The vision dosda are the olympic games financially viable top universities mechanical engineering

After the conclusion of the summer games in 2016, venues are now empty, their hollow arena’s now ringing with dead silence rather than the cries of athletes living out their olympic dreams just two years prior. The maria lenk aquatics centre lays drained, even the famed maracana stadium has been deteriorating after being neglected.

“ rio’s new mayor, marcelo crivella, has scrapped plans to turn the handball arena into four public schools. And the 31 towers that made up the athletes village, which were set to be transformed into luxury condos, now sit largely vacant.” -(an ESPN article reported)

Part of this is due to the deteriorating conditions and corruption in brazilian politics leading up to the games, but other countries with more stable conditions leading up to the games have had their venues suffer the same fate.

What was supposed to be a long term plan for the economy to be boosted by a significant influx of spectators, sponsors, and business only ended up lasting as long as the flames of the olympic torch at the closing ceremony.

To answer this question, there are a variety of angles to consider, one being the international olympic committee (IOC), another being individual countries that have hosted the games, and the final one being the athletes making the olympics their entire career.

To the IOC, this answer is a resounding yes, but the reasoning behind it may be perplexing. American college basketball the international olympic committee is an organization that interlinks all of the other organizations that help put on the games, such as athlete protections groups, advertising companies, and diplomatic relations between the foreign countries attending the games. The most important linking though is the link between the IOC, advertisers and the national olympic committees (nocs).

So basically, any revenue that goes to the IOC by securing advertisers such as toyota, samsung, visa, etc., is supposed to be distributed to every country’s NOC, which helps fund their athletic development, but a higher percentage of financial support goes out to the nocs they believe are in greater need of the funding under the program called olympic solidarity. Top universities civil engineering the numbers can be laid out as this: 90% of the revenue is given to organizations outside the IOC, with the other 10% going to the administrative costs of the IOC.

Now keep in mind, with soaring costs to produce the games and the sky-high bids that have to be made to the IOC to choose the host city, 10% is a VERY significant amount, and that’s just considering the bid. That’s not even factoring in the various share of broadcast sponsorships, ticket sales, and host country licensing programs.

The games are financially viable to the IOC, but that’s not what we’re really asking here. Any company or organization can obtain massive amounts of money through different means, but what are the effects on the cities of holding these games?

The answers to that are local business and tourists, which can produce some big numbers on their own. “ as a result of the games, the UK is expected to welcome 4 million additional visitors by 2015.” with a GPD increase also expected for 2.7 billion spent by those tourists in the three years after the games, that’s a lofty amount of money expected for tourism after the games were held.

The venues being maintained after the games requires significant funding by the city government, and to better cases like LA and london, there is sufficient funding to keep hosting other events that can slowly return them their profits from the buildings that they painstakingly tried to create for a once in century chance event. In other countries that barely had enough money to even put on the games in the first place such as rio, the costs of maintaining such buildings proved to be so high that they had no other choice but to cut off power and leave it with no future plans of usage.

In fact, not many cases have turned out positive for the host cities except for los angeles, due to the frugality of the partnership and construction of 1984. Since los angeles was the only contender in the bidding process for the games that year, they were able to set the bid low, and another interesting deviation from the norm was that the games were privately funded, not publicly by the government. With these restrictions, they had a limited budget and amassed to make a great profit from not making outlandish plans, but by modifying current LA architecture.

LA has since repurposed many of the (already repurposed for the 1984 summer games) venues back into publicly used buildings, such as the los angeles memorial coliseum, and university of southern california dorms were actually the olympic village for those games.

What started as a bid in 2013 and a financial expectation for $7.3 billion has already soared to almost $25 billion, a 340% increase on an already exorbitant budget. Washington university in st louis dorms in the end, this cannot work out well even despite the flourishing market of japan, as anything that high coming from public funds will take a very long time to break even. For example, the 1976 summer games left montreal with $1.5 billion in debt, which they did not fully pay off until 2006.

Well…… not exactly. Cyrus hostetler (olympic javelin thrower) apparently has never made more than $3,000 dollars a year. And a notable example of a dream coming into a clash with modern day reality is that olympic gymnast gabby douglas’s mother filed for bankruptcy before the 2012 london olympic summer games.