Are Olympics an overall good or bad for the cities where they are hosted?

Olympics debts can plague a city for decades

Question: Are Olympics an overall good or bad for the cities where they are hosted?
Position‹2 of 2: The Olympic Games are an overall bad for their host city
Argument‹3 of 3: Olympics debts can plague a city for decades

Disastrous for both international reputation and individual citizens, the economic burden created by hosting the Olympic Games is simply not worth any imaginable prestige.

The argument

Hosting the Olympic Games is incredibly expensive. A study by researchers at the University of Oxford found that the cost of Olympic Games overrun with 100% consistency. At times, it is even worse; for instance, the 1992 Albertville, France Olympic Winter Games ran over by a staggering 135%. A vast majority of the infrastructure and investment that goes into hosting the Olympic Games is simply not worth the benefit. Not only that, it can set a thriving metropolis back decades economically. The average household in Athens was forced to pay an additional €50,000 in order to offset costs from Athens’ disastrous 2004 hosting. Another example of intense economic impact comes from Montreal. Despite the claims of their mayor Jean Drapeau who famously boasted “the Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby,” the city suffered under debt for several decades. The cost of their 1976 Games ballooned to $1.6 billion, a price Montreal paid through 2006. Disastrous for both international reputation and individual citizens, the economic burden created by hosting the Olympic Games is simply not worth any imagine prestige.

Premises

[P1]Hosting the Olympics is enormously expensive, and an Oxford study found the Games overrun their budgets with 100% consistency—Albertville 1992 by 135%. [P2] The debts fall on ordinary residents and linger for decades: Athens households paid an extra €50,000 to offset the 2004 Games, and Montreal serviced its 1976 debt through 2006. [C] Because Olympic debts can plague a host city for decades, the Games are overall bad for their host city.

Counter-arguments

The failure of budgeting and remaining revitalized is no fault of the Olympic Games’ presence, but of the various cities who failed. The Olympic Games offered these cities the chance to thrive under international attention, yet they squandered it. One need only to look to the more successful models to see that a productive hosting greatly benefits a city. Los Angeles in its 1992 Summer Olympics hosting was able to turn a profit of $200 million, a remarkable amount. Sydney’s 2000 Games, widely believed to be the most successful hosting in modern history, resulted in economic expansion for the country. Bad planning and overspending are no faults of the Olympic Games.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Consistent cost overruns show that Games budgets are systematically understated, which is an argument about how hosting is bid for and planned rather than about whether hosting is bad — a project can overrun and still leave a city better off, and the premise does not compare costs against anything. [Rejecting P2] The Athens household figure is unsourced and attributes to one event a debt burden that arose from Greece's much wider fiscal crisis, and Montreal's overrun is traceable to specific decisions about an unbuildable stadium design and a construction dispute — so the examples establish that hosting can go badly, not that it plagues host cities as such.

Proponents cited

Allison Stewart
“We discovered that the Games stand out in two distinct ways compared to other megaprojects: (1) The Games overrun with 100 per cent consistency. No other type of megaproject is this consistent regarding cost overrun.”
Andrew Zimbalist
“Put in proper perspective, it is hard to argue that the Olympic Games were an important factor behind the Greek financial crisis. It is, however, likely that they contributed modestly to the problem...The empty or underused facilities are a problem and the maintenance and operating costs continue to impose a burden.”
David Goldblatt
“Montreal in 1976 showcased three other sources of cost inflation that continue to plague the games: grandiose and experimental architecture, unreasonably high prices from suppliers and contractors, and long-term borrowing. The city’s Olympic stadium—a.k.a. “The Big Owe”—was budgeted at $145 million, came in at $1.2 billion and required so much debt funding and post-games repair that the total cost in 1976 was already $2 billion.”