Is hosting the Olympics worth it?

DEFTLEFTHAND

I came across this article about Rio the other week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4241412/Brazil-s-12-billion-Olympic-legacy-lies-ruins.html

I think Brazil made a terrible mistake hosting the Games and World Cup in the space of two years. The money spent obviously needed to be used elsewhere.

Greece in 2004 was another disaster. Take a look at some of the facilties in their present state, the surviving sites from the Ancient Games seem to be better preserved.

Montreal a big prosperous city also struggled for years with their debt. They hosted in 1976 and only cleared the debt in 2006.

Is it really worth it for any city in the long run? I think a better idea would be to make Athens the permanent home of the Summer Games. Have each member country pay for the building and upkeep of facilities.

osarusan

I seem to remember Amsterdam being interested in hosting it, but once they actually heard what it involved in terms of infrastructure, and, more to the point, the amazing number of demands made by the IOC of the host country, they decided not to bother.

pablomakaveli

I dont really think it is. Sure theres a lot of prestige attached and a large influx of tourists for a few weeks but given the large amount of money and effort to prepare for the Olympics it doesnt seem like a good deal.

I've seen pictures of facilities built for Summer/Winter Olympics that end up abandoned and left derelict afterwards and it just seems like such a waste.

Harry Palmr

It's madness the 2024 games has two cities left of just 5 who put forward initial bids. Los Angeles or Paris it is and they probably have much of what they'll need already in place.

There should be an Olympic Circus (geddit?!) with 4 cities rotated - this also means the local economy can be built around same.

edit I mixed up my ancient Greece and Rome there...

DEFTLEFTHAND

The pictures of the Maracana upset me the most. Such an iconic football stadium. Now the pitch is overgrown, the electricity turned off for unpaid bills and the stadium itself looted and vandalised.

This after a multi million renovation was carried out. Who's responsible here, do the Brazilian FA not own the stadium?

dreamers75

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The pictures of the Maracana upset me the most. Such an iconic football stadium. Now the pitch is overgrown, the electricity turned off for unpaid bills and the stadium itself looted and vandalised.

This after a multi million renovation was carried out. Who's responsible here, do the Brazilian FA not own the stadium?

THey do but they rented it to the Olympic crowd who are supposed to give it back as they found it.

They have not done that yet.

Butters1979

dreamers75 wrote: »

THey do but they rented it to the Olympic crowd who are supposed to give it back as they found it.

They have not done that yet.

They do not. The Rio de Janeiro state government own it.

Del2005

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I came across this article about Rio the other week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4241412/Brazil-s-12-billion-Olympic-legacy-lies-ruins.html

I think Brazil made a terrible mistake hosting the Games and World Cup in the space of two years. The money spent obviously needed to be used elsewhere.

Greece in 2004 was another disaster. Take a look at some of the facilties in their present state, the surviving sites from the Ancient Games seem to be better preserved.

Montreal a big prosperous city also struggled for years with their debt. They hosted in 1976 and only cleared the debt in 2006.

Is it really worth it for any city in the long run? I think a better idea would be to make Athens the permanent home of the Summer Games. Have each member country pay for the building and upkeep of facilities.

No it's not worthwhile for a city to run the Olympics, or soccer world cup, as they are both events purely for the benefit of the IOC/FIFA. I think LA was the only city not too loose it's arse hosting a games yet the IOC make billions from it, yet the tax payers of the city bare the costs for decades and disruption of their city for an event that lasts a month.

The fact that most of the participants are out and out cheaters doesn't help, for super fit people they have a lot of illnesses that require drugs which can enhance performance.

wakka12

I don't know why it was ever allowed to be hosted in Rio as it was clear that the government would spend money on this vanity project despite it being desperately needed by its impoverished citizens. I don't know why it isn't just re-hosted by cities who have already hosted the games before.

There must be at least a dozen or so cities with huge amounts of infrastructure in place currently for them. I think they'd provide enough variety in location without ruining a developing countries economy

Red Kev

Del2005 wrote: »

No it's not worthwhile for a city to run the Olympics, or soccer world cup, as they are both events purely for the benefit of the IOC/FIFA. I think LA was the only city not too loose it's arse hosting a games yet the IOC make billions from it, yet the tax payers of the city bare the costs for decades and disruption of their city for an event that lasts a month.

The fact that most of the participants are out and out cheaters doesn't help, for super fit people they have a lot of illnesses that require drugs which can enhance performance.

Los Angeles made a profit for one reason: No other city wanted it, so they saved a fortune on bidding. They also told the IOC that they would for the most part be using existing facilities, no matter where they were in the city and they were allowed to do that, as the IOC had no choice.

It's the IOC's fault that it's so expensive, nobody else's. They need to change their tune fairly quickly.

pickarooney

There's at most ten cities which could host the Olympics on a rotation. If the stadiums aren't in full working order beforehand there should be no bid made. Did London break even? I'd have them on the shortlist.

tomwaterford

pickarooney wrote: »

There's at most ten cities which could host the Olympics on a rotation. If the stadiums aren't in full working order beforehand there should be no bid made. Did London break even? I'd have them on the shortlist.

If theres 10 cities what can hold the olympic....that means it comes around once every 40 years.....would the stadiums not need rebuilding then anyways


As pairc ui caoimh was 40 years or so old and it didnt age well...despite regular use??

wakka12

pickarooney wrote: »

There's at most ten cities which could host the Olympics on a rotation. If the stadiums aren't in full working order beforehand there should be no bid made. Did London break even? I'd have them on the shortlist.

10 is more than enough considering it only occurs ever 4 years

pickarooney

tomwaterford wrote: »

If theres 10 cities what can hold the olympic....that means it comes around once every 40 years.....would the stadiums not need rebuilding then anyways


As pairc ui caoimh was 40 years or so old and it didnt age well...despite regular use??

No, they should only be considered if the stadiums get regular use for other sporting events. European and international track meets, football/rugby matches, that kind of thing.

Harry Palmr

That's why 4 cities is enough - one for the Americas (Chicago), west Europe (London or Paris) and two for Eurasia - (Moscow and Tokyo)

It's the same as the world cup or NFL teams, if there was no corruption or cronyism it could be well worth doing.

godtabh

Talk of Los Angeles being a permeant venue as it still has all the infrastructure and is still handle it

Red Kev

godtabh wrote: »

Talk of Los Angeles being a permeant venue as it still has all the infrastructure and is still handle it

Lots of cities have the infrastructure to do it. It's just that the IOC has ridiculous demands that border on insanity. There was something online a while ago about Hamburg's bid. They have all facilities within 2 hours of a central Hamburg, but the demands drove the price into the billions.

Part of the report actually said that London would not be able to hold the event using the 2012 facilities again as the IOC demands have changed again. It's nothing to do with sport any more, but with massaging the ego's of the Pat Hickey's of this world.

Paris could hold it within 4 months if they wanted, but the IOC want new facilities. The Stade de France would have to be changed massicely even though it holds 80,000 people events on a regular basis.

BrokenArrows

If you give a **** country/economy the Olympics then its obviously going to be a long term failure.

London hosted them 5 years ago and all the stadiums etc have been consistently in use since.

Red Kev

BrokenArrows wrote: »

If you give a **** country/economy the Olympics then its obviously going to be a long term failure.

London hosted them 5 years ago and all the stadiums etc have been consistently in use since.

The main stadium has proved to be ridiculously expensive, they essentially paid West Ham to move in. Swiming Pool is underused as are other facilities. It's had a huge amount of taxpayers money thrown at it to keep it going. Badly planned, little or no sustainability, but they were so desperate to get it, they didn't care.

jackofalltrades

I can't wait for there to be regularly just one city bidding for the Olympics.
The IOC could do with being taken down several pegs.

Building new facilities all the time is just ridiculous, especially in an era where people are increasingly focused on sustainability.

ChikiChiki

It should just be held in Athens, the real home of the Olympics every 4 years in my opinion. Its just pure waste as we see time and time again Olympic parks fall into disrepair.

kneemos

They don't necessarily have to have it in one location. They could hold different events around the world where facilities are already in place,plenty of track and field stadiums about for the main event .

kneemos

Red Kev wrote: »

Lots of cities have the infrastructure to do it. It's just that the IOC has ridiculous demands that border on insanity. There was something online a while ago about Hamburg's bid. They have all facilities within 2 hours of a central Hamburg, but the demands drove the price into the billions.

Part of the report actually said that London would not be able to hold the event using the 2012 facilities again as the IOC demands have changed again. It's nothing to do with sport any more, but with massaging the ego's of the Pat Hickey's of this world.

Paris could hold it within 4 months if they wanted, but the IOC want new facilities. The Stade de France would have to be changed massicely even though it holds 80,000 people events on a regular basis.

An endless trail of backhanders from construction contractors to government officials to IOC members no doubt.

Richard Hillman

There was a lot of sceptism from Londoners and the British before 2012 but even if it doesn't break even, they were still near universally happy that it happened.

Small with the likes of China and Australia. Sometimes it's nice to have nice things, even if it doesn't have a monetary value.

Giving the Olympics to tin-top countries like Greece and Brazil purely on sentiment is where it all goes wrong. Greece got the Olympics purely on the basis that it is the home of the games but overall it was an expected farce. Similar with Brazil in that they only got it because it had never been in South America.

We'll see the same problems with Qatar and the world cup.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Red Kev wrote: »

The main stadium has proved to be ridiculously expensive, they essentially paid West Ham to move in. Swiming Pool is underused as are other facilities. It's had a huge amount of taxpayers money thrown at it to keep it going. Badly planned, little or no sustainability, but they were so desperate to get it, they didn't care.

West Ham moving into the stadium looks to have been a folly.

I said it at the time, they'd a great little tight ground there in Upton Park with an intense atmosphere.

They're lost altogether in that big bowl. Reminds my a bit of when Juve moved into the Stadio delle Api.

Although of course Juventus were always a much bigger club than those bigoted Hammers.

We haven't forgotten about Lansdowne in 95, Chelsea Headhunters, West Ham Inter City, Combat 18.

rossie1977

I have visited many of the former Olympic sites but I can't understand why certain cities can turn former Olympic venues into tourist destinations like Munich and Beijing while other cities just let them fall into disrepair