What are the pros and cons of hosting the Olympics in a city?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
pros - Lots of money pouring into the country AND the host city itself and the economy grows. There are a lot of overseas visitors and of course, they go back home and tell their friends about the city and that promotes tourism. It also meant more work on infra structures and construction - equates to jobs and economy (yet again). Built facilities are then available for future other uses.
cons - congestion of traffic and human, prices goes up as everyone want to make a quick buck. routine of life gets interrupted as some areas of the city is shut down and some local people DO lose business when there is no traffic coming through, threat of terrorism.Source(s): I have experienced some of the above first hand when Sydney hosted the Olympics. I needed to get to sydney for an important onepersonal business just for ONE night. I CAN NOT get a room ANYWHERE in the city. The CHEAPEST room I can find was in the outer suburbs at $350 a night compare to what would have been about $90 max for a not even a 3 star motel.
- 1 decade ago
I'd say the cons hugely outweigh any pros when discussing hosting the Olympics. The main problem lies in the exhorbitant amounts of money cities spend to host them. China has $20 billion on its budget for Beijing 2008. The 2012 London Olympics are currently 9.3 billion pounds (about $18.6 billion U.S.) in budget.
Much of the reason is that responsible, long-term community development is ignored in favor of construction of stadiums that might face a dismal afterlife when the games end (Sydney has a few of these problem areas). Success stories involving the games are thus mixed (see Barcelona's $1.4 billion taxpayer debt in 1992).
LA (1984) was the only games to make a real profit, and that was partly due to using existing arenas (LA had the infrastructure to do so), but the city gained little job/economic benefits from hosting the Olympics.
The pros to the issue would revolve around the percieved 'prestige' of hosting the event, but in the end hosting an Olympics is a goal definitely not worth pursuing.Source(s): http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/news/200... http://au.sports.yahoo.com/070315/5/15af4.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/25/10906938... http://www.nytimes.com/specials/olympics/0802/oly-...
- 1 decade ago
The pros, if a plan for the Olympics is thought through, is developed local infrastructure and massive short term boost for tourism industry.
The cons are high costs of infrastructure development, which might lead to a massive public debt. (see Athens) and sometimes redundant structures. Huge influx of viewers might be harmful to the environment, starting with CO2 emissions and finishing with thousands of tons of rubbish.
- 1 decade ago
Pros brings in more money for the city, cons more traffic
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Nc JayLv 51 decade ago
One big con is that the city is being opened up to thousands of foreigners, some of which may have bad intentions for being there.
- BEJEWELEDLv 51 decade ago
most significant factors probably are:
PRO:it brings in a lot of revenue and notoriety to the city.
CON:it cost a lot of money.Montreal is still paying for the 1976 Olympics.It's a gamble