The Impact of Olympic on Host Country - Essay Example

The Impact of Olympic on host country Affiliation: The first modern Olympics games were held in 1896 in Athens, Greece and featured only 14 nations, and 43 events in which 241 athletes competed in. The games have grown in magnitude and splendour since then with the recently ended 2012 Olympics games in London featuring 204 nations, over 10,000 athletes and a total of 302 events. Major sporting events have been studied to assess the impact they have on a hosting nation most notably the FIFA world cup, the winter Olympics and the most grand of them all, the Summer Olympics. It should be noted that the modern games are mostly hosted by cities in most cases thus the impact is studied first on the city level then the nation second. The most studied effects are economic but that does not mean that the economic impact is the only impact that hosting the Olympics has on a nation. The Olympics have social, cultural, environmental and to some extent political implications to them in addition to the palpable economic implications (Andranovich, Burbank, and Heying, 2001, pg. 120). First a look at the economic disadvantages of hosting the Olympics; The Olympics are an expensive sporting mega-event and as such, they are very expensive to host. The bidding presentations of the cities cost some money and more money is to be spent after a city is selected to host the games. The actual building of infrastructure means that the hosting local governments and the nations have to use great sums of money to prepare for the games (Rosner and Shropshire, 2010, pg. 149). The London Olympics for example cost about $14 billion and are the most expensive Olympics to date (in the absence of official estimates for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics). The Olympics are notorious for costing more than is budgeted and this has left most cities in debt stretching long periods of time and these debts have meant tax burdens for the citizens. It is argued that the Athens games of 2004 have been a contributing factor to the current economic hardships that Greece is undergoing currently. The Olympics are hardly ever a direct profit earner and most host nations rarely recoup the money invested in hosting the event. Some of the sporting infrastructure is underutilized after the Olympics and the cost of maintenance for these facilities is high and puts a strain on the host nation, driving the economic burden of hosting the Olympics into the long-term. The sporting infrastructure might not be viable in the long term as witnessed in Atlanta which had to dismantle and change the Olympic stadium to a more useful baseball venue. The Olympic swimming pool in Sydney is another underutilized facility as it proves too expensive to rent out for some national sporting events (Schaffer and Smith, 2000, pg. 233). Winter Olympics present a worse challenge as some of the facilities lay dormant owing to the rarity of occasions in which they are used with the bobsleigh tracks being a perfect example of such facilities (Essex and Chalkley, 2008, pg. 200). The arguments above present the grim economic side to hosting the Olympics but that is not the full picture; there are economic advantages that come along with the Olympics. Most obvious of these advantages is in the setting up or improvement of transport infrastructure to accommodate the influx of human population during the sporting event. This infrastructure is an investment that keeps having merits well after the Olympics are over and decongests the cities that host the games after the games are over (Cashman, R. 2003, and pg. 11). A good example of heavy investment in transport was the Tokyo Olympics of 1964 in which 2 underground railways and 22 new highways were built. Athens in 2004 built railways and over 200km of ring roads highways while the 1988 Seoul games saw the expansion of the airport, construction of subway lines and extension of bus routes (Hyun, 2000, pg. 237). These investments in infrastructure and beautification have the benefit of giving the cities a face lift and this in turn improve the prices of real estate in and around the host city (Essex and Chalkley, 2008, pg. 198). The Olympics sporting events themselves inject capital in the host cities through tourists who come to watch the Olympics (McKay, and Plumb, 2001, pg. 345). The Olympics have international appeal and thus open up the city to eventual international tourists and serve as form of free advertisement for the city as a choice tourism destination (Chalip, 2002, pg. 18). Some of the Olympics infrastructure itself serve as iconic symbols themselves and eventually serve as tourists attractions themselves as in the case of the Bird’s Nest as the Beijing Olympic Stadium is called. Apart from attracting tourists, the host cities attract investors into the host cities and host nations too because hosting an event like the Olympics is to some extent a show of economic might. This can be argued with evidence from the extravagant nature of opening and closing ceremonies the host cities and nations choose. The Olympics are now filled with pomp and exuberance as hosts try to outdo each other and this is a great marketing exercise as it draws the attention of the world to the host nation and city. The Olympics in some instances have provided for building of projects that have in essence killed two birds with one stone. Most notable is the reclamation of Homebay Bush which was used to construct infrastructure for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Other instances include the use of Olympic villages as residential quarters after the games as seen in the 1952 games held in Helsinki and the Munich game of 1972. The Olympics have a social impact, mostly negative on the host nation. Most notable of this is the tendency to divert funds from social and educational programs and injecting them into the Olympics games. The New South Wales state government for example cut public spending before the 2000 games and used that money for the preparation of Olympics. Another problem is the displacement of populations to make space for Olympics-related infrastructure. There might also be a case of gentrification and increase in the cost of living thus forcing some residents out of the area. On the positive side, residents of hosting cities and citizens of hosting nations have been noted to be happier and have a more civic pride in their nation and cities after successfully hosting an event like the Olympics. The cultural implications of the Olympics are a double-edged sword; there are advantages and disadvantages. The Beijing Olympics were a great spectacle for introducing and spreading the Chinese culture to the world and the London Olympics had a themed opening ceremony that highlighted the epochs that have defined the British people. These have served as cases of great cultural transmission across the globe. At the same time hosting the Olympics have changed some cities forever and ruined some cultural monuments along the way with Atlanta and Beijing being the epitome of this (Whitson and Macintosh, 2006, pg. 282). The IOC (International Olympics Committee) has embraced the principles of sustainable development and these ought to apply to every hosting city/nation’s activities regarding the Olympics (IOC, 2009, pg. 23). Environmental Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment studies in the hosting cities however have faced controversy due to claims of it being hurried and insufficient. There have also been instances of protest by some local stakeholders as they are not consulted on the Olympics and how it will affect them. There is a feeling of urgency and necessity for each bidding city and in most cases this is pushed by the political and business elite that seek to reap benefits from hosting the games. The impact of hosting the Olympics games cannot be easily comprehended due to the complexity, enormity and multifaceted nature of the ensuing consequences of the games. Economists argue that there are better ways for a city to give itself a face-lift if that is what it needs as hosting the Olympics is not a viable economic project. There is, however, more to hosting the Olympics than the economic returns that a host nation/city aims at. Hosting a successful Olympics brings with it a sense of achievement and global attention that cannot be achieved simply by spending money. Hosting the Olympics usually has more disadvantages than it does advantages. It takes years of planning and huge investments that are not assured to make a return on the investment. The amount of money spent to host this fleeting event can and should be put to better use to fund more sustainable social and economic ventures. References Andranovich, G., Burbank, M.J. and Heying, C.H. (2001). : Olympic Cities: Lessons from Mega Event Politics.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 23 (2), 113-131. Cashman, R. (2003) Impact of the Games on Olympic Host Cities: Fundamental OlympicLessons. Barcelona: Olympic Studies Centre, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Chalip, L. (2002) Using the Olympics to optimise tourism: Fundamental Olympic Lessons. Barcelona: Olympic Studies Centre, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Essex, S. and Chalkley, B., (2008). “Olympic Games: Catalyst of Urban Change.” Leisure Studies, 17 (3), 187-206. IOC (2009). Olympic Charter. Lausanne: IOC. Hyun, J., (2000). “The Impact of the 1988 Seoul Olympics on Inbound Tourism to Korea.” Study on Tourism, 235-245. McKay, M. and Plumb, C. (2001). Reaching Beyond the Gold: The Impact of the OlympicGames on Real Estate Markets, Global Insights, Issue 1, Chicago: Jones Lang LaSalle IP Inc. Rosner, S. and Shropshire, K. L., (2010). The Business of Sports. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Schaffer, K and Smith, S., (2000). Olympics at the Millennium. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Whitson, D. and Macintosh, D., (2006). “The Global Circus: International Sport, Tourism and the Marketing of Cities.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20 (3), 278- 295. Read More