When tourists return home from Olympics, people back home hear stories of their experiences from them and form opinions or change their existing opinions about these countries, which may motivate them to visit these countries. Foreign tourists create an impact of major economic significance. The greater the facilities in anticipation of the Games, the greater will the number of tourists who visit the country to watch the Games. A city gains an awareness and an image by virtue of hosting the Games, which "is a very important Olympic legacy" (Preuss, n.d., p.3). The transfer of a city's image occurs through information from media reports, direct communication from tourists, advertisements and personal visits. There is also some negative impact of Olympics on tourism which is more often than not overlooked. The Games may persuade a certain group of tourists to stay away from the host city. Preuss (n.d., p.7) classifies them as avoiders, time switchers, changers, and runaways. Avoiders are tourists who would have visited the city but for the Olympics. Time switchers are tourists who want to visit the city but would choose another time. Changers are residents who would prefer to take their holiday and leave the city at the time of Olympics. Runaways are residents who leave the city at the time of Olympics for a holiday elsewhere. On the contrary, "home stayers" are residents who opt to stay back and spend their money in the host city during Olympics, "Olympians" are tourists who travel to the host city because of the Olympics and "extentioners" are tourists who are already in the host city and who stay on longer because of the Olympics (Preuss, n.d.. p.7).
Mega-sports events like Olympics, projected for their immense tourism and economic potential, have also great potential for corruption for selfish political gains. The bidding process itself poses immense scope for corruption. "Bribery, first-class travel, showers of gifts, credit cards for IOC member shopping sprees and IOC hostesses are some of the costs incurred by bidding cities" (Higham, 1999, p.82). According to Jennings (as cited in Higham, 1999, p.83), the bidding process is "a most effective means of transferring money from the public purse into private pockets." Mega events like the Olympics needs huge infrastructural facilities and the large-scale developments that a host city undertakes in anticipation of such an event ensures large-scale economic benefits to the private sector rather than economic opportunities for the residents of the host city. The intervention of business and commercial interests through Olympic sponsors has led to such dramatic expansion of Olympic sports that "no single city now can provide sufficient urban infrastructure" (Higham, 1999, p.84). Sports of a lesser label is not associated with these problems, as they are hosted in a city within its existing infrastructure and capacity thresholds, with the atmosphere promoted due to the subculture of supporters. This might enhance the image of the host city, as the sport becomes one of its cultural attractions. This form of sport-motivated tourism brings economic benefits to the local community without causing a strain on its public