• Not at all

    I'd say it's more practical to just not host. The amount of tourism and consumerism that countries expect to get by hosting the Olympics simply doesn't come close to the amount they actually make. Greece's economy collapsed in part because they were unable to pay all the debts they owed for hosting the Olympics. Letting your economy grow naturally is much better in the long run than spending so much money on the Olympics

  • Good for Economy

    Very good to have developing countries to have a boost in their economy. Costs will be paid back through tourism and tickets. Additionally, it is better to not have the cities like London, Los, Melbourne and Sydney always staging the olympics and commonwealth games, we should give others a chance

  • Money can be replaced, city reputation (good reputation not bad) can not be won too easily.

    Cities will get to become more popular all around the world, and also upgrade their buildings and roads and stuff. The cost may be too much, but it's worth it, as the city afterwords will be better and known. Also, a part of the money will be replaced in the Olympics, as millions of people will visit the city for the Games, and the hotels will get to be full, winning lots of money. The olympics are like a period of time when cities work so hard and they lose some money (for the preparation, like the people lose for the transportation to work) and also win some money (income like the daily one people get). So money can be replaced, but the city's reputation will get even higher after this.

  • Olympics rule

    I believe that it is worth it because the someguwithaopinion is a 12 year old who is wrong. Also the olympics are good because every one gets a job if needed. Also the economy gets a boost of money by ticket sale and business that is booming. Finally thier is a boost in the tourism.

  • The tourism and exposure your country receives is worth the cost.

    The Olympics bring a huge amount of recognition and stature to a hosting country. The country will become more well-known. This will increase tourism and travel to that country, and especially to that region. The Olympics themselves will bring a large boost to the economy. Fans from all over the world will come to the events. Hotels, restaurants, tourist shops and stores will all make lots of money during the games. There will also be media and important people at the events. This all makes hosting the games worthwhile.

    Posted by: VasilBuddy
  • No, I oppose hosting the Olympics, because we are already in debt to the point of no return.

    The economy is such that if we were to host the Olympics, we would not gain back the revenue to break even. There has been a tepid response to the Olympics in general for quite some time. Not like when I was young, and the Olympics held the importance of a Presidential election or Christmas. People aren't even traveling to see family as much as they used to in better times. Why would they bother with the expense of attending the Olympics? The United States has no right spending money on such frivolities when we have homeless, hungry and uninsured citizens that need assistance.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • I think it is worth the cost to host the Olympic games.

    The Olympics give countries a change to partake in friendly competition. The games are a constructive experience, not a destruction one like going to war. I think the Olympics are a healthy way of using sports to foster a healthier world.

    Posted by: LorenaH
  • The profit is more than the loss, and the facilities can be continued to use afterward.

    I have participated in speech research that shows the margin of profit is much greater than the costs. Also, facilities remain in the host country and can be used to make profits later.

    Posted by: Salival 64
  • I find it to be financially worth while to host the Olympic games.

    I think that although the cost of hosting the Olympics may be great, the rewards and sheer pride the city feels is far greater. The Olympics are a great and mighty tradition that have been around for hundreds of years, and being able to host such an amazing event, is an honor. Besides being and honor, the Olympics bring thousands of people to one place, meaning that all of them are going to have to spend money in the location of the Olympics. The amount of money that is made off of the Olympics is outrageous.

    Posted by: 5h4rdEgbe
  • I do think that the cost of holding the Olympic games are worth the cost, the Olympics have the possibility to garner a lot of revenue.

    A city can gain a lot of revenue from hosting the Olympic games. The city gets press for the duration of the game, which can bring tourism up. The place that gets to hold the games gets a lot of attention and support. The Olympics puts a city or country on the map. I also feel that players play harder when they are playing at home. It is very expensive but everyone wants the opportunity to host.

    Posted by: C0ImEIite

    Think about the African people, starving and living without shelter. All charities ask for a small amount of money, yet we spend millions on a sporting event. Athletes may get publicity, but aren't human lives more important? If we have money to send rockets to the moon, isn't better to use the money for the poor people?The Olympics are a WASTE OF MONEY!

  • Duh! No way!

    Imagine the poor athletes that could be homesick, stressed & nervous. They may be fun but whats more important :unimportant things like sports or... Emotions, feelings & lives.
    HEY look at surfers every now and then POW! A leg is floating in the water! Well not really but how do you think a runner might sprain their back or even worse brake it! Sheesh look at a few countries without stadiums the government just takes the money from taxpayers & WOW your broke (jokes). They use that money on sport , no not on charity or saving lives or even the simplest things like donating clothes and food! PEOPLE NOW REALLY NEED TO PUT THE TIHNKING CAPS ON AND SAY HEY THIS IS USELESS!


    ok for now byeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

  • Highlights poverty and inequality

    I can't imagine a third world country if going to have the resources to send a team. Therefore the powerful/rich countries have the upper hand before it even starts. It seems to highlight the inequalities in the world not help them.

  • Better elsewhere in the world

    We can enjoy the Olympics wherever they take place. Hosting them is a cost we do not want to pay with little lasting benefit to the country or its individual residents. They are soon forgotten and people move on to other concerns. We should also remember that the medals are won by the individual athletes and not by the country as an entity in itself.

  • A waste of money

    The best that can be said about the Olympics is that it is a medium for pompous elites to pontificate on their own importance and self-worth. The money used to support the Olympics is usually wasted in useless and over priced infrastructure projects which are normally underutilized once the Olympics are finished and end up costing the tax payer far more than they are worth.

  • £24 Billion is too much

    Well, with the state the nations in at the moment it was as if that £24b was nothing. However, it could have gone to better causes, like pulling the nation out of the recession or going towards the EU goals for 2015 that we are no where near achieving yet.

  • It is not worth it.

    There are far better things to spend the money on besides sports, such as education, poverty etc. As well as this, the Olympics are supposed to encourage peace but by bringing countries together and making them compete the Olympics organisers are actually giving these nations a reason to fight, and they make them believe that this is 'supporting their country'.

  • No, its not.

    As enjoyable as it is to watch the Olympics, countries are too poor to participate, and we, the U.S are in debt ourselves. We keep spending money we don't have. But we don't care, nobody cares. Why? We don't look past the present. We aren't thinking about the future, economically. Until we find a president who doesn't screw up our economy, it would be stupid to continue wasting money we didn't have.

  • Not worth it

    The Olympics cost a great deal of money! The minimum amount ever paid to host it was one billion dollars. The maximum ever paid was 43 billion dollars. Here is the way that the Olympics works: basically you pay them to set up all of this equipment and build the buildings for the athletes participating. They must also do the same for the tourists staying to watch these competitions. These buildings stick around for about 17 days, and then they tear everything down and move onto a new place the following year. Each place that hosts it has a different price range, depending on the population, and if it is popular to have the Olympics around... The Olympics has little to no economical benefits either, so why even host it? If I may ask.

  • Hosting the Games is not a worthwhile endeavor because it is wasteful.

    Hosting the Olympic Games is, economically, not worthwhile in the slightest. The Games are ridiculously expensive. For instance, the 2008 Beijing Games cost over 42 billion dollars. All of the money spent on these games is much better put into worthwhile causes that will be beneficial in the future, such as facilities designed with the residents of the host city in mind. Also, it is not just the games that negatively impact the host city. The bidding process to host the Olympic Games takes a minimum of 2 years to complete and ties up land and government resources.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
aravind29 says2014-04-23T07:50:50.253