The Olympic committee goes around the world to see which city is the best, the Olympics are held there, and then the infrastructure that was built using billions, is left idle. Why not look for the most retarded city, the rich countries contribute to create better roads, infrastructure, parks, whatever, and then the people of said retarded city can get employment during the years of construction, then enjoy the stuff after the games. GENIUS! where is my Nobel prize :wanker:
Detroit. Actually, I just looked it up and it could of been a thing: http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-68-games-detroits-unrealized-olympic-dreams.php
Other countries won't want to give some poor city money to build infrastructure that would just be wasted after the games. Sure, roads are good, but it's most likely that the stadiums and other sporting venues will end up become dilapidated. Hosting the games is a very expensive exercise, it's more about pride of hosting the games than actually having a strong economic benefit from it, by the time you take all the costs into consideration.
Is it still profitable to host an Olympic games? I lost interest to it years ago When I was a kid there were only a few TV stations and some of them aired live matches. Now, there are more than 20 TV stations here and none of them interested in airing Olympic matches. So I guess it really does need to be hosted in a wealthy city/country that can afford the cost.
The olympic stadium in sydney australia is pretty much unused after the games. BTW i didnt know the olympics was done for profit :3eyes: i thought it was done as free to air stuff.
Because then people would see what kind of a ****hole it would be. Its like what happened in Sochi. Russia basically just improved everything there for it to look nice, totally ****ed up half the civilians there but he doesnt care apparently.
hmm. Maybe the top worst city can have all the people who want the games, to ask for it instead of it being forced on them? We had a 'south pacific games' held in my city about a decade ago, and the infrastructure was greatly imporved, and to this day, is still being well used. we had roads that went full retard (nevr go full retard) that was fixed for the games. it would not have been otherwise fixed. Sigh, anyway, i doubt it will ever happen for impoverished places. Its basically the best cities becoming better, and the worst being ignored. Such is the (typical) human condition
Olympic Games is too big an event to be hold in a small or unknown city. It's expected that in big cities you find more athletes and money, so what's left after the Games will be more useful. In the trailer for the Olympic Games the favelas in Rio de Janeiro were digitally removed. When some of the IOC people came here to see the city the homeless were removed from certain streets so there was less signs of problems. Like the World Cup a lot of the choices for cities involve politics and money. Sport is secondary, unfortunately. Even if some sports in the Olympic list are not popular, the overall aspect of the Event is what counts.
Because the Olympic committee doesn't provide the money. It is provided by local, regional, or national governments. You need to be fairly large and reasonably wealthy. Also, no one has ever had made money on the Olympics since LA in the 80s, because LA used mostly existing structures. There's a reason Norway dropped out.
I imagine that a very well planned Olympic Games could have long-term money benefits. In 2000 the Brazilian TV showed Sidney as some really amazing city to visit. China built amazing stadiums that I consider places to visit in a trip. But, still, that depends on a number of factors to really work well.
