Income and Expenditure of Rio 2016

Why is hosting competitions like the Olympics so important for politicians? What would happen if economists replaced politicians in deciding on hosting the Olympics? Are economic considerations and profit-loss calculations sufficient reasons for requesting to host the Olympic Games? Hosting the Olympics can be associated with profit or loss, just like any business. The successful experiences of Tokyo in 1964 or Seoul in 1988 were not repeated in 2000 for Sydney, Australia, or Athens in 2004, which faced only losses from the Olympics. However, the Olympics is not just about calculating the income and expenses of holding competitions; beyond the direct economic profits and losses, it leaves other impacts on the economy, society, and politics of the host that compel politicians to compete for it. The New York Times states: 'The Olympics may not make countries wealthy, nor necessarily increase the number of tourists, but it certainly makes the people of the host countries happier than before.' The Economist also emphasizes in an analytical report that 'the Chinese showcased their planning and coordination power to the world by hosting the Beijing Olympics in 2008, while the British aimed to reintegrate low-income groups into the life of the capital during the London Olympics in 2012.' Rio 2016, with different income and expenditure, seeks to stabilize Brazil's economy, an event whose realization remains to be seen. I invite you to listen to 'A, B, Economy,' which discusses the economic impact of the Rio 2016 Olympics.