The Olympics are the single oldest international organization of completely amateur sport in the world with the first games dating back to the ancient Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. The winners were famously only rewarded with a wreath; there were no riches or money; only honor and glory. This tradition endures in the present day as well with two differences: the wreath has been replaced with medals and the games are held in different countries all over the globe. Many countries consider it a great honor to host the Olympics and rivalry and negotiations are fierce until the announcement is finally made and one country emerges victorious. However, is hosting the Olympics all that it is cracked up to be and does the endeavor involve some disadvantages as well? The answer to this question is undoubtedly affirmative.
It is universally agreed that hosting an international organization on such a grand scale has various advantages. The most obvious one is all the facilities and amenities that are provided for the games which later benefit the locals of the area. Stadiums are built or revamped, infrastructure is updated and any problems are ironed out, accommodation is arranged; in short, there is a general clean up ahead of the guests. Any international organization of this sort means tourists, which means potential customers, which means local businesses can look to making a tidy profit. It is a wonderful opportunity to advertise the country in all its glory, which in turn means future profits. In short, at first glance, it looks like a brilliant business opportunity so why are the Brazilians out in the streets protesting en masse the fact that the country is preparing to host a very similar international event, the world cup?
There are various disadvantages of hosting any organization on such a large scale which may not be obvious at first sight. If there are vast differences in quality of life and standard of living between various segments of society in the country as in the case of Brazil, the lower classes may see all the money being poured into the building of stadiums and the like to be a total waste of money and misuse of valuable resources. They may prefer these millions to be spent on welfare projects, housing, schools and roads not on some fancy playing fields they are not going to be able to get into. It must be agreed these people do have a point. Then there is a very real danger of not being able to recoup the money invested, which may be the case if not enough tickets are sold for the games or people just prefer to watch the games in the comfort of their living rooms. This has been the case in London but luckily, Britain is a developed country which can afford this. Can the same be said for developing countries and is the risk worth taking?
To sum up, hosting the Olympics does bring glory, free showcasing of the attractions of the country and revenue but whether this revenue will cover the costs and provide a healthy profit and whether public opinion will back the government of the host country is up for debate. Governments should consider the pros and cons very hard before taking on such a venture.
Provided by: The Oracle