Should The United States Bid To Host The Next Olympic Games? (Argumentative)

**Should The United States Bid To Host The Next Olympic Games?**

With the Games comes the need for money to build if necessary. As a negative result of this need, principal burdens on the people's increase (Text 1, bullet point 5). Once the bid for the Olympics Games is won, city officials will have to discuss a budget plan. The Olympic Games can cost billions of taxpayer dollars. For instance as stated in Text 3 and lines 2-4, “...the games rose to an estimated $16 billion in Athens, $40 billion in Beijing, and reportedly nearly $20 billion in London.” Unfortunately “To present Olympic expenditure in the best possible light host cities hide certain items or shift them to other budgets” (Text 1, line 41 - 42). This is an example of the corruption of politicians showing through when the Games come. Andrew Zimbalist stated in an excerpt from “3 Reasons Why Hosting The Olympics Is a Loser's Game” that “Barcelona ran up a reported $6 billion debt to host the 1992 Games, but the city's image gained enormously and tourism has since flourished” (Text 3, lines 19 - 21) proving that over time the effect of tourism would help settle the initial debt of the city.

With the Games comes often the need to build. The demand for infrastructure requires a supply of workers. The Olympic Games creates thousands of jobs for those out of work, bringing the unemployment rate down. With more people getting paid that originally weren't before, there will be more spending. More spending puts more money into the economy, in turn boasting it significantly. The negative side effect of the Games is although there is employment opportunities available “Olympic-related work is temporary” (Text 2, line 7 - 8). Dr. Mary Smith states that for the LA Games of 1984, 16,520 people were hired for 30 days and then for the Seoul Games of 1988, 33,500 people were employed for 30 days. Also due to time restraints, Dr. Mary Smith states “It will mostly be short and sweet and low skilled” (Text 2, lines 9-10) when talking about the employment.

When talking about winners and losers of hosting The Olympic Games, the host city tends to have more wins. “Middle classes, political elites and tourist may gain from infrastructural reforms, economic investment and social activities and interest in the city as a result of the Game's” (Text 2, lines 36 - 37).  Aside from economic and infrastructural victories, the host city also wins in the sporting events as well. If The United States were to win The Olympic Games as a whole it would be yet another accomplishment that the city and nation would have. But “By comparison, the city's poor tend to suffer and sometimes become poorer as a result of the of the Olympics” (Text 2, line 37 - 39). The United States should bid to host the next Olympic Games. Despite negative results of hosting the games, the positive results outweigh them tremendously. Although taking seven years of preparation which include changes in infrastructure and economic policies, it is well worth the cost of the city with the amount of pride that comes along with hosting the games.

The Olympic Games bring in a large percentage of tourism. Tourism spikes during and after the Games have been reported all over the globe where the Games have been held. With tourism comes money, and with an increase in tourism, the economy does well because of how much more money is being pumped in. The tourism also helps support small local businesses in the area bringing an all around good fortune to the city and its inhabitants.This factor is, economically, a negative one, but is completely worth the positive effects gained through the Games.

In conclusion, The United States should bid to host the next Olympic Games. The positive effects are too good to miss out on just because of minor negative effects. The Olympics create jobs for the unemployed, boosts the economy in the long run and spread national pride. Despite the poor negative arguments made by the text authors, the Games are worth the cost even if in the end the poor get poorer and the politicians use corrupt methods to make the expenditure look good in a public eye. The expense is collateral damage, but the end result, good business.

- Tronlegacy2000 (talk)