• sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’d really like to see an honest assessment of the costs and benefits of a city hosting the Olympics. While I can see that a focused burst of spending on the infrastructure to host the games could provide a positive short-term boost and some of that infrastructure could be a long term boon for a city (e.g. transit upgrades), it seems like a lot of the infrastructure is just going to rot or have to be torn back down. And any transit upgrades or infrastructure is likely not well aligned with the city’s residents. Instead being hyper-focused on the Games. The tourism income during the event is probably spectacular for both the government and local business. But, if businesses expand to meet the surge in demand, what happens to those businesses as the one time boost dries up? And are local businesses really benefiting or do non-local businesses flock to the area for the short term and then close up shop as soon as the event is over? I’d expect a major city is much better equipped to deal with this sort of event, but it’s still likely to face an overwhelming number of tourists. But, if what they get is a short term economic boost, useless infrastructure which either rots or costs ongoing maintenance, and a bunch of debt to pay off, then the whole endeavor doesn’t seem worth it.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Most of the ones that have turned a profit were American, including Los Angeles in 1984. LA in 1984 didn’t build a lot and put everything they did build into use after the event, mostly college athletics. They also collect sponsors directly rather than depend on the IOC.