Amazon.com Widgets

Should the Olympic Games be permanently hosted by the same city?

  • It would save a lot of money.

    For example, the web article “What if the Olympics Were Held in the Same City?” mentioned this fact: “The 2008 Summer Games in Beijing cost more than $42 billion, and Sochi spent more than $50 billion for the Winter Games in the Russian city six years later.” Another online article: “Should the Olympics have a permanent home — a single location where the Olympics is always held?” added: “There is an estimate that Rio Olympics will cost Brazil about 20 billion dollars. And the income generated would be about 4.5 billion dollars.” Clearly, you can notice a pattern here. We would save a lot of money. We wouldn’t just spend tens of billions of dollars on a new stadium just to have it been used for 1 month, wouldn’t we?

  • Tradition trumps travel

    For less than 120 years the Olympics have changed city. For several hundred years the Ancient Olympics were held in Olympia, Greece. The benefits to each host city are not clear-cut, as it often takes decades to recoup the cost of the Games. As an alternative to hosting the Games in a different country each time, a country could bid to be the host of the Games in the 'designated location'.

  • Olympics Should Continue to Move

    No, the Olympic Games should not be permanently hosted by the same city as it is a global event, and as such, it should be represented globally. No one nation has a monopoly on the Olympic Games, and it should stay this way. To do otherwise would be to rob the Games of their global nature.

  • The Olympics should change host cities.

    The entire idea of the Olympic games is that various countries compete. It should be hosted in various places to reflect the diversity and different cultures that are competing. It would show respect for the various nations, for the diversity of the Olympics, and would be more fair if it were held it different cities.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.