greeks were not allowed to gouge opponents eyes, bite their ears, or slapped them but they were permitted to beat them unconscious which was very pleasing to the gods that its citizens were willing to fight to please them. The Olympic Games however was put to and end by the Roman Emperor Theodosius, who was religious Christian who felt that the games were to pagan gods and should be stopped. The Olympic Games were not

Hosting the Olympics can be a very lucrative and smart investment for a city, as well as a very stressful event that can turn out to be more than you may have bargained for. The London Olympics had over 10,000 athletes in attendance and generate over 14 billion dollars. But London didn’t simply make 14 billion dollars, have a fun historic event and walk away. They spent practically the same amount and only came out with about $18.2 million in surplus. Considering the experience the city had and the history it brings to London, it seems that in 2012 it was an excellent

The modern Olympic Games were originally designed to be a celebration of culture and athleticism on a world stage. Athletes from all reaches of civilization strive to show off their skills and compete for the gold medal. The intent of the Games was not to provide a stage for governments to establish themselves as world powers, nor

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.

Sporting events have become a major source of economic, infrastructural and social development in numerous countries around the world. This is because of the economic benefits associated with hosting a sporting event. Economic impact in sporting events can be defined as the net change in an economy resulting from a sport event. The change is caused by activity involving the acquisition, operation, development, and use of sport facilities and services (Lieber & Alton, 1983). The net change here refers to the difference between the income entering the economy as a result of the sporting event and the income that would have entered despite the event. The economic impacts are composed of direct, indirect and induced effects. The direct effects are the purchases needed to meet the increased demand of visitors for goods and services. Indirect effects are the ripple effect caused by the additional rounds of recirculating the initial visitor’s money. Induced effects are the increase in employment and household income that result from the economic activity resulting from the direct and indirect effects (Lee, 2008). Countries in anticipation of these benefits host sport event. It is as a result of this that countries bid to host global sporting events such as the Olympics. While the point of any country hosting a sport event is to attract economic benefits, the strategy used in attracting these benefits vary from country to country (Matheson and Baade, 2011). For the sake of this

The Olympic Games enhanced the image of Australia across the world. The event attracted intense coverage by international media, which put the Australian society, culture and business in the international limelight. Consequently, the Olympics stimulated the economy of Australia more than any other event in the history of the country (Sydney Marketing Review, 2001). The aspects of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games that resulted in positive economic benefit for the country included construction projects that were funded both privately and publicly, as well as the gaming activities of the event, which generated revenue and increased domestic and international tourism (NSW Treasury,

The whole world seemingly stops, all differences and fights cease, and competition ensues once every four years. This happens for the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup, two of the biggest international competitions in the World, and the source of abundant national pride. But what, perhaps, is the greatest honor for countries when it comes to these events? Qualifying? Maybe. Winning? Probably. Hosting it? Most definitely. Countries lunge, better yet, dive at the opportunity to bid for the possibility to host the Olympics or World Cup, but while this honor is a source of great pride and achievement, what is the true impact it carries? Is it an economic jolt for the host country that will boost their GDP? Or is it temporary nudge that will leave behind white elephants and wasted assets for the host country? These questions are particularly intriguing to me, being that I have competed at the international level (representing Puerto Rico for basketball) at qualifying tournaments for events like these two, and it seems like the host country is entrenched in joy and pride. Now granted, these qualifying tournaments are on a much smaller scale than the giants like the Olympics and World Cup, but I was so puzzled that a source of so much happiness and unity could carry along such a horrible aftermath as shown in documentaries and news clips. So I decided I had to investigate for myself, and this topic was absolutely perfect.

The early Olympics had a huge impact on the Olympics today, good and bad. The early Olympics basically created the Olympics now. You can’t say really say what changed it because they changed things every year, so there was something different each year. This is good because you don’t want to be looking at the same games same people each year until they die or something. The Olympics is something that shows who is the best at what they do every 4 years. There will not be the same person every 4 years unless they are really grinding to be the best. In the early Olympics there are good changes and bad changes.