Olympic is a prestigious multi-sports international game played by athletes from different countries. This event occurs regularly after every four years in various cities worldwide, as decided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). These prominent and renowned cities take responsibility for organizing the event, and as a result, they get a global spotlight which helps them to get national pride. Now, a question arises whether these cities host the event without any profit or they gain some financial benefit? Let’s know Are The Olympics Worth It Financially For Host Cities?
City investment in hosting the Olympics:
According to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a city hosting the Olympics has to spend millions of dollars to organize the event. Olympic is not a small event that is possible with some people but needs a large number of consultants, event organizers, and travel preparation which needs lots of expenditures. Cities have to spend more money hosting the games than the bidding process, and many cities are even in debt as they have not paid all money that they invested in hosting the event. You must be thinking how a city spends more for hosting the event as after winning the bid for hosting the Olympics, they have to work on building roads, enhancing airports and other transport facilities. They have to maintain the accommodation facilities with at least 40,000 rooms, and the building of the Olympic village costs from $5 billion to $50 billion.
Benefits of Hosting the Olympics
Organizing the Olympics is not an easy job, so it gives pride and respect to the hosting city. As these cities build up some infrastructures for the event, this creates temporary jobs for the native people that benefit the city in the future. For example, Rio de Janeiro constructed about 15,000 new hotel rooms for the Olympics which is still providing help in uplifting the economy of the respective nation. Hosting the Olympics benefits the city as it increases the level of tourism and foreign investments. Many sponsors, media, athletes, and audiences visit the host city before and after six months of the Olympics, which creates additional revenue for the host city. Hence, these all-factors boons the economy of the host city.
Drawbacks of Hosting the Olympics
Job creation boosts the economy of the host city, but it is not always the situation. Sometimes, the host city faces more unemployment than the job initially perceived. Jobs come in the hand of those people who are already employed which does not profit the unemployed people who need them. Many hotels and buildings built for the accommodation of the guests are accomplished by international companies rather than by the host city. Earnings from the games cover a less portion of the total expenses. For example, London had brought $5.2 billion for the Summer Olympics yet it spent about $18 billion on the event. Till now, Los Angeles is the only known city to have gained profit in the Olympics because the required infrastructure was already in existence.
Olympic results in debt
Many host cities do not have the required infrastructure for the event and so they build an expensive building for it, this building cost can be more than the profit gained by the event. These arenas constructed for the event are not easy to be adjusted with general events other than the Olympics due to their big size or specific nature, as Sydney’s stadium costs $30 million for annual maintenance. There are many hosting cities where the taxpayers had to pay more for filling the debt on their city.
These are some examples of hosting cities that organized the Olympics
* The 2004 Olympics in Athens
This city was said to have spent excess money for the event which was about $15 billion, far from the original budgeted amount. Their huge permanent sports venues remain idle these days. Due to the lack of a futuristic plan, Athens is under a debt of 50,000 euros per Greek household, shared and paid by the taxpayers.
* The 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro
During the 2016 Olympics, the Zika Virus spread in the country which led to a decrease in the participation of many athletes and the number of spectators. The Brazilian government added about 2,000 healthcare professionals to cure the disease, but this created an extra debt to the country. The condition became worst when scientists said that the water for swimming and boating was contaminated due to raw sewage and “super bacteria “. Due to this virus, the country lost about $7 billion due to less tourism. This resulted in huge debt in the country and increased crime, and late salaries in the country.
Conclusion
So, the Olympics is not completely financially profitable for the host city, but it provides a global flame. Many cities have to face an economic crisis which in turn put the whole country under debt. For the benefit of the Olympics, a city with enough infrastructure for the Olympics should only host this event to fulfill all its desire for profit.
FAQs
– Why is hosting the Olympics bad?
Because it results in more negative impacts of big debt on the country.
