Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

How Olympics Hurt Host Cities More Than Help

3 reasons cities should avoid Games: Andrew Zimbalist

By Matt Cantor,  Newser Staff

Posted Jul 23, 2012 1:18 PM CDT

(Newser) – Cities go nuts trying to bring the Olympics home—and they may not be doing themselves any favors. Sure, if everything runs smoothly, the Games might offer a "small windfall." But the economic reality is far more complicated, writes Andrew Zimbalist at the Atlantic:

  • Private companies, not cities, are the big winners in the bidding process. Organizing committees largely represent businesses, like construction, that stand to gain from the Games, and their cost-benefit analysis reflects that—meaning bidding doesn't accurately reflect the city's financial means.

  • Once a city wins the Olympics, "frenzied" planning begins. While this can occasionally force some cities to make needed upgrades, it often results in infrastructure that benefits the sporting events without an eye to the city's future. And afterward, leftover stadiums take up needed room and cost tens of millions to maintain, even as they provide little use.
  • The Games cost tens of billions and bring in closer to $5 billion. And there's not much evidence that the Olympics work as a giant ad for tourists, despite what promoters say. If anything goes wrong, it's bad publicity, and anyway, many Olympic cities are already world landmarks.

    Click for Zimbalist's full column.

A boy plays soccer at Battersea Park while a set of Olympic rings located on a barge floats in the River Thames in the distance Sunday, July 22, 2012, in London.
A boy plays soccer at Battersea Park while a set of Olympic rings located on a barge floats in the River Thames in the distance Sunday, July 22, 2012, in London.   (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
18%
55%
8%
15%
2%
3%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 7 comments
hatchling1
Jul 24, 2012 8:16 AM CDT
The same is true about large stadiums built with subsidies to attract national teams. Beyond the temporary construction jobs, there's precious little economic benefit to host cities. A few jobs selling tickets and peanuts isn't an economic boon, and with the various tax incentives granted, precious little revenue goes into the public coffers. People are fed a pack of lies for all of these expensive endeavors which benefit few.   In the case of Olympics, the traffic, mess, crime, unused stadiums and left over infrastructure is a burden to communities. 
Johnny_Fever
Jul 24, 2012 8:16 AM CDT
The best response to an article like this is “it depends”.  If the host city spends public money to build stadiums that will eventually sit dormant, then “yes” the Olympics may be a financial burden versus a windfall.  However, the questions don’t end with the discussion of facilities:   Will the host city spend too much on security by hiring a highly paid police presence or will they be able to staff security with nonunion security firms?   How much will the host city have to pay in bribes to Olympic officials?   Is the event run smoothly or does something happen that shines a negative light on the host country? 
jagerhans
Jul 23, 2012 5:14 PM CDT
pure truth
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne