Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you think mega-sports events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup are good for the host country's economy and infrastructure in the long run?

27 Comments
© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

I've always thought that the Olympics should only be in Greece, if they want it, or somewhere else in Europe every four years. The current model which is used for these global events is totally unsustainable. Football world cup should only be in Western Europe. Rugby World Cup in UK & Ireland. Winter Olympics only in Canada. It will also reduce corruption when bidding for the hosting rights within the governing bodies.

29 ( +34 / -5 )

NO!!! And never have been!!!

17 ( +19 / -2 )

Cant remember any host nation that benefited from holding mega events.

Victoria just backed out of the Commonwealth Games because of costs.

17 ( +18 / -1 )

Unused stadiums, destruction of greenery, poor planning and over-budget projects just end up costing taxpayers money and causing fiscal strife for years to come.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

Probably the last major event that the investment made a positive impact was the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Nagano Olympics damaged the local economy over the long run. The regular Japanese skiing visitors were crowded out, with many migrating to Niseko and never returning.

I recall Nagano operators complaining about lost business at the time.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Let's not forget that the financial records for the Nagano Olympics were officially destroyed.

These sporting events are nothing more than organised crime. I cannot understand why otherwise-intelligent people keep falling for it.

Where's the tremendous boost to the economy we were promised would follow the Tokyo Olympics? Or indeed the 202 FIFA World Cup?

It's a con.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

I do not think that holding large-sized international sports events is not profitable, given the recent economic conditions and international affiars. Also, I wonder if such manmade heritages really work for people's practical lives.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No. They’re just another way for those that have to get more. It’s just another way to keep the little people in their place. Always has been us and them. Always will be. And they always want more.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Absolutely not. It wreaks havoc on the environment and is a waste of taxpayers' money.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Nope. It's a literal waste of resources for the sake of single unsustainable "increase" of GDP. Really bad ROI for the public, but amazing ROI for the politicians and the colluters, so they would not stop.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Absolutely not.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Nope. My city hosted the summer Olympics. It changed massively for the locals, disrupted lives, business, and even the ability to rent/buy housing. For example, I was forced to sign a 1 yr lease because some people were willing to pre-pay a 6 month lease just to have a place only 30 minutes from the main sports venues of the town for 2-3 weeks. I had relatives who signed up for lodging and as many event tickets as they could many years before the Olympics. I didn't know I was moving here until 3 weeks BEFORE the games started. Those relatives were given lodging in a different state, about a 3 hour drive away - non-refundable. We all stayed in my 1 brd apartment instead and they lost that $4000+.

Most of these events mean using stadiums outside the "host" city. Whenever construction has to be completed on a specific time table, shortcuts will be taken, so either inferior construction happens or costs skyrocket.

I think the only industries that do well are restaurants and lodging. The rest of the city is harnessed with huge bills for all the other infrastructure and overtime for police. It does provide opportunities for locals to volunteer, which has a few perks, but many hassles too.

With the Olympics, at least it isn't just a single sport and people are likely to get tickets in the ticket lottery for sports and teams they'd never watch. This brings appreciation for those other sports and perhaps some new fans. I love learning and watching new games like 5-on-5 "handball". OTOH, I'm bored with swimming, baseball, basketball, and nearly all running events.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

It's a joke and not only a waste of money but it doesn't contribute anything to lowering CO2 emissions.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It depends. The legacy is what you make it. London 2012 was great. Pre-Brexit, Pre-Covid, pre-Collapse. Fabulous stadium, now, after a few bumps, West Ham's ground, and still used for athletics. Happier times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tivNzY8Vxe8

Manchester City bagged a stadium out of the Commonwealth Games.

You have to build with an eye to future usage and have a sustainable plan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It’s pushed by special interests, for the benefit of special interests, at the expense of the taxpayer.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Only very rarely do these mega events bring real economic benefit; they almost always run in the red (yet help line the pockets of certain parties). Read "Circus Maximus" by A. Zimbalist (2016).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Regarding the Olympics, I think a nice compromise can be made between the "It should only be held in one city for practicality's sake" idea and the "I like to see different countries highlighted" idea.

Here's my proposal: Designate 3 host cities around the world. Rotate between them, and do it two times through (e.g. Rio - Tokyo - Paris - Rio - Tokyo - Paris). So each city in the rotation holds it 2 times (a total of 6 Olympics). The 3x2 rotation takes a total of 24 years.

After 24 years, pick 3 new cities, and begin another 3x2 rotation. And so on.

This way, each host city gets 2 major events out of its investment, which should offset the costs. Infrastructure built (stadiums, etc.) are still in usable condition throughout the rotation. And then the world gets to experience 3 new cultures the next time the 3x2 rotation starts again.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@The Original Wing - that's an interesting idea, but the IOC will never approve. It would take too much power from them and city leaders change faster than the Olympics would return. Still, having a twice-used event could make it economically possible. Rather than rotating between 3 cities then moving on, I'd say to layer new cities into the list as old cities finish. This way there wouldn't be multiple huge construction efforts related to the event all at that same time.

Some govt representatives have an overlap, so there's always new, middle and old representatives making decisions. I think that is a useful model.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"The Nagano Olympics damaged the local economy over the long run. The regular Japanese skiing visitors were crowded out, with many migrating to Niseko and never returning. "

The Shinkansen spoiled Nagano too.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

A big fat NO!

I've always thought that the Olympics should only be in Greece, if they want it, or somewhere else in Europe every four years. The current model which is used for these global events is totally unsustainable. Football world cup should only be in Western Europe. Rugby World Cup in UK & Ireland. Winter Olympics only in Canada. It will also reduce corruption when bidding for the hosting rights within the governing bodies.

Agree 100%

1 ( +6 / -5 )

No, no, absolutely no! A huge cost for life and environnent!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Afte spending billions of monies, many sporting structures are abandoned in the countries and unable to pay the bills for the event.

Unless a country already has the stadiums and the infrastructure, other countries should stay away.

There is a reason that not many countries are bidding for the big events.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Nagano Winter Olympics cost every Nagano citizen the equivalent of ¥6 million and the costs are still not paid off.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yet, you openly supported them and even attended a function celebrating them as a guest of the British Embassy. I would suggest that you added to the cost.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

They can be. It depends on the case.

The 1988 Olympics in Seoul, for example, were an economic gold mine for South Korea.

In the years leading up to the Games, they stimulated massive growth in the country's GDP and infrastructural development.

But maybe in other cases, it doesn't work out that way.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For a few years before the 2008 Olympics, Beijing was a welcoming tourist and business destination. But that changed soon after. I did not visit or work in Russia prior to the Sochi Olympics, but nobody wants to do that now, and not for a very long time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites