ShadowKatt said:
I can't imagine why anyone would want to host it....
Do some research. It's a statistical fact that whenever a country hosts the olympics or the world cup or any world-wide event the economical repurcussions are drastic and devestating. For X number of hears the budget has to be built around preparing a stadium up to international specifications usually hiring contractors from around the world specialized enough to build these structures. And the pricetag is steep. It takes a significant amount of money to put one of these things in. Then when the event does come, you have a massive influx of revenue, but that has to be tempered by expenses. All governmental services have to be active, as well as significant additions to law enforcement and emergency medical and fire services. And while the event does offset that, AFTER the event the city/country hosting it is stuck with a huge stadium with no practical use anymore and left to pick up the tab on their own, however many years that may take. And you know it's not going to be the politicians that pay all that back.
So let Qatar host it if they want >.> In the end they'll be doing more damage to themselves than good, and if they really ahve such deep pockets, maybe they can get off pretty well.
1984 Los Angeles Olympics finished with a $233 million dollar surplus. Both the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake also posted a multi million dollar surplus.
Seattle profited on the 1962 World's fair (when they built the pavilion, the space needle, and the monorail. From what I can piece together New York made money on a worlds fair as well.
So maybe it's only a problem for places outside the US?
Disclaimer: I understand that you can start adding in costs that are not directly accounted for, such as federal spending, but on the same token it's hard to account for the bonuses to the economy the games bring, and how much revenue that generated as well.
Oh and a little tidbits for you: after the 2012 games London will be the only city to have hosted the games three times, and still be the only city in the UK to have hosted the Olympics. Followed by Athens, Paris, and Los Angeles which both hosted the games twice. The US has hosted more games then any other country, and is the only country to have hosted the games in multiple cities. Aside from Germany on a technicality, Munich, in then West Germany, hosted the games in 1972.
You are right however that the recent games, and other international events have failed to generate a profit, but take for instance the 1988 games in South Korea, and the 2008 games in China. Both seen as a one in a series of steps into the world stage by not only the respective countries but the world at large. That's a benefit to hosting the games if I ever saw one. There are quite a few less tangible benefits for hosting the Olympics (and other international events). The kind you can't exactly account for on a ledger.