what are the negative impacs of olympic games?

Question

this is the impact on the hosting city. i think that it may be a good thing at first with all the media attention and possibility of portraying a city to the world but then what about the over population, people being forced to move because of land needed for the games....
we are all thinking it is a great thing but im sure there are far worst things to come from Olympic games and would love so read what you all think.

at the end of the day what kind of legacies are we left with?

Answer 1

athlete's foot

Answer 2

1)
The competitors are becoming more and more focussed on achieving a precise result, changing their lifestyle to suit the rules (hopefully) that will end in a medal. i.e. they are not "normal people" for the bulk of their lives. They are being customised for this one purpose.

Imagine extending this to 'genetically engineering' persons for one event, maybe 18 years prior to a specific set of games, perhaps just by selecting suitable offspring of previous generations of athletes and giving every possible benefit of training and support with unlimited resources.

All this might give advantages and gain another 0.1 seconds on an event, but why bother? Does it mean one nation state is more ruthless? Does it mean that state is "better" than others, generally? If a nation has a large and diverse population, the gene pool may offer more good candidates for more events.

It would be more interesting to see ordinary members of the public competing as individuals, without national tags. Just like "Its a knockout"!

2) Pundits are vermin and should not be encouraged.

3) The "official XYZ" supplier to the games is a disgusting idea.

4) The hosting country can demand what it likes for the tv rights.

5) Ruthless competition must temp athletes to use performance enhancing drugs with increasingly steathy non detection technology. So "Country A" is better than "Country B" because it has a more advanced undetectable drug.

6) Huge amounts of $ are spent on redeveloping areas in a city.
Why does it take holding the Olympics to get that process started? Was there no value in doing it otherwise?

7) Its a gravy train for so many people. Olympic Officials, builders, hotelliers, designers, PR, has-beens, never-was'....

8) Almost all competitors cannot win their event. Thats a lot of disappointment after a big build-up.

(enough for now?)

Answer 3

The biggest negative impact is Red Ken Livingstone ! The taxpayers of London are going to be, 'squeezed until the pips squeak' when the true cost of the Olympic Games finally dawns on Londoners. Just in case you think Livingstone is some kind of financial wizard do you what the taxpayers of London are paying Bob Kiley for being a 'consultant' to the Mayor.I believe its £3,200 per day for ninety days a year for three years plus use of a house worth several millions in the best part of London. How many consultants are going to be employed by Livingston for the Olympics ?

Answer 4

Can you imagine the costs involved in putting on this event, and if we get an Australian firm to build the venues, then the Games will never take place [Wembley Stadium!!!] The buildings will probably completed in 2015. We will have to employ another 5000 police just to check under the veils of the spectators. The people of London will be paying for the games for decades. They hope big business will sponsor the games, and I suppose Gordon Brown will make their contributions "Tax Deductable" and our bills from these companies will increase to cover the cost. We will end up with massive buildings that will be of no use to anybody, As far as drugs in sport is concerned let them get on with it. I would like to see a man jump "over the Moon" it"s his body, if he wants to destroy it and entertain us in the meantime, so be it. Drugs are already rife in sport and no matter what the authorities do or say, they will not eradicate them.

Answer 5

Well, I would say that overall the Olympics are a good thing. They used to be about good sportsmanship and pure amateur competition. But if there would be any modern negative impact, I would say that commercialism has tainted the games. It is as much about corporate sponsors as it is about the athletes themselves nowadays. And that is somewhat of a shame.

Answer 6

only one guy can win a race.. all the others just have to sob and hobble home - That's not good encouragement for our kids.

Also, my flatmate says that any fascist regime seems to bring the games down. He says they don't allow black people to win.. He's now waffling on about Jesse Owens in 1936.. I've no idea what he's talking about, but that was 80 years ago, so I think he should juist get over it !!

aye


christo

Answer 7

The cost of the games is a complete waste of money.

The facilities will not be used to their full potential when it is over, and just cost money to keep open.

Well until the government at the time (UK only) sell them to their friends.

Oh and by the way there can be only one winner all the rest are losers, its the right example to set the soft **** kids of today who are told they are great and can achieve.

well if your kid is a numpty when it comes to sport don't punish kids that are good at it

Answer 8

Don't forget the advertising hoards. That is all I have had to face everytime I visit London. For goodness sake it's 6 years away!
And the sponsors - Coke, McDonalds...need I say more?

Answer 9

trash pickup too much Styrofoam..other environmental as anytime a large temp crowd.
temp changes don't always turn into lasting improvement.
lots of politics about who gets the games
and some illegal related profiteering
mostly its positive and even helps world politics food and sports are sometimes what makes things work when politicians cant.

Answer 10

counties go to a lot of cost and create a lot of debt getting themselves ready to host these games. It usually never pays off.

Answer 11

do you mean the impact on the athletes or the city hosting?