OLYMPIC GAMES HOSTING

Olympic Games Hosting



Olympic Games Hosting

Introduction

Hosting a major sporting event creates a huge spotlight on the host city, and moreover, it would be ethically and economically unjust to allow one city to reap the rewards of such an event while other cities went without the benefits of it. Any major events are a result of large undertakings intended to spur local economic development by attracting tourist and media recognition for the host city(Malfas, Theodoraki, Houlihan, 2004, pp.89-109). Within the past decade, developed or undeveloped cities from all over the world have become quite interested in hosting the Olympics solely because of the perception of major and positive impacts such as attracting tourist, "gaining an international profile" (Glynn, 2008, pp.1117-11146)and generating income. As well as the likely impacts towards environmental and socio-economical areas, host cities tend to put a great emphasis on the economic implications of the Olympics and tourism development. Although economic impact analyses prepared by or on behalf of Olympic advocates have demonstrated economic advantages from hosting the Games, "potential host communities pose the question whether or not the economic benefits of the Olympics are pragmatic and, if they are, the extent to which such benefits offset the costs" (Coalter, 2007, pp.109-110). Much of the published literature on the "Olympic emphasizes long-term benefits such as newly constructed event facilities and infrastructure, urban revival, enhanced international reputation, increased tourism, as well as improved public warfare, additional employment, local business opportunities and corporate relocation" (Girard, 2008, pp., 1-19). In contrast, there is also a high potential of negative impacts that include high construction costs of public sports infrastructures, over-crowding, property and rental increases.

For 17 days every four years the Summer Olympics attract the world's attention and the host city gets immense media coverage. Yet many argue that the huge cost of hosting the Olympic games means that cities are left with crippling bills and empty stadia once those 17 days are over. Montreal, the host in 1976, is still paying off the cost of staging the games today and the Athens Olympics of 2004 ran billions of euros over the original budget - at state expense(Girard, 2008, pp., 1-19). The scandal surrounding the bidding process for the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Games revealed that 13 of the 124 International Olympic Committee (IOC) members who were tasked with deciding who should be awarded the games were 'bought' with gifts and bribes. Since then the IOC has tightened up its regulations but rumours of corruption amongst some members remain and were revealed by a BBC sting operation in 2004(Glynn, 2008, pp.1117-11146). Whilst proponents of hosting the games generally accept that they will inevitably cost significant amounts of money, they argue that the 'feel good factor' and longer term benefits justify this outlay.

China

Benefits

The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are seen by many as evidence of China's acceptance into the global community and a way for her to showcase her economic growth and acceptance of the ...