• 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

  • 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.

  • 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
  • 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.

  • 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
  • It's definitely worth it

    I don't know how the olympics can be survived without. The olympics are a festival of sports. It brings joy to our lives and gives us happiness. Without the olympics people won't be brought together. In the olympics, competitors bond throughout the competition. overall i think the olympics are a important event for our world to bring peace and sportmanship.

  • Boosts economy

    the financial trades go through the roof because they gain a huge profit from tickets. this is important because, when they win the bid, they have to prepare. they have to know how much money is going to be spent on the Olympic games. a lot of research goes into this and if we stop hosting the olympic games, many people will lose their jobs!

  • It is worth the cost to host the Olympic games because of the profits that could be made as part of these games.

    When a country hosts the Olympics, their rate of tourism skyrockets. Businesses within wide radii of where the games would be hosted would have profit margins shoot through the roof. The countries themselves are seen by the world as worthy of hosting, and the cultural rating of these countries therefore raise. It would be silly for a country that focused on profit to turn down an opportunity to host the Olympic games.

    Posted by: TigerAmb
  • It is worth the cost to host they Olympics, because it brings publicity and value to your city.

    It costs a lot to host the Olympics, but cities also get a lot of revenue from the tourists and advertisers who come into the city for the games. Cities can also always promote themselves as previous hosts of the Olympics years later to draw more attention to their city's value.

    Posted by: TMacias

    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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.