Is it true that back in the old days, all Olympics were held with a loss in revenue? Then in 1984, when it was held in LA, the Americans used brocasting, advertisng and tourism and turned it into a profit?
2006-07-07 05:43:28 · 2 answers · asked by Street Smart 4 in Sports ➔ Olympics
After the terrorist attack in 1972 and the financial disaster of 1976, only Los Angeles bid for the right to host the 1984 Olympic Games. As the Los Angeles Games were the first since 1896 to be staged without government financing, the organisers depended heavily on existing facilities and corporate sponsors. Although criticised at the time, the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games became the model for future Games, particularly after it was revealed that they had produced a profit of US$ 223 million.
2006-07-08 08:17:51 · answer #1 · answered by kasiuleczek 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, you bring up a good point.
Most cities that offer to host the Olympics, summer or winter, usually try to make a case that the games will at least break even or make some money. If they didn't, the people who live in that city wouldn't support the bid.
However, it is always a challenge. Many Olympic sites convert the venues to sporting arenas and the Olympic Village to housing, which helps recoup some of the losses.
Some Olympic cities have been more successful than others financially. I think Athens is the most recent example of a city that lost a lot of money with their Olympics. If I remember correctly, Torino did better but still lost money.
But I don't think you can say that ALL Olympics made money in the past. You need to look at them individually.
2006-07-07 12:50:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋