How's that Olympic Village Doing, Brazil?

[heydaralon]

lol burning the money in a large pile would be better spent than hosting the olympics. Also dumping bales of cash into the ocean.

[heydaralon]

I think the Olympics gives many countries a false sense of hope and an unrealistic self image. If you are a country like the US or somewhere in Europe, I get being proud of your athletes representing your country. But if you are some Third world country or somewhere in Africa I think your priorities are misplaced. Wow you won bronze metal in watersports or something, but there is literally sewage in your streets and you have a 12% literacy rate and no potable water. Fix that first, and stop being cocky about throwing a discus or whatever.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Olympics never pay off for the cities that host them.

We'd be better off just building one permanent Olympic village in Greece and holding the games there every year. Maybe build another village in Switzerland for the winter games.

Agree completely. It's a total waste of resources.

No, sending a man to Mars is a total waste of resources. The Olympics have huge benefits for both the host country and the rest of the world.
Restricting the games to one country would be the slow death of the games. The games need to be inclusive, if you limit them to one country or even one continent you are excluding all others and creating division instead of unity. The unity created by the games is it's greatest benefit.
Make sport not war.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Olympics, and I think they're a valuable thing that we shouldn't lose. However, I fail to see why traveling it around the world at huge expense is "extra unifying", as opposed to the world gathering in a set place every 4 years. Elaborate on this?

[heydaralon]

Railgun > Olympics

[Montegriffo]

Agree completely. It's a total waste of resources.

No, sending a man to Mars is a total waste of resources. The Olympics have huge benefits for both the host country and the rest of the world.
Restricting the games to one country would be the slow death of the games. The games need to be inclusive, if you limit them to one country or even one continent you are excluding all others and creating division instead of unity. The unity created by the games is it's greatest benefit.
Make sport not war.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Olympics, and I think they're a valuable thing that we shouldn't lose. However, I fail to see why traveling it around the world at huge expense is "extra unifying", as opposed to the world gathering in a set place every 4 years. Elaborate on this?

Firstly, most of the expense comes back in TV rights money.
If done properly the money is spent on infrastructure which will be used for many years to come.
Hosting the games can add prestige to developing countries and can have a lasting impact on tourism income and participation in sports leading to a healthier and wealthier populace.
Each games has it's own character depending on the host country. Hosting the games in the same place every time will lose the individual identity of each games and detract from the movement.
In the past countries have spent too much money and ended up with huge debts which take decades to pay off. The 1976 Montreal games are a good example of this but recent games have not had this problem.
It is important that all countries wealthy enough should have the opportunity to apply to hold the games and be given a chance to profit from all the advantages which come with it.
China spent 20 billion hosting the games which is the most anyone has spent. The games helped open up China to to the world and they now have a thriving tourism industry where there was none before.
Britain spent 8.77 billion and received a 9.9 billion boost in trade and investment because of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/23434844

[Speaker to Animals]

Monty, the money made from Olympics never goes back to the people who actually paid for it. It's a racket. Some local businesses make a killing. Television networks make a killing.

Taxpayers get robbed.

I too love the idea of the Olympics. I think we need to take it back to it's roots. Build it in Greece. Hell, build it near the original site of Olympia. One village needs to be built for each of the two Olympic games. Then we can spend far less every four years modernizing them, and nobody gets shafted. Nations who want to participate can pay an annual upkeep fee to maintain the villages, pro-rated to their ability to pay.

[heydaralon]

What a moron. I'll bet Monty takes political ads at face value and follows corporations on twitter and facebook. No one tell Monty pro wrestling isn't real either!

[SuburbanFarmer]

No, sending a man to Mars is a total waste of resources. The Olympics have huge benefits for both the host country and the rest of the world.
Restricting the games to one country would be the slow death of the games. The games need to be inclusive, if you limit them to one country or even one continent you are excluding all others and creating division instead of unity. The unity created by the games is it's greatest benefit.
Make sport not war.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Olympics, and I think they're a valuable thing that we shouldn't lose. However, I fail to see why traveling it around the world at huge expense is "extra unifying", as opposed to the world gathering in a set place every 4 years. Elaborate on this?

Firstly, most of the expense comes back in TV rights money.
If done properly the money is spent on infrastructure which will be used for many years to come.
Hosting the games can add prestige to developing countries and can have a lasting impact on tourism income and participation in sports leading to a healthier and wealthier populace.
Each games has it's own character depending on the host country. Hosting the games in the same place every time will lose the individual identity of each games and detract from the movement.
In the past countries have spent too much money and ended up with huge debts which take decades to pay off. The 1976 Montreal games are a good example of this but recent games have not had this problem.
It is important that all countries wealthy enough should have the opportunity to apply to hold the games and be given a chance to profit from all the advantages which come with it.
China spent 20 billion hosting the games which is the most anyone has spent. The games helped open up China to to the world and they now have a thriving tourism industry where there was none before.
Britain spent 8.77 billion and received a 9.9 billion boost in trade and investment because of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/23434844

Yeah, pretty much what StA said. The money may well be "coming back" to the host country, but it's not going back to the government/taxpayers that actually paid it. Your country's megacorps raking in cash is not the same thing as your country taking in cash.

[Montegriffo]

Don't get me wrong, I love the Olympics, and I think they're a valuable thing that we shouldn't lose. However, I fail to see why traveling it around the world at huge expense is "extra unifying", as opposed to the world gathering in a set place every 4 years. Elaborate on this?

Firstly, most of the expense comes back in TV rights money.
If done properly the money is spent on infrastructure which will be used for many years to come.
Hosting the games can add prestige to developing countries and can have a lasting impact on tourism income and participation in sports leading to a healthier and wealthier populace.
Each games has it's own character depending on the host country. Hosting the games in the same place every time will lose the individual identity of each games and detract from the movement.
In the past countries have spent too much money and ended up with huge debts which take decades to pay off. The 1976 Montreal games are a good example of this but recent games have not had this problem.
It is important that all countries wealthy enough should have the opportunity to apply to hold the games and be given a chance to profit from all the advantages which come with it.
China spent 20 billion hosting the games which is the most anyone has spent. The games helped open up China to to the world and they now have a thriving tourism industry where there was none before.
Britain spent 8.77 billion and received a 9.9 billion boost in trade and investment because of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/23434844

Yeah, pretty much what StA said. The money may well be "coming back" to the host country, but it's not going back to the government/taxpayers that actually paid it. Your country's megacorps raking in cash is not the same thing as your country taking in cash.

The majority of the cost of the London games came from sponsorship and the national lottery. The rest was paid for by London's rates payers at a cost of 8p per week. The benefits certainly did go to London's economy in the form of jobs, the construction industry and extra tourism etc.
The presige worldwide which comes from a city hosting a successful games is priceless.
Holding the games in the same place every time would diminish the games and rob nations of the chance to profit from them both financialy and in terms of legacy and international prestige.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Firstly, most of the expense comes back in TV rights money.
If done properly the money is spent on infrastructure which will be used for many years to come.
Hosting the games can add prestige to developing countries and can have a lasting impact on tourism income and participation in sports leading to a healthier and wealthier populace.
Each games has it's own character depending on the host country. Hosting the games in the same place every time will lose the individual identity of each games and detract from the movement.
In the past countries have spent too much money and ended up with huge debts which take decades to pay off. The 1976 Montreal games are a good example of this but recent games have not had this problem.
It is important that all countries wealthy enough should have the opportunity to apply to hold the games and be given a chance to profit from all the advantages which come with it.
China spent 20 billion hosting the games which is the most anyone has spent. The games helped open up China to to the world and they now have a thriving tourism industry where there was none before.
Britain spent 8.77 billion and received a 9.9 billion boost in trade and investment because of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/23434844

Yeah, pretty much what StA said. The money may well be "coming back" to the host country, but it's not going back to the government/taxpayers that actually paid it. Your country's megacorps raking in cash is not the same thing as your country taking in cash.

The majority of the cost of the London games came from sponsorship and the national lottery. The rest was paid for by London's rates payers at a cost of 8p per week. The benefits certainly did go to London's economy in the form of jobs, the construction industry and extra tourism etc.
The presige worldwide which comes from a city hosting a successful games is priceless.
Holding the games in the same place every time would diminish the games and rob nations of the chance to profit from them both financialy and in terms of legacy and international prestige.

What jobs now exist, thanks to hosting the Olympics 5 years ago?