[Thompson_NCL]

Greece cannot afford to host the games on a recurring basis, so that is obviously a no-goer. If Greece wants to get precious about their culture, we can just rebrand the Olympics. I personally think it should be a mark of pride for Greece, but whatever.

And why should the Olympic games be cancelled, because some people cheat? That doesn't make any sense. Of course not all Russians used drugs and there's no reason to suspect doping is common amongst the American, Chinese and British competitors.

America and China are always destined to place highly as they are rich with large populations. Britain's success owes a lot to having funded their team well AND being host nation in 2012. Our success may not last in the long run.

[noemon]

The Olympic Games Athens 2004 made a profit for Greece and if they are on a recurring basis then the profits will increase substantially as the infrastructure will be there already.

[Thompson_NCL]

The cost of the 2004 Athens Summer Games has been cited as a contributor to the Greek government-debt crisis. Many of the venues lie vacant and rotting; the Independent newspaper reports as many as 21 out of 22 are unused.

Now granted the cost of rehosting the Olympics every 4 years would not be as high as the first games, because the infrastructure, stadiums and whatnot would all be in place. But the cost is still going to be in the billions and the government will only recoup a small part of the "profits" you mention.

I don't think any country would benefit from hosting the Olympics on a recurring basis, nevermind a country in an economic quagmire like Greece.

[noemon]

But the 2004 produced a profit and the cost of infrastructure cannot get any higher than that, if the 2004 produced a profit then the following ones would produce an even larger profit.

On the revenue side, the same report estimates that incremental tax revenues of approximately €3.5 billion arose from the increased activities caused by the Athens 2004 Olympic Games during the period 2000 to 2004. These tax revenues were paid directly to the Greek state specifically in the form of incremental social security contributions, income taxes and VAT tax paid by all the companies, professionals, and service providers that were directly involved with the Olympic Games. Moreover, it is reported that the Athens 2004 Olympic Games have had a great economic growth impact on the tourism sector, one of the pillars of the Greek economy, as well as in many other sectors.

The final verdict on the cost of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, in the words of the Greek Minister of Finance, is that "as a result from the cost-benefit analysis, we reach the conclusion that there has been a net economic benefit from the Olympic Games"

[Thompson_NCL]

I already acknowledged there was a net economic benefit. But if the government spends $10bn and the net economic benefit is $15bn, there is no way the government is breaking even on that.

[noemon]

She is breaking even and consecutive Olympic Games should cost no more than 3 billion.

[Thompson_NCL]

If they broke even, how could it have contributed to Greek national debt? Your quote above suggests that the Greek government got back about €3.5 billion, which is clearly not breaking even because the taxpayer stumped up €6.2 billion.

And where do you pluck that 3bn figure from? Greece would probably need to invest another 10-15bn just to get the infrastructure back up to par with the standard of 2004. Then they're going to have to refresh that infrastructure every 4 years. Sure the cost will be less, but it's still not going to be cheap and I doubt the recurring tax revenues will cover the costs.

[noemon]

Therefore, the net infrastructure costs related to the preparation of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games was €4.5 billion, substantially lower than the reported estimates,[18] and mainly included long-standing fixed asset investments in numerous municipal and transport infrastructures.

The Athens 2004 Organizing Committee (ATHOC), responsible for the preparation and organisation of the games, concluded its operations as a company in 2005 with a surplus of €130.6 million. ATHOC contributed €123.6 million of the surplus to the Greek State to cover other related expenditures of the Greek State in organizing of the games. As a result, ATHOC reported in its official published accounts a net profit of €7 million.[16][17] The State’s contribution to the total ATHOC budget was 8% of its expenditure against an originally anticipated 14%.

The tickets produced a surplus of 123 million, the additional revenues not counted here are revenues from added tourist tickets, airline companies, hotels, restaurants, taxis and so on and forth which have not been included in these estimates.

The claims that the Olympic games contributed to the debt has always been non-sense cited by various pundits but never actually demonstrated by anybody.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Greece cannot afford to host the games on a recurring basis, so that is obviously a no-goer. If Greece wants to get precious about their culture, we can just rebrand the Olympics. I personally think it should be a mark of pride for Greece, but whatever.

And why should the Olympic games be cancelled, because some people cheat? That doesn't make any sense. Of course not all Russians used drugs and there's no reason to suspect doping is common amongst the American, Chinese and British competitors.

America and China are always destined to place highly as they are rich with large populations. Britain's success owes a lot to having funded their team well AND being host nation in 2012. Our success may not last in the long run.

It's not just the doping, it's the corruption and abuse, the whole thing is rotten.

If it is to be kept I would agree with the concept of hosting it in one or two recurring cities but I would also like to see many of the sports cut, fencing, all the horse and team events, shooting, cycling, anything with boats or events that require judging.

The Olympics should be about who can jump the highest or run the fastest not which team can build the most sophisticated bike or setting up teams to evaluate which small sports can be targeted with massive funding to easily obtain a gold medal.

Every nation on this planet can build a running track, how many have velodromes?

[Thompson_NCL]

If a nation can afford an Olympic quality running track, it can almost certainly afford a velodrome, not that you even need a velodrome since most of the athletes usually compete on the road rather than in a veldorome.

And no amount of funding guarantees a gold medal in the sports you mention; Britain does well in the cycling because it has some of the best cyclists in the world such as Bradley Wiggins who has won several major competitions outside of the Olympics. The bicycles they use are not some sophisticated feat of engineering, they just pursue a philosophy of finding small improvements which mostly give a psychological edge rather than actual edge.

This all just seems like sour grapes to me.