Olympics....in general.

[MasterMind]

Just some of my thoughts:

I don't know how many new buildings had to be built for the olympics when they were here in the U.S. for Altanta and Salt Lake, but I know that for this years games, many new buildings had to be built(er...I think, right? I always heard it on the news about how they were behind schedule..blah..blah..blah..might not be finished in time...).
Is the return (moneywise) even enough to consider building these stadiums? What are they gonna do with the buildings once the olympics leave? You can't just tear them down, that just costs more money. I'm not sure but I think they won't have other games and sports filling up stadiums to cover costs.

Or do they actually make enough money by just hosting the olympics to the point where the stadiums sit empty and they don't care?

Any one know how it was for the U.S.?
Any one with answers, comments, thoughts? Feel free to reply with your words.

[Dyne]

Well, with all the commercials I'm sure there's a crapload of money being flowed through the veins of international economy. And that's what really counts in the end.. right?

[DimHalo]

I agree, i'm sure there's a lot of money coming in from the olympics. On the other hand, I did hear them talking about how there were not people in the stands to actually watch the olympics. At least not as many as there usually is. So that could be a set back (probably not a major one).

Does anyone know if the host country makes any money from the network covering the olympics?

As for what they'll do with the building afterwards. I would imagine that now that they have those buildings they'll be more likely to be in the run to host more international events. That's what I imagine is part of the goal.

[ZebraRampage]

I remember they took the main stadium for track and field and turned it into a new baseball field for the Braves. They could do stuff like that, possibly.

[Ace195]

I'm pretty sure the olympic commite (billion dollar commite) pays for the stadiums to be built and whatnot and the cities that host them get to keep them after the olympics leave so they get a free stadium and whatnot for nothing but upkeep and then you can rent places like that out or turn it into stadiums for your local sports events ect. :) Smart

[DimHalo]

well, i know that the city does have to pay something because part of the reason for the set backs was because Greece was having trouble raising money.

[dropCGCF]

The Olympics attract tourism and crappy worthless merchandise. I don't think it helps countries other than giving them bragging rights.

[Fox 6]

Greece is a very small country, and they have to pay for all the security wich i think is around 4 - 5 millions dollars. They can pay for it but they think other countries should contribute money to help protect thier althletes

[mickydaniels]

Well, every city that has hosted the Olympics since 1976 has lost money, and Montreal is still paying back bonds form the '76 games.

[MasterMind]

Well, every city that has hosted the Olympics since 1976 has lost money, and Montreal is still paying back bonds form the '76 games.

Thats more of what I was expecting to hear. If you know you're going to lose money, then why bother? I guess it is for the bragging rights?

If the olympic comittee does fund buildings, I could see why countries are more willing to host the games though.

[Typhoid]

The Olympic cities always lose a bit of money. Because for the vast majority they have to spend millions ( sometimes billions..) of dollars, and some cities dont get nearly that much.

But i know for Vancouver, they have to build a couple new rinks, a speed skating oval, and bobsled stuff up at Whistler, all stuff that can make money in the long run. So I guess it all depends on how big your city is in tourism.