Olympic Games: Positive Effects or Not? - Research Paper

Introduction

It is the expectation of an ideal person that the Olympic Games, as well as any other game, have positive effects on the host country. The events give a sign of unity, athleticism, and peace around the world, however, it has turned out that most of the Olympic Games have adverse impacts rather than the perceived positive impacts. Researchers have ventured into identifying the loopholes and the effects brought forth by such games to a country. Different researches tend to give varying assumptions, and most of the speculations are believed to converge towards the same results, the negativities of the Olympic Games to the host country. Olympic Games have both socioeconomic and environmental impacts, either in a positive or in a negative impact. Despite these games occurring and enabling the economy of the host country to thrive, there are significant challenges that come along with these particular types of events. Hence, bringing down the economic capability of such countries. Therefore, researches need to be conducted and effective strategies to be put in place in order to hold the negativity of the Olympic Games at the minimal end.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to the research conducted by Binyamin (6), he tries to venture into reflecting on whether or not the country hosting Olympic Games pays off. In his argument, it is concluded that hosting the Olympic Games leaves the country and the city at a very devastating state rather than increasing the welfare of the country. Additionally, it is perceived that the host country invests more to host these games. However, in the long run, they end up getting low returns on the invested capital and therefore arriving at the conclusion that the Olympic Games bring about more harm to the host cities rather than potential benefits (Binyamin 19). For instance, the case of Brazil to host the World Cup matches resulted in the country spending billions of dollars on designing and constructing stadiums. In building the Arena, Amazonia drew about $300 from the Brazilian reserves; this was contrary to what was expected since the arena could only hold 2000 fans per game where the amount fetched was relatively lower than the projected revenue (Binyamin 10). Additionally, in the year 2016, Brazil hosted the World Cup, and it was supposed to construct the arena in Rio de Janeiro; the construction of such a stadium led to splurging more than $30 Billion (Binyamin 20). Such spending in the Olympic Games means that a country will ultimately edge into the economic inferiority. The idea that hosting significant sporting events such as the World Cup and other games will lead to economic superiority is a fallacy; instead, it leads the country and the host city in a devastating state. The notion that hosting an event will draw more business persons and increase the welfare of the country is an idea that should be done away with, and the host country should not be optimistic about such speculations. Binyamin reveals that being a host country for the Olympic Games only gains prestige to the country and nothing more.

Some states, such as Massachusetts, are in the campaign towards hosting the 2024 World Cup. They believe that the games will draw more and more investments in the State and serve as a tourist attraction. It is at this point that the State believes that there will be a useful platform from which global business personalities will be lured in investing there (Bredikhina 14). Still, on a clear note, there is little evidence that seeks to ascertain that such events will boost tourism or any kind of investment. As per the research by Binyamin, it is presumed that spending lavishly on a short-lived event will ultimately result in economic drawbacks. Stadiums are bound to cost a lot but bring about very minimal economic benefits in the end. Olympic Games are just for prestigious purposes rather than the economic benefits of the host country (Binyamin 10). It is also believed that the environmental rules to keep the environment habitable are rarely observed in these countries; hence, once the Olympic Games are over, the host country is left behind, spending more capital in the view of restoring the environment. Therefore, Binyamin calls upon the nations to consider the impacts of the Olympic Games before they place a bid in hosting such events.

Hosting the Olympic Games has detrimental effects, as postulated by Bredikhina (12). He conducted conclusive research in Sochi, where the Sochi Winter Games brought about catastrophic impacts on both the economy and the environment of the city. The effects felt in that city were irreversible, leading the city in a state of economic stagnant. The documentations in the human rights organizations and news reports gave a clear indication that the Olympic Games and other kinds of games have more significant negative impacts as compared to the perceived benefits (Bredikhina 13). The Sochi Olympics are perceived to be among the mega-failed event that realized catastrophic economic and environmental impacts. Additionally, it is evident that Sochi City was left in a devastating stance and the economy of the country in a recession state. The state government had invested more in the Sochi Winter Olympics in the view that it will gain much more revenues to enable the city to thrive positively (Bredikhina 15). As opposed to its speculations, the Olympic Games did not draw more capital than it gave in return; this resulted in the government getting into a scenario where it could no longer and effectively finance the services needed. Upon the closure of the events, the government had to dig into the reserves to clean up the environmental mess caused by the event. Bredikhina gives credible reasons as to why the Olympic Games bring about detrimental effects, unlike the positivity impacts.

Olympic Games result in negligible and negative socioeconomic impacts as well as negative environmental effects (Ferreira et al. 52). In the case of the Barcelona Summer Olympic Games, the inefficient opportunity costs occurred in the process of hosting the Olympic Games as opposed to the perceived benefits. The socioeconomic aspect was greatly affected in a negative way where a huge amount of capital to host the events was used up, leaving the country almost headed to recession (Ferreira 53). Much capital was used than it was generated from the events. Ferreira et al. propose that the country hosting the Olympic Games should be in a better position to weigh between the pros and cons of holding the events. Researches have shown that there was extremely overstated capital usage in the process of hosting these events; therefore, the economy of the country will end up been affected negatively (Ferreira 52). The host countries and cities are left in a pathetic situation where the economic aspects, the image, and the social aspects are left tarnished in the end. Additionally, as postulated by Ferreira et al., it is clear that building new infrastructures to hold the Olympic Games requires destroying the already established centers. By destroying these cities means that some resources will be wasted in the process, destroying the environment and creating grounds exposing other creatures into greater risks. In addition to this, the researchers have shown that holding mega-events such as the Olympic Games leads to continued fear and insecurity among the visitors in the host cities and countries (Ferreira 52). It is not all the visitors in these Arenas are driven towards watching the games; others have ill-motives such as executing terrorism acts.

The research conducted by McBride reflects that hosting the gigantic Olympic Games does not guarantee the host country that there will be any kind of profit gained thereof for any reason whatsoever. McBride gives the factual insights that the host country or city ends up consuming more capital than it in return. Additionally, he theorizes on how to reflect and analyze the perceived benefits before, during, and after the games are conducted. Most of the individuals in that particular country tend to overstate the economic benefits that the country will gain. However, it is cumbersome to measure economic impacts when it comes to the Olympic Games (McBride 22). The implications are perceived to be experienced at a later time frame after the games are over. The budgeting strategies in a nation's expenditure are believed to be affected negatively since some of the capital might be misused in the long run; therefore, holding Olympic Games seeks effective and accountable measures to realize its success.

The Rio 2016 Olympic Games, it is evident that after the infrastructures were set in place, the number of visiting tourists ended up declining, hence leaving the host cities deserted. The construction of such infrastructures had consumed more than $5 Billion from the treasury (Moraes Zouain 110). The economy of the Rio city was left at a shock; on the other hand, the insecurity and the apparent negligence of the host residents were on a high rise (Moraes Zouain 94). The disapproval of hosting mega-events in Rio also facilitated a declining level in the number of visiting fans to the city; this, therefore, led to a more significant loss in the amount of projected profits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there should be proper post-games planning in order to realize economic success to the host cities and countries. For instance, in the Beijing Olympic Games in the year 2008, China is believed to have spent more than $40 Billion. Many economist analysts document that the games resulted in having negative impacts on the political history and life of China as a country. The Games are believed to have directed the republic of China in a negative direction since there were more regimes preserved in China; leaders believed that the games were intended to bringing down the economy of China. The notions were brought about by the fact that the Chinese government had overstated the benefits blended together with poor planning strategies. It is, therefore, imperative to keep in mind the overall success brought about by an Olympiad as well as other factors which should extend beyond economic and environmental benefits.

Work Cited

Appelbaum, Binyamin. "Does Hosting the Olympics Actually Pay Off?" The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Aug. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/does- hosting-the Olympics-actually-pay-off.html. Accessed 6 Mar. 2020.

Bredikhina, Nataliya. "Olympic Dreams or Broken Promises Evaluation of the XXII Olympic Winter Games' Vision and Impact on Infrastructure, Environment, Athletic Venues, and Tourism." International Journal of Sport & Society, vol. 10, no. 3, Sept. 2019, pp. 1-16.

Ferreira, Luciana Brandao, et al. "Economic and Image Impacts of Summer Olympic Games in Tourist Destinations: A Literature Review." Tourism & Management Studies, no. 3, 2018, p. 52. Edsdoj, EBSCOhost,

McBride, James. "The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games." CFR.org, Council Foreign Relations, 19 Jan. 2018, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economics-hosting-olympicgames. Accessed 8 Mar. 2020.

Moraes Zouain, Deborah, et al. "Residents' Perceptions of the Impacts of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Before, During and After the Mega-Event." Revista Brasileira De Pesquisa Em Turismo, vol. 13, no. 2, May 2019, pp. 93-112.,