Is It Worth It?: Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Hosting the Olympic Games
It's a gorgeous early August day. You just want to be outside, regardless of what you are doing. Are you? Nope. You are sitting in your car, stuck in traffic as your evening commute home has tripled in time. For a brief moment, you attribute the traffic to rush hour or perhaps an accident. Then you remember the cause of all this traffic: your city is serving as host city for the Olympic Games. On top of the traffic, you’re are facing a noticeable increase in your yearly taxes.
These are common side effects felt by citizens of an Olympic Games host city. On the other hand, the influx of people coming into the city has a positive effect local economy and a spotlight
…show more content…
Boston 2024, the group leading the charge for Boston to be the eventual hosts, was challenged by the grassroots organization No Boston Olympics. NBO led by three Bostonians involved in the Boston political scene: Chris Dempsey, Liam Kerr, and Kelly Gossett. The campaign focused on the negative aspects that citizens would experience were Boston to host the Olympics. For example, the bid would require a public transportation infrastructure investment of $5.2 billion, as stated by Smith College Professor of economics Andrew Zimbalist. Despite that high number, the co-chair of the state legislature’s transportation committee, Bill Straus, said the infrastructure investment would actually total $13 billion. Although some of this is fronted by the State Government and IOC, a tax increase on citizens would still come with it. Possibly add in 1 or 2 more sentences in here on …show more content…
This requires you to step back and contemplate who the Olympic actually for? Is it for sports fans looking for an amazing spectacle, or is it meant to line the pockets of those people who would certainly be well-off even without it. Despite the drastic difference in funding ($15 million for Boston 2024 vs. $10,000 for NBO), NBO and other similar resistance groups were successful in their campaign to showcase why the Olympics should not be held in Boston. By March of 2015, only 36% of residents polled supported Boston 2024. The members of NBO were so adamant because they consider the benefits of hosting a modern day Olympic Games to be far outweighed by costs, and many economists and city officials
they illustrates the controversy on the amount spend on sport facilities. It is not fair for the taxpayers who generally do not benefit from these stadiums, however, there are positive aspects for the major league. The construction of enormous stadiums tell the public that will provide excellent jobs for local
I feel there should have been more private investments, and that way, the city wouldn't be holding the debt of something that hasn't made good on the return. Proponents of public financing of stadium and arena construction often make the argument that the facilities will be literally “self-financing.” The way the facilities will become “self-financing” is by generating thousands of jobs, increasing tourism, and providing an even better experience for fans attending the games. If a city is interested in “re-developing” a certain area, stadiums and arenas are seen as a possible catalyst for the intended rejuvenation. Stadiums are massive projects that can transform the landscape of a city practically overnight and perhaps put the city on the map nationally.
In my opinion, nonmembers shouldn’t be involved since their willingness and membership isn’t even certain so their money shouldn’t be
Across the country, cities invested millions of dollars into sports delveoplment strategies to keep or lure pro teams to their city (Waldron). For example, the city of Cincinnati spent 424 million dollars on the Cincinnati Bengals but later “had to sell a public hospital to clo se budget holes” (Waldron). The financial numbers are stagering. Some of these cities previously expended money on the sports entertainment market but mysteriously ran out when it came time to balance the budget or to make vital improvements in the city. Cities will continue to spend large amounts of funds on NFL teams because the allure of the franchise and the notority they bring with them is to great to say no
What I don’t agree with is cities giving massive tax breaks to teams that build new multi-billion dollar stadiums. We will never see the Yankee’s leave New York. Teams like the Yankees would be able to pay for a new stadium in a short amount of time and still provide jobs for the citizens. If athletes really wanted to win they would play for the league minimum and allow room for other great athletes to be able to play for the same team. Thanks for the post!
Residents in Los Angeles will heavily be affected by the Rams decision as well because ever since the Rams left in 1995, they have been requesting an NFL franchise. Other stakeholders that some tend to forget are the business owners that have businesses located near the new proposed stadium
Conclusion There is long-term positive economic impact that the Super Bowl host city reaps following the event. One of the biggest indicators is job creation due to the level of attention that the game brings to a city. Visitors invest in various sectors in participating in a sports event, including transportation, entertainment, retail, food & beverage, and accommodations. This impact has a direct, indirect, and induced effect in the production of additional materials, jobs, wages, and taxes for a city.
Cities around the world bid millions for the chance of hosting the world’s greatest athletic event: the Olympic Games. Tokyo, Japan spent $150 million to bid for its spot as the 2016 Summer Olympics host, but it ended up losing that bid and the millions of dollars (McBride 5). When Boston had the chance to bid for the 2024 Olympics, many Bostonians were protesting against the Olympics in Boston (Gregory 2). Their anger stems from the negative effects the Olympics bring to its host city. In Montreal, the Olympics inundated the city a $1.5 billion debt (McBride 3).
The issue of subsidising professional sports teams and building new facilities is not new. In the 1970s, academics such as Roger G. Noll (1974) and Bruce Kidd (1977) raised concerns about this issue, yet the situation is now worse than ever. The big supporters of public subsidies for professional sports are the team owners, the players and media, and, to a lesser extent, the fans themselves. Supporters suggest that the funding of teams and new stadiums is good for a city.
In his essay “Gil’s Sportsplex”, Gil Fried states that Gil Giles is always obsessed with softball and thus, he tends to invest a sportsplex after he retired (1). Fried introduces Gil’s backgrounds that he is a former police officer without any experiences in running a sports facility (2). Elsewhere, Fried demonstrates various industry analyses about sportaplex, for example, the definition of sportsplex is a facility offering multiple indoor and outdoor sports (2), and the “Sportsplex Operators and Developers Association (SODA)” propose some guidelines for implementing a sportsplex, such as “developing a needs assessment, feasibility study and preliminary design”(2). In addition, Fried cites CT sportsplex information, which includes the location, population, the charging fees, sponsorship packages, and the competing component research, as a frame example for Gil’s sportsplex (3-4).
Population Growth expands the tax base and results in more tax
Conversely research shows alumni more often than not aren’t influence by sports when donating and those that are often donate to a specific sports program instead of the university general fund (Anderson, 2012). And while applications to a school usually do increase after a major sports accomplishment, the effect rarely lasts more than a year. As for helping the local economies, most revenue created by visitors attending a large sporting event is counteracted by money lost from locals looking to avoid the crowds (Dennis Coates and Craig A. Depken). Furthermore, athletic scholarships and institutional funding is not needed for students and athletes to enjoy the positives that come from watching and cheering sports, the same benefits can be achieved thru non-school funded club and intramural
It can be said that the Olympic and Paralympic games serve as a vehicle for expressing British national and cultural identity. Personally, I agree as well as disagree with this sentiment. I believe that the spirit of the Olympic and Paralympic games are determinant upon the host city of the games. So, in regards to the most recent Olympic and Paralympic games, which took place in London and its surrounding areas, yes, the games served as a vehicle for expressing British national and cultural identity. However, with the upcoming games taking place in Rio de Janeiro the games will not express British national and cultural identity, it will express Brazilian national and cultural identity.
The costs of GC2018 is a lot and there is also a $65-billion-dollar debt the Queensland government is under. The Games are forecasted to cost an estimated $2 billion, which is$293,000
Paris’ vision for the 2024 Games emphasizes the importance of sustainability and historic appreciation of Olympism. Bernard Lapasset, President of Paris 2024, states his vision for the Games as a “100 year celebration” and appreciation for Olympism; making it our mission and duty to create a celebration for the Olympics not only for the athletes, but also for the nation (Palmer, 2015). Paris has the ability to give the Olympic Games a new meaning. “It will remind us of a great sporting past and the enduring nature of Olympic values as we look to the future embracing innovation and the ongoing importance of inspiration and education" (Palmer, 2015). Support System