Just reading this CBC article and our very own Hannah Holmes was interviewed about the economics of the Olympics

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...y-economy.html

Do you think hosting the Olympics is worth it? I keep hearing that Toronto wants to host the summer Olympics, we do not have the public transit for that! Downtown is already extremely over populated.

Well, there is a lot of construction going on right now in Toronto, because three years from now, we're gonna host the Pan American games:

http://www.toronto2015.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pan_American_Gam es

YAY, we're gonna get into more debt!

Oh right I forgot about that. I dont think its a good idea. Seriously, the subway system is my biggest concern - it would suck for all those tourists!

And I also read how there too many people in Toronto for the hospitals to handle. So yea lets host a buch of tourists and athletes and have them wait 6+ hours in emergency rooms

I don't think a struggling city should host the olympics/panam games/FIFA/whatever tournament because it's MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR waste. yeah you get the fame and world recognition, but it's just a waste of everything-money, resources, so much extra stress. for example, we're just coming out of a massive recession, and you're gonna throw valuable taxpayer money at building stadiums? it's very temporary, as soon as the Games are over, they're just gonna sit there wasting wasting even more money.
for example, say the Olympics cost a nation/city $10 billion-how else could tht money hav been used? bettering education, bettering living conditions, bettering healthcare, bettering infrastructure etc.

cities that actually have the money, have the resources and would actually make money (in the long run), are able to sell the stadiums to companies /sports teams etc, would be a good idea

but don't hate, I still love the Olympics. we just gotta be smart about it!

Originally Posted by drpatel

I don't think a struggling city should host the olympics/panam games/FIFA/whatever tournament because it's MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR waste. yeah you get the fame and world recognition, but it's just a waste of everything-money, resources, so much extra stress. for example, we're just coming out of a massive recession, and you're gonna throw valuable taxpayer money at building stadiums? it's very temporary, as soon as the Games are over, they're just gonna sit there wasting wasting even more money.
for example, say the Olympics cost a nation/city $10 billion-how else could tht money hav been used? bettering education, bettering living conditions, bettering healthcare, bettering infrastructure etc.

cities that actually have the money, have the resources and would actually make money (in the long run), are able to sell the stadiums to companies /sports teams etc, would be a good idea

but don't hate, I still love the Olympics. we just gotta be smart about it!

So the recognition and money tourists spend in the host city are not worth it? Apart from things like unused stadiums in Athens, which city in recent history didn't benefit overall from the Olympics?

Originally Posted by RyanC

So the recognition and money tourists spend in the host city are not worth it? Apart from things like unused stadiums in Athens, which city in recent history didn't benefit overall from the Olympics?

The extra tourist money thing is largely hype. The tourists coming in for the Olympics are largely offset by tourists who would otherwise visit but don't (because they think that there will be too much crowd / hassle / stuff will be too expensive as the Olympics are on).

Also, the useless stadiums problem is not unique to Athens. Beijing's stadiums are mostly unused (except for the Bird's nest -- which is a tourist trap now).

Montreal's loss of ~1 billion is famous (after 1976), they took until 2006 to pay the debt off. Many cities bidding for the 1984 games pulled out because they didn't want to take a similar loss.

After Montreal, the management of the Olympics tended to be privatized heavily. That's how the 1984 LA games were profitable. This meant that cities made less of a loss, but also didn't get much, if any, profit (except indirectly through money spent by people visiting for the Olympics, which as I already said is not as significant as it's made to seem).

As for recognition, there's not much of a point. The recognition Athens got for hosting -- really, the Greeks are recognized at every Olympic games -- doesn't seem to be a factor at all right now...a better question is "which cities did benefit from hosting?"

Looks like London might benefit, they've already got plans for all the buildings they've built

Originally Posted by Melanieee

Looks like London might benefit, they've already got plans for all the buildings they've built

Yeah, London may get something out of it, because they've planned a bit beyond the nationalistic "hooray! We won the Olympics bid! We're amazing!" stage.

Can't say the same for most other cities though.

also i feel that I must add, that money could do SO much better in other uses. fro eg, Mcguinty cut doctor's salaries, there are cuts to healthcare because of the deficit...and what, if toronto got the bid, where the HELL would that money come from? I get the privitization, but the government still has to put money in (billions, tens/hundreds of millions)

money has many uses. it's valuable. don't waste it

Originally Posted by drpatel

also i feel that I must add, that money could do SO much better in other uses. fro eg, Mcguinty cut doctor's salaries, there are cuts to healthcare because of the deficit...and what, if toronto got the bid, where the HELL would that money come from? I get the privitization, but the government still has to put money in (billions, tens/hundreds of millions)

money has many uses. it's valuable. don't waste it

I sometimes wonder if the Olympics are worth all that money at all.

How can a country like North Korea justifiably put however many millions of dollars into their sports programs to get medals at the Olympic games when the majority of people in that country are cripplingly poor? Or how about countries like the U.S. and China? Try to tell me that there aren't serious social concerns in those countries that couldn't be remedied by funding. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars spent in pursuit of these medals.

Maybe a thousand years in the future they'll think we were insane for holding such spectacles. They'll think we essentially had a competition for which country could throw the most money into a pit and burn it.

I saw an interview with an economist and agreed with him. The Olympics does bring more revenue for travel and tourism but at what cost? You build such large infrastructure and will never be used to its full capacity ever again. A large scale concert say U2 can only fill maybe 40-50% of it. Also, tourism values cant be predicted / analyzed until say 10 years. The last note about tourism is that this concept varies per city. When Vancouver hosted it, it definitely helped since most people didn't know about that area globally. Now after the scenery/hills people go back. London though is already a big city well known with tourist sites and history. The amount that has to add on to its existing tourism must be significantly larger because it is already a tourist hotspot and spending $20b+ on the Olympics better have a damn big effect.

Originally Posted by Leeoku

I saw an interview with an economist and agreed with him. The Olympics does bring more revenue for travel and tourism but at what cost? You build such large infrastructure and will never be used to its full capacity ever again. A large scale concert say U2 can only fill maybe 40-50% of it. Also, tourism values cant be predicted / analyzed until say 10 years. The last note about tourism is that this concept varies per city. When Vancouver hosted it, it definitely helped since most people didn't know about that area globally. Now after the scenery/hills people go back. London though is already a big city well known with tourist sites and history. The amount that has to add on to its existing tourism must be significantly larger because it is already a tourist hotspot and spending $20b+ on the Olympics better have a damn big effect.

Whaaat, people know Vancouver. Vancouver's great.

I think one of the overlooked positives of hosting the Olympics is the power of sport in society. Obesity costs Canada at least 4.3 Billion dollars a year. Hosting an Olympics boosts the physical activity of the nation which cuts down on things like the cost of obesity (though I have no idea to what degree).

And I'm sure everyone has heard stories of people that have been inspired to participate in sport, which offered a path out of crime, perhaps saving their lives, or at least some tax payer dollars in law enforcement.

Now do these wipe out billion dollar depts? No, but they certainly contribute and need to part of the discussion.

Funniest thing in the Olympics, North Korea is called the DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES republic of Korea... pretty sure a dictatorship doesnt constitute as a democracy
Back on topic though, yes there may be negative effects in terms of a debt that can be felt by the host city and nation, but at the same time there are plenty of positive effects outside of just the olympics themselves. Look at Vancouver, that city was completely revitalized by the Games, even the Canucks had a rejuvenated fan base and support following the games. No offence, but every year that Canada doesnt host the games, I dont see our health care system being boosted with the money that "could have" gone to the games. The tourism that the games brings to the host cities and the international publicity that the games bring seem enough of a reason for me to try hosting the games again in the future. Maybe not Toronto, I just dont see them having enough Olympic Class venues to host the games. If that is not the case dont bite my head off for it!

Originally Posted by Chris23

Funniest thing in the Olympics, North Korea is called the DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES republic of Korea... pretty sure a dictatorship doesnt constitute as a democracy

...that's been the case for like 50 years. And its not just Korea, most police states have pseudodemocratic names. You didn't just find that out, did you?

Speaking of PRK, their weightlifter (63 kg??) was crazy, got a gold. Kim something something.