The Olympics date back to 776 B.C when they were held in Greece (The Olympic Movement). They have long been a four year tradition for nations to come together and compete. For years the IOC (International Olympic Committee) has never had a problem with cities bidding to host this prestigious athletic event. However recently many cities have been dropping their bids to host the event. This pattern looks to continue in the future as many cities have already dropped their bids for the Olympic Games being held 16 years in the future. The Olympics used to stand for so much more than just an athletic event, however recently the games have been losing there flare, hence the significant drop in cities bidding for the Olympics. With the changes of times the Olympics have become difficult for many cities to host, however with careful handling and execution they can be greatly beneficial for any city.

Hosting the Olympics can be beneficial for a city for many reasons, such as the long term benefits that the city receives, the publicity the city receives, the tourists that the city brings in and the revenue that comes along with it. One of the main reasons hosting the Olympic Games can be beneficial for a city is because they can use the games to benefit their city for the long run. By using the games as a chance to enhance the city it can take away from the financial toll of hosting the games, as the revamping of the facilities can benefit the city for many years to come. For example, the city of Barcelona, Spain used their opportunity to host the games in the summer of 1992 to revamp their city. As they added over 3 kilometers of beachfront to their city to bring attraction and increase tourism for years to come (A Bridge too Far). This improvement turned Barcelona from a semi traveled destination to now one of the most visited cities in the world. Therefore hosting the Olympics was worth it for Barcelona as they are still reaping the benefits. Or for another example London, England used their opportunity of hosting the games in the summer of 2012 to turn a waste site into an Olympic Village, which is now used as low cost housing, for those who need it. (A Bridge too Far). London was able to take what they needed to build for the Olympics and change it for the better of their city, so that they are still benefiting from it today. They were able to kill two birds with one stone with their investment into building the Olympic Village and turning it into low cost housing, therefore it was good for the city. Overall, hosting the games can be very expensive, however some of those expenses can be avoided by using this opportunity as a chance to revamp the city. Another reason for hosting the Olympics is because of the publicity that it brings to the city and nation. For the three week span of the Olympics the entire world is focused and fixated on that city. As a city they are able show the best that it has to offer to the entire world. The biggest of names in television stations unload their pockets to be able to host the Olympics, for example NBC and BBC (Szalai 1). These are two of the biggest networks in their respective countries, therefore most everybody can watch them. It's a win- win for both the network and city, as the network can air one of the most watched events on television and the city has their beloved home displayed on some of the most watched networks. Another major benefit to hosting the Olympics is because of the tourism and revenue that the event brings in. For the three week span of the event over 140,000 tourists will occupy the city (Question More). What this means for the benefit of the city is that these 140,000 tourists will need to buy housing, meals/food, transportation and much more. With this significant amount of tourists coming in the city will make an absurd amount of money on the tourist's cost of living alone. Not to mention the tourists also have to pay for tickets. With over 40 summer events and 15 winter events on schedule (The Olympic Movement). This amounts to a little less than 9 million tickets sold for the London Olympic Games in the summer of 2012 being sold between 20-2,012 euros (2012 London Ticket Prices). As well as over 1 million tickets being sold at the Sochi Olympics in the winter of 2014 (Stampler 1) ranging from 33 to 1,320 dollars (Sanchez 1). Overall with the number of tickets being sold and cost of living for the thousands of tourists the Olympics will bring in a great deal of revenue for the city. Another way that the city brings in revenue is through sponsorships. These sponsorships include deals with McDonalds, Coca- Cola, Visa and many more. With the broadcasts all around the world companies are willing to open their pockets wide and throw around a great deal of money to have their product shown across every nation for a three week span. Sponsorships are also a win- win as the company gets to advertise their product and the city gets the company's business. Finally revenue can also come from licensing agreements. In total about 48% of revenue comes from broadcasts, 35% from sponsorships, 15% ticketing and 2% licensing (The Olympic Movement). Also hosting the Olympics creates hundreds of job for citizens in the city, as hours upon hours of work is needed to be done to put this spectacle together. Jobs include, construction workers, event workers, promoters and many more (Hotchkiss 691). Hosting the Olympics can create hundreds of jobs that were not available before, therefore enhancing the city's economy. Overall there are many positives for a city that make hosting the Olympic Games worthwhile. 

Hosting the Olympics brings along many great rewards for a nation, however that is not how everyone views it. Many people believe that it is not worth it for a city to host the Olympics. They argue that the economic toll is too much, that there are more important problems to focus their money towards and that they don't want tourists taking over their city for a three week span. The main argument for citizens who are against hosting the Olympics is the economic toll that the games can have on a city. Recently many cities have become scared and retracted their bids to host the event because of the news that came out of Sochi, Russia, which was that the city spent over $51 billion to host the games (Yaffa 1). When this news spread cities were dropping their bids like crazy, which is why only an astonishing 2 cities remain in contention for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, these cities are Beijing, China and Almaty, Kazakhstan. The cost of the games comes mainly from the building and renovations of athletic facilities for the games to be held, as well as housing facilities for the athletes to stay in and many other minor details to have the city looking spectacular for this world spectacle. Another reason why many cities have been pulling their bids from hosting the games is because they simply don't have the backing of their citizens. One of the main components to win the opportunity to host the games is that you need the support of the citizens of that city, therefore without it there will be no Olympics in that city. For example, one of the main reasons the city of Boston had to pull its bid for the Olympics to be held in the summer of 2024 was because of the "No Boston Campaign". The "No Boston Campaign" was a campaign run by the citizens of Boston, which stood for as the name shows for itself was that they didn't want the Olympics to be held in their city. One of the campaigns main arguments was that they felt as though there are more important issues going on in the city of Boston which should take priority to the Olympic Games. The citizens clearly stated that they didn't want to be spending their tax dollars on the Olympics, when they could focus on another issue (Hosting the Games). Since the city of Boston did not have the backing of their citizens they were forced to pull their bid for the 2024 summer games. With the displeasure that has been shown by citizens of bidding cities it is proving that the Olympics are losing their glamour and appeal, showing that people simply do not care as much about the games as they used to. Boston was also scared off because most American cities have been hesitant to host the games since what happened in Montreal in 1976. "In reality most American cities have been afraid to host the games since the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal because of the cost that it took Montreal to pay for those games" (Lawson 127). Another reason people have a problem with hosting the Olympics is because of the overpopulation that occurs in the city when the games are held. As was stated before over 140,000 tourists visit the city during this three week span. This large number of tourists may be good for the city as a whole, but for regular every day citizens it makes daily life a much bigger challenge for that three week span. One challenge is the traffic that comes along with 140,000 tourists visiting. In general a city is usually flooded with traffic, now with the addition of 140,000 visitors from hundreds of countries that can become a mess. With the highly increased amount of traffic this can challenge a citizen of the city as they have to adapt their day around the traffic. For example, a man driving to work may have to get up and leave an hour earlier than normal to make it to work on time, or he may miss his sons baseball game because the traffic is so heavy on his way home. Overall the largely increased amount of traffic for the three week span can increase the difficulty of a citizen's normal day routine. Not only will the traffic be a problem with that amount of tourists in the city, but parking spots will be scarce to come by, the wait for food will be longer, public transportation will be more crowded and many more reasons. In conclusion the audience that feels the Olympics are not worth it for a city to host the Olympics bring up many reasonable points, however these problems are nothing that can't be worked around.

As many people believe it is not worth it for a city to host the Olympics there is a solution to the reasons they feel as though it is not worth it to host the games. With regards to the economic toll that comes with hosting the Olympics, there are many reasonable solutions to help lower that economic burden. One of the main ways to get around the economic toll of hosting the Olympics is to use the Olympics as a tool to benefit your city for the long run. The examples of Barcelona and London were stated earlier in the essay. Also the city of Rio de Janeiro, who will host the event in the summer of 2016 is using the Olympics as a reason to clean many of their natural water sources, such as the Guanabara Bay (Gannett 1). These natural water sources will be used for the kayak and canoe events in the games, therefore need to be cleaned for the athletes to compete. Overall the city is using the games as a way to improve their city in the long run. Another way to help lower the cost of the Olympics is too focus on what the city already has rather than what they need. Many of the prior host cities have tried to basically rebuild every facility or build a new facility for every event, this is the main reason that the cost of hosting the games has become so out of control. The host city is trying to make the games to extravagant and over the top because of the years before them. However, the fact of the matter is that if they don't want to be in $50 billion dollars of debt like Russia then the host city has to start scaling back more, whether it be through the use of facilities already built or through other ways it is not possible to come out debt free unless we begin to scale it back. For example, a city like Los Angeles, California already has many of the necessary requirements to host the games. Due to the many college campuses located in the city, such as USC (University of Southern California) and UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) the city could house the athletes in the dormitories located on these campuses, therefore they would not have to pay to have housing facilities built. The city could also utilize these profound universities for their athletic facilities, as USC and UCLA have some of the finest athletic facilities in the nation. The city would be able to use their football stadiums, tracks, swimming pools, arenas and other venues. The city also has many professional sports teams in the area that they could utilize. With all these venues already in place the city of Los Angeles could avoid a substantial amount of debt if they were to host the Olympics, as they would not have to build a great amount. Overall if the host city builds around what they already have people will begin to see the cost of hosting the games go down. Another way to help subsidize the economic toll of the Olympics is to put the revenue gained from the event back into the cost so that the tax payers won't have to pay as much. This revenue will come from the television rights, ticket sales, food sales, sponsorships, licensing agreements and housing. However the total revenue is somewhat of a misleading factor for the host city, as they do retain some of the revenue, although much of the other revenue is distributed to other parties. As the IOC receives right around 10% of the revenue for their work. Another way to cut down the cost of hosting the Olympics is to host multiple events in the same building. Many of the events are capable to be held in the same building, For example, instead of building a complex for both handball and basketball, use the same court for basketball and handball. Although it will be slightly more hectic, the cost of hosting the games will be cut down tremendously as the city does not have to pay to build another facility and does not have to pay for the upkeep of another facility. Overall the financial aspect of the Olympic Games is starting to overshadow the glory and athleticism that is the Olympic Games, however it can be fixed (Suter 40). Another argument that people make for it not being a great idea for a city to host the Olympics is that simply the people feel as though there are more important problems to focus their attention, time and money on. The only real solution to this problem is to convince the people of the city that it is worth it for the city to host the games. The city has to show them what their plan is to hosting the games and prove to the people that this will benefit the city for the greater good. The citizens main concern is financial, so what the city has to do is show that they can work around the cost of the games by improving the city for the long term. One of the citizens main concerns on hosting the games is because of the way the cities have been using their money. The money has been going into building new state of the art facilities for the Olympic Games. However in years past the city has only used these stadiums and arenas for the three week event. Therefore the citizens are paying for something that is only being used for a short period of time. The city should use the facilities for other events and games in the future, enabling them to make long term gain on their investment rather than just three weeks. A final argument made by many people who don't want to host the Olympics is the overpopulation and crowding that occurs in the city during that three week span. The number of tourists that come in to cities during the Olympics is like no other, while there is no way around the number of people visiting during this time there is a way to lighten the damage. One way that the host city could deal with hosting 140,000 tourists in there city is that they could build more hotels near the athletic facilities. By building more hotels near the athletic facilities this would limit the amount of traffic in the city. One of the citizen's main arguments on why they don't want the Olympics in their city is that the traffic that comes along with 140,000 tourists being in their city is unbearable. By building hotels or housing near the athletic facilities the tourists would be able to attend the events by walking rather than driving. If most of the tourists were walking to the events rather than driving that would decrease the amount of traffic significantly and make the citizens lives seem just a little bit more normal for the three weeks. Another way to help decrease the insanity of 140,000 tourists coming into your city at one time is to increase the number of parking spots available in the city. By increasing the number of parking spots and lots it again makes it much easier for travel around the city and therefore less traffic. Once again if parking availability was increased for the Olympics it would make citizens lives much easier. By using the facilities for the long term, building hotels or housing near the athletic facilities and building more parking around the city the Olympic committee is able to solve the citizens argument of the city being overpopulated during the Olympics. In conclusion citizens of a city bidding to host the Olympics have many reasonable concerns to why they don't want to host the games, however these concerns are able to be worked around so that the event is a win for everyone.

In conclusion hosting the Olympic Games as a whole is not necessarily the problem on why the games have been so expensive over the years. It has become clear what the real problem is and that is the way in which the Olympics are being hosted. Cities try and go all out and make the event over the top, however we have to begin to realize that doing that is not necessarily a good thing as cities need to begin to scale back and make the games something special while not taking it too far. Cities also need to use the facilities they already have rather than building a new facility for every event. Finally the host city needs to ensure the use of the facilities for the future. Overall the problem in hosting the Olympic Games has become the way in which cities are hosting them. Therefore I feel as though if cities host the games in a smarter and more efficient way it is most certainly worth it for a city to host the Olympic Games. 

