Rio Olympics Economic Impacts

The Olympics almost always causes negative economic effects for cities. Although cities expect to earn revenue through the Olympics, not many cities generate a substantial amount of revenue. Los Angeles, the host city of the 1984 Olympics, is a rare example of a city profiting from the Olympics: “Los Angeles actually profited by 0 million from the 1984 Summer Olympics mostly by using existing stadiums” (Perryman 2). That city did generate money, but cities like Beijing spent $40 billion for the Olympics but only generated a mere $3.6 billion in revenue (McBride 8). These numbers can be considered to some as outrageous; however, cities that invest in the Olympic Games do expect compensation in a different way. It is a common argument that holding

Small-scale resident relocation is a common practice in preparing for the Olympics; however, in the Rio 2016 Olympics, around 22,059 families were displaced for the Games (Reichard 56). Though free housing was offered to those relocated, David Ferreira, a neighborhood resident forcibly evicted from his home, stated in regards to road development, “The government said it was going to widen and pave this road, but they don’t care about poor people” (Reichard 57). This showcases how the construction of venues comes at the expense of the people causing many negative impacts on the host city - specifically, the residents’ livelihood and homes. Though these venues can cost a fortune, cities like Rio continue spending thousands of dollars on maintenance for the abandoned venues (Drehs and Lajolo 2). As a result, Rio attempted to sell the famed Olympic Park to compensate for maintenance costs and debts “but there were no bidders” (Kaiser 2). No one wants to touch any of Rio’s venues; so, the venues are in a state of abandonment and ruin even today (This all happened in Rio, but that doesn’t mean that future cities can suffer the consequences of the impacts the Olympics have on a host city’s development and