The debate over whether hosting the olympics is a waste of money for a country like india involves several economic and social factors.

1. High Costs:

- Hosting the olympics requires substantial investment in infrastructure—sports venues, transportation networks, accommodation facilities, etc. For india, this could mean diverting funds from other critical areas like healthcare, education, and poverty alleviation.

   -Operational Costs**: There are significant costs associated with organizing the event itself, including security, event management, and logistics.

2. Opportunity Cost:

   - The funds spent on the olympics might be viewed as an opportunity cost, where the same money could have been used for other developmental projects that might have a more immediate and tangible impact on the population.

3. Economic Impact:

  -While hosting the olympics might stimulate short-term economic activity and job creation, there is often debate about the long-term economic benefits. The boost in tourism and global exposure might not always translate into sustained economic growth.

4. Post-Event Utilization:

 - Often, the sports venues built for the olympics end up underused or become "white elephants," requiring ongoing maintenance costs without generating significant revenue.


   - **Economic Inequality**: There may be public discontent if significant resources are directed towards the olympics while many citizens are struggling with basic needs. This could lead to criticism and political fallout.

   - **Community Displacement**: Infrastructure development might lead to displacement of communities or changes in local dynamics, impacting the lives of those directly affected.

  - **Global Standing**: Successfully hosting the olympics can enhance a country’s international profile and soft power, though the actual impact on national prestige versus the financial cost is debated.

- **China (2008)**: Beijing’s investment in the olympics was massive, with substantial infrastructure improvements. The long-term benefits include enhanced global status and improved urban infrastructure, but the costs were extremely high.

- **Brazil (2016)**: Rio de Janeiro faced significant financial challenges post-Olympics, with underused venues and high debt, leading to criticism about the overall economic benefit versus the cost.

- **India**: india has yet to host the olympics, but similar arguments about cost versus benefit can be anticipated if it were to do so. Concerns would likely revolve around the allocation of resources, the potential for underutilized infrastructure, and the social implications of the expenditure.

In conclusion, while hosting the olympics can provide certain benefits such as international visibility and improved infrastructure, the high costs and potential for underutilization of facilities must be carefully weighed against these benefits. For a country like india, where resources are limited and developmental needs are pressing, the decision to host the olympics would require a thorough cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the investment aligns with broader economic and social goals.
For more interesting updates wa click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel

Find out more:

indian olympics

Sindujaa D N

15/08/2024 12:18 PM