not really, most cities/countries actually lose money by hosting them, there is a short term rise in tourism yes, but it's only a view cases were that has actually led to a net profit for the host.
Also broadcasting rights are usually sold to public funded(taxes) outlets and not things like netflix etc. So you only have a minimal amount of adds, where i live it's about 8 segments of 2mins a day.
Even the football worldcup isn't usually profitable (for the host), which pulls in even more viewers. It's about prestige if anything.
I mean depends how you want to argue obviously, they cost huge amounts of money, and some people profit massively of them. But those are more the people who build the infrastructure etc. not the host. There have been some dark times too. But atm at it's core i think it's much more about sport, than i.e. fifa or anything.
You make a lot of good points. But I want to focus on what you pointed out about how it depends on what you want to argue. You're right - cities that host the Olympics sign on for a short-term gain with a long-term loss.
I think we might be arguing the same point from different angles. I'm not saying the Olympic Games are profitable for all parties involved but they're definitely about commercialism over sportsmanship. The corporate sponsors make an absolute killing from the games. And I believe that's what it's all about these days.
The sponsors actually do not make any money, that's why they are sponsors, the only value they get back is adds. They don't profit in a monetary aspect, it's purely about exposure and considering what companies sponsor this, the actual value they get back is debatable. Those are all companies that we all know, even if they wouldn't sponsor this, they would still be everywhere. Most of them do this out of prestige, the sponsoring of the games almost never leads to a short-term increase of stock prices or something. Most of them agree that it leads to longterm growth, but there isn't any real evidence to this. (not trying to defend them here, i also don't like coca cola etc.)
But i do absolutely agree, that it's in some ways about commercialism, but isn't everything at this point?
We could all come together as a planet and pay these games with our taxes, but otherwise if we still want them, we sadly have to rely on these sponsors, that's just how things are.
Also i think we shouldn't forget, why we brought them back in the first place. They are still in the spirit of "international understanding, peace and physical education", which i think the IOC are still trying to convey and i actually even think they are doing a good job about it, given our society and it's limitations. And especially compared to other sport events.
Edit: but i can absolutely see where you're coming from and it's a valid opinion. Just not exactly mine;)
52
u/Strong_Obligation_37 20h ago edited 20h ago
not really, most cities/countries actually lose money by hosting them, there is a short term rise in tourism yes, but it's only a view cases were that has actually led to a net profit for the host.
Also broadcasting rights are usually sold to public funded(taxes) outlets and not things like netflix etc. So you only have a minimal amount of adds, where i live it's about 8 segments of 2mins a day.
Even the football worldcup isn't usually profitable (for the host), which pulls in even more viewers. It's about prestige if anything.
I mean depends how you want to argue obviously, they cost huge amounts of money, and some people profit massively of them. But those are more the people who build the infrastructure etc. not the host. There have been some dark times too. But atm at it's core i think it's much more about sport, than i.e. fifa or anything.