The 2016 Summer Olympics are just a few weeks away, and the host city is under a lot of scrutinies. Rio de Janeiro and Brazil are dealing with their worst economic recession, its president is suspended and undergoing impeachment, and tourists and prominent athletes are staying away because of the Zika virus, crime, corruption, and pollution.
So why do cities spend millions for the chance to host this mega event? Los Angeles, Paris, Budapest, and Rome just advanced their bids to host in 2024. Here are some of the arguments for and against.
1. Job Creation
For: Significant investment in hotels and stadiums creates jobs years before and after the event. When Barcelona hosted the games in 1992, unemployment went from an all-time high of about 128,000 in 1986 to a low of about 61,000 in 1992. In the three months leading up to the 2012 London Olympics, over 100,000 jobs were created.
Against: Many of the jobs are temporary and provide only brief relief to unemployment. In many cases, workers come from different regions, doing little to benefit the local economy. Organizers claimed that the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, would create 30,000 jobs, but only about 5,000 jobs were. Many of those were gone a year after closing ceremonies.
2. Infrastructure
For: Investment in sporting facilities, transportation, housing, and travel provides long-term benefits to the city and surrounding areas. After winning the Olympic bid, Rio de Janeiro accelerated 27 stagnant government projects, including sanitation improvements, highways linking the airport to key points in the city, and improvements to public transportation.
Against: Critics argue that cities can invest in infrastructure without hosting the games and that it is unethical to spend billions building elaborate venues that will be in use for a short period. In Athens, there are numerous empty facilities built for the 2004Summer Games known as “white elephants.”
The 1976 Montreal Olympics were financed almost entirely by the city, and because of budget shortfalls, taxpayers paid for the games for over 30 years. Yes, the Olympics often set in motion projects that benefit the public, but because of the accelerated pace, poor financing and planning decisions lead to corruption and cost overruns. The 2014 Sochi Winter Games were estimated to cost $12 billion, but ended up costing more than $50 billion!
3. Tourism
For: The Olympics attract thousands of people whose spending boosts the local economy. Host countries also hope that the games promote the city as a future tourist destination. Media coverage benefited the tourism industries of Barcelona and Salt Lake City. From 1990 to 2001 visitors to Barcelona increased by 95%—the most of any European city during that time. Salt Lake City witnessed a 42% increase in skier visits. It also saw a spike in direct expenditures from skiers and snowboarders, going from $704 million in 2002-03 to $1.2 billion in 2010-11.
Against: The European Tour Operators Association found that hosting the games might have a negative impact because it disrupts the city’s normal tourism market. For example, London theaters had to reduce ticket prices to attract audiences during their Olympics. In 2000, Sydney experienced nearly 100% hotel occupancy, but tourism in the surrounding cities suffered.
4. Olympic Legacy
For: The 1984 LA Olympics ended with a surplus of $232.5 million, of which $93 million stayed in Southern California to create the LA84 Foundation. The foundation funds youth organizations and sporting events and helped raise money for coaches and equipment at high schools that could not afford them.
In Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul, governments used the Olympics as a catalyst to reduce pollution, improve sanitation standards, and modernize waste disposal systems. In London, Olympic sites were transformed to include low-income housing, schools, healthcare centers, and business spaces. The Olympics provide an opportunity for host cities and countries to boost their image globally and give their people a lasting legacy that is tangible and quantifiable.
Against: Organizers and marketing teams focus on the beautiful venues, leaving untold the stories of citizens evicted from their homes to make way for them. The utilitarian theory states that we should seek to establish the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Examples like Montreal and Athens run counter to that theory.
What will be the legacy of the Rio Games? Time will tell.
