Olympics? Fool's gold
While Pittsburgh contemplates bidding on hosting the 2024 Olympics, it may be wise for the mayor and the Allegheny County chief executive to do some research to see how other cities made out as the result of hosting the games.
The Olympics are one of the most overrated events from a tourism-benefit perspective. The reality is that, with the exception of Barcelona, cities usually gain little or nothing, tourismwise, from hosting an Olympics, therefore making them a dubious and exorbitant investment.
Few, if any, cities ever attract the forecast number of tourists to their Olympics, nor as many as had been hoped for in the event's aftermath. Price-gouging by hotels and other cynical profiteering, or at least the expectation of it, sees to it that billions elect to stay at home and watch on television.
Everyone remembers Beijing (2008) and the so-called “Bird's Nest” stadium. The stadium has been a dud in terms of hosting major events, remaining embarrassingly underutilized.
Experts trace Greece's economic train wreck to the excessive debt incurred by the small country in hosting the games in Athens (2000).
Atlanta (1996) encountered major problems in transporting athletes and officials between venues, and then there was the nasty bombing incident.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Hiring in Westmoreland I
- Blame judges
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’