argument top image

Are Olympics an overall good or bad for the cities where they are hosted? Show more Show less
Back to question

The Olympic Games are a set of international sports competitions that occur every four years for winter and spring sports, or every two years overall. Each competition is held in a different city in a different country, with the potential possibility to repeat a location. As the world economy and tourism expanded in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, there has been some debate as to whether the Olympics is an overall good or bad experience for a host country.

The Olympic Games are an overall bad for their host city Show more Show less

The Olympic Games are an antiquated form of international competition that comes with imagined prestige for the hosts. The sheer scale of construction required to host, and Olympics game can overwhelm an unprepared economy, as well as cause damage to already vulnerable citizens. While hosting the games can bring a city and country into the international eye, the intangible alleged benefits are doing so are vastly outweighed by the literal, negative, and concrete impacts on a city.
< (2 of 2)

Debt can plague a city for decades

Disastrous for both international reputation and individual citizens, the economic burden created by hosting the Olympic Games is simply not worth any imagine prestige.

The Argument

Hosting the Olympic Games is incredibly expensive. A study by researchers at the University of Oxford found that the cost of Olympic Games overrun with 100% consistency. At times, it is even worse; for instance, the 1992 Albertville, France Olympic Winter Games ran over by a staggering 135%.[1] A vast majority of the infrastructure and investment that goes into hosting the Olympic Games is simply not worth the benefit. Not only that, it can set a thriving metropolis back decades economically. The average household in Athens was forced to pay an additional €50,000 in order to offset costs from Athens’ disastrous 2004 hosting.[2] Another example of intense economic impact comes from Montreal. Despite the claims of their mayor Jean Drapeau who famously boasted “the Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby,” the city suffered under debt for several decades. The cost of their 1976 Games ballooned to $1.6 billion, a price Montreal paid through 2006.[3] Disastrous for both international reputation and individual citizens, the economic burden created by hosting the Olympic Games is simply not worth any imagine prestige.[4]

Counter arguments

The failure of budgeting and remaining revitalized is no fault of the Olympic Games’ presence, but of the various cities who failed. The Olympic Games offered these cities the chance to thrive under international attention, yet they squandered it. One need only to look to the more successful models to see that a productive hosting greatly benefits a city. Los Angeles in its 1992 Summer Olympics hosting was able to turn a profit of $200 million, a remarkable amount. Sydney’s 2000 Games, widely believed to be the most successful hosting in modern history, resulted in economic expansion for the country. Bad planning and overspending are no faults of the Olympic Games.[5]



Rejecting the premises




Not sure yet? Read more ↑


This page was last edited on Wednesday, 14 Oct 2020 at 20:11 UTC

Explore related arguments