Though I love the Olympics, the institution faves a major problem. The massive costs of hosting a Games almost never balance out against benefits.
This article considers the financial impacts upon cities which host the Olympics.
A fitting postscript to my post yesterday.
After considering such details as infrastructure investment, marketing and meeting the expectations of the International Olympic Committee, most often the Games cost more than they earn. In some cases the loss is massive.
My first thought: the IOC must start considering the long-term impact. With that, they must seek to mitigate the effects of over-enthusiastic boosters. They struggle with a perception of boondoggle. Several cities' citizens shut down bids for games.
I feel it important to note that LA actually pulled s profit from the games. Utilizing their existing infrastructure, the cost control worked nicely. The article actually notes several hosts who successfully navigated development and execution. Key considerations for anyone desiring to host a Games.
I see an Olympics as several months of headache with little upside. Most of the promised benefits never materialize. I'm not alone. Seattle's few attempts to garner support to bid to host a Games failed miserably. And that's happened elsewhere, too.
Anyone wanting a Games near me must account for this study before I give my support. And I love the Olympics.
No comments:
Post a Comment