Many developed countries want to hold the Olympic Games, but is it really beneficial to host country or possible huge financial investments will not return profitably? For instance, for holding of the Beijing Olympics the government of China spent approximately $1.606 billion and it was the most expensive olympics in the history(1). During the crisis, the government could spend the money on more important field, such as medicine and education. Moreover, some built sports facilities which intended for use after the event are still empty.
(1) Tendys, W. , Business and Finance, Society & Sport.
While many argue that the financial investment to host the Olympics is too great, there have been studies that show the positive economic effect is not necessarily seen in the short term use of venues or tourism but rather through long term international perception and trade. The real positive impact comes from name recognition and how the host country is perceived by others. According to The National Bureau of Economic Research, countries that host the Olympics see an increase in national exports. This benefit even extends to countries that enter failed bids for the Olympics (1). A country that has the means to host an international event as epic as the Olympics automatically gains prestige throughout the international community. The bidding country is making a statement about its stability and international goodwill.