For 17 days every four years the Summer Olympics attract the world’s attention and the host city gets immense media coverage. Yet many argue that the huge cost of hosting the Olympic games means that cities are left with crippling bills and empty stadia once those 17 days are over. Montreal, the host in 1976, is still paying off the cost of staging the games today and the Athens Olympics of 2004 ran billions of euros over the original budget - at state expense. The scandal surrounding the bidding process for the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Games revealed that 13 of the 124 International Olympic Committee (IOC) members who were tasked with deciding who should be awarded the games were ‘bought’ with gifts and bribes. Since then the IOC has tightened up its regulations but rumours of corruption amongst some members remain and were revealed by a BBC sting operation in 2004. Whilst proponents of hosting the games generally accept that they will inevitably cost significant amounts of money, they argue that the ‘feel good factor’ and longer term benefits justify this outlay.

__________________

personally im not bothered either way as i can see both good and bad points about having it, especially the paralympics which is a good opportunity. obviously i think it would be better if it could be run for cheaper.

Living in Scotland I can't really see all the big hype about it.

__________________
smokyeyeshadow

i think it costs to much to advertise and run

i agree but it will give lots of new jobs!!

but only for a little while.

we will lose every game we enter anyway so i dont see the point !!!

__________________

:lol:

We are a really rubbish sporting Nation and I dont watch any sport cause I just gringe..... we are soooo emabarrasing !!!

__________________