Analyzing the Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of Olympics

This report analyzes the multifaceted impacts of hosting the Olympic Games, focusing on economic, social, and environmental perspectives. It begins with an executive summary and an introduction highlighting the potential for urban development through major events like the Olympics. The economic impact section examines job creation, citizen spending, and revenue, while also considering the multiplier effects on GDP and the expansion of local pride. The report also addresses environmental impacts, emphasizing sustainability concerns and the carbon footprint associated with the Games. Social impacts, including information and capacity building, social capital promotion, and metropolitan community, are also considered. The conclusion synthesizes these findings, acknowledging the challenges in accurately assessing the overall financial impact. Recommendations include leveraging economies of scale, encouraging corporate sponsorship, and utilizing sustainable structures. The report offers a comprehensive overview of the complex considerations involved in bidding for and hosting the Olympics, offering insights for students studying economics and related fields.

THE GOVERNMENT IS BIDDING TO HOST THE
OLYMPICS

Table of Contents
Executive summary.........................................................................................................................3
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
Recommendations............................................................................................................................8
Referencing....................................................................................................................................10

Executive summary
This report consists of impact analyses of three perspectives on hosting of Olympics event. Three
perspectives includes economic, social and environmental impacts out of which economic impact
is taken as main perspective.

Introduction
It has long been seen that activities around the world such as the Olympics, Exhibitions, World
Championships and Cultural Festivals stimulate development and development. More and more
attempts to ensure that such activities continue as incentives for the turnaround of nearby events,
used to implement long-range foundation initiatives, support the travel and exchange industry,
play roles and promote network promotion. To implement these safeguards, actions must be
deliberately designed and executed to realize the benefits of the long haul. They must clearly
show how they move in networks to contribute to financial development and promotion. You
need to consider cost incentives, profitability and sponsorship deals and find out how to ensure
each action has urban communities and the donor agency.
In examining the high costs of defining an offer or enabling the Olympics, urban areas have a
problem. Benefits and risks may not be worthy of profitability. The information has been used
with past Olympic influence and disappointment with the expansion of similar activities and
outcomes. Obscure and inaccurate results have been taken into account in constructing the
legitimacy of the benefit. Studies have found that the provision of urban communities just like
host urban areas appears to benefit from worldwide recognition; however, the spending is
staggering and money laundering. Unprotected countries seem to be insecure as a result of
capital profiteering that involved leaving the door open for rich countries to invest in the
foundation. Full consideration allows rich countries to make capital with the potential to revive
the economy through the travel and exchange industry.
The main point of the report is to examine the impact of financial issues on Olympic
functionality. The report includes an examination and recommendation of ways to extend the
benefits and limit the difficulties in enabling the Olympics. The Financial Impact Survey covers
issues such as job creation, citizen spending and future exchanges.
Economic impacts:
Taking the test to be the host city for the Summer Olympic Games is a common statement
among all people that it is a good financial move. The enabling of the Olympics is tied to the
idea that Olympic Thanksgiving attracts large groups with an impressive number of cash-
strapped vacations to that city. Also, other direct cash benefits that are regularly linked to being a

city are the telecommunications revenue the city receives, permits, extended employment, ticket
contracts for Olympic activities. , funding, expanded appraisal income, and a more pronounced
interest in the host city and country. Furthermore, urban areas have a multiplier effect where
active vacation spending, employment growth and general financial renewal all contribute to the
direct financial implications.
In addition, direct financial impacts are compounded by the multiplier effects of urban
communities where vacation spending, business growth, and overall financial development have
begun. The impact of the Olympics on gross domestic product (GDP), which is an overall
estimate of the output of economic and commercial enterprises, is a common indicator of
progress and development. Another obvious benefit is the expansion of neighboring pride from
being a host city which could turn it into "city-led". "By hosting the Olympics a city can be"
guided "by expanding the visibility of the city and everyone, thus encouraging more interest in
the Olympics. Cities and the last country that can cause increased trade. However, these benefits
are often seen as more prevalent than they might be, despite the total absence or
misunderstanding of the costs associated with these benefits. The essential costs associated with
urban communities are housing costs, IFC submission, construction base, operating costs, special
costs, access costs and sometimes reductions in various types of travel industry.
Abstract benefits, called equality benefits, are non-financially measurable benefits. The various
types of hereditary benefits that come with enabling the Summer Olympics are, for example, the
sustainable structure that can be used for a long time to come. Furthermore, enabling the
Olympics provides the world with a signal that raises the height of both the host city and the
country on the global stage (Ricketts, 2012). This tangible benefit comes from expanding the
media presence which could in turn drive sustainable growth in the travel industry and attract
new entrants. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests that enabling the Olympics
will signal to the world the progress of trade and ultimately lead to a more visible trade
movement in the long run. Similarly, it is suggested that this sign to the world will also bring
long-term benefits to the travel industry, human resources, metropolitan reach, and reputation. In
addition, it is difficult to assess the benefits from, for example, an extended sense of metropolitan
pride within the city and host country, but these are definite benefits that can be seen when
decide whether to submit an offer.

Impacts from an environmental perspective:
Every two years, billions of dollars flow in and around an Olympic city to develop large arenas,
visitor accommodation and competitive facilities. Over the past decade, the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) has emphasized the steps that have been taken to make these
activities - and the Games themselves - possible. However, in our current reality, where further
reduction in carbon emissions is essential, is there still room for the Olympics? The organization
of the Olympics is in line with good ecological thinking. The planned flight of 28,500
competitors and staff to Brazil for the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio brought more than 2,000 kt
(kt) of ozone depleting material (GHG), also 2,500 kt of GHG attached to the performance in
equal parts of 1,000,000 viewers.
Management skills have been established "one of the best ideas in the travel and stock analysis
industry and have emerged since the mid-1980s" (Hall, 2010). Despite its development as a well-
known idea, sustainability is a concern that Olympic participants, strategists and coordinators
have not seen enough of. Lohman and Dredge (2012) noted that despite the fact that people are a
key part of the representatives of a coherent campus driving strategy, for example, the
International Olympic Committee has developed strategies that reflect only on the impacts on the
physical climate ( e.g. transport and pollution) while it is influenced by other similar natural
impacts, for example, the movement of the network (Porter et. al., 2009), post-operative use in
the office (Hiller, 2006) and diffusion of benefits within of the host network (Gaffney, 2010).
The point of this study is: a) to introduce a test of sustainability progress as an idea, b) to discuss
the issues surrounding the ecological support of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games which
impacted (positive or negative) on common ground and c ) examine the "covered" aspects of
natural governance, such as population distribution, fundamental freedoms and changes to the
personal satisfaction of city residents. A diagram of key commitments and developments to
improve sustainability will be introduced, including the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2007), the
International Standards Agency (ISO, 2010) and the Code for Sustainable Storage (LOCOG,
2012) describes Tokyo in the same way. Ecological plan for the 2020 Olympic Games. Despite
the study's focus on the Olympic Games, there are clear changes for other sporting activities,
such as the Commonwealth Games and the FIFA World Cup. Catchphrases: Olympic Games,
environmental sustainability, positive and negative impact.

Impacts from a social perspective:
This social impact study was intended to coordinate the main objectives of the Calgary
Application Control Committee with the areas of need related to the impacts, insights and past
achievements of Olympic metropolitan areas. The Olympic Games have several social benefits
that are unprofitable, difficult to assess, or both. Among the most cited are information and
capacity building, 1 social capital promotion and metropolitan community. Although social
properties have been remembered for Olympic bids since Atlanta 1996, there is no standard
model for the use or development of areas of social influence between hosts.
Critics of the social impacts of sport mega-events question the degree question the length of time
such guarantees are recognized, noting that such legacy claims have consistently evolved in
response to minor -study and controversy. Excellent roles have depended on areas of social
estate, for example, the reasonableness of housing and infrastructure upgrades to make public
use legitimate, despite previous meetings with the guest ensure that the background is regularly
visible. In Rio, more than 6,000 families have been displaced or weakened by the uprising, all in
areas that oversaw the famous Olympic or World Cup games, while land costs in these similar
areas were flooded, making life in Rio increasingly prosperous expensive. Connected
movements were also observed in Seoul 1998, Barcelona 1992, Atlanta 1996 and most notably in
Beijing 2008, where 1.5 million residents were automatically evacuated or evicted. The
unassisted property laws in Alberta at Calgary Time 1988 established a climate in which rent
extensions were removed. 2,000 people have been evacuated, many in the Victoria Park area,
perhaps the most unfortunate network close to Saddledome’s progress.

Conclusion
The various problems with qualifying the Olympics make big assumptions that lawmakers often
maintain, undermining the use of that money for choices. Determining the overall financial
impact of enabling the Olympics is a real test due to the amount of conflicting information and
the reliability of the financial impact models estimation of associated effects. Furthermore, it is
common for focused governments to use unconventional capital measures in anticipation of
games, metropolitan reorganization, transport modernization and so on that favor the network
and surrounding areas, and whatever is considered, should be treated as a plus for the city.
Enabling the Olympics, for example, enabling the Olympics, for example, the development of
public works, the promotion of a network, the promotion of spectators and a large number of
benefits of these urban areas, are recognized all over the world. , among many others, difficult to
measure and assess their financial impact. The development of public works and the promotion
of networking regularly develop areas as these areas attract more organizations, senior engineers
and higher profitability.
Recommendations
There are limited potential solutions for the economic issues plaguing the current Olympic
Games hosts, however, with special efforts tried, Olympic hosts can achieve positive monetary
effects. One such suggestion is to return to previous Olympic Games hosts for economies of
scale. Utilizing similar scenarios, competitive cities, among other reusable Olympic funds, urban
areas can produce the economies of scale needed to maximize profits for these essential interests
in improving foundations, transport and networking. Moreover, there is no doubt that the one-off
benefits of expanding the travel industry, encouraged spending, short-term trade support,
temporary GDP increases, among others, would be more frequent with selected Olympic urban
communities extend their impact. positive. The 1996 Atlanta Games ended very fruitfully and
had a positive financial impact on Atlanta and the surrounding area. In addition, a large portion
of Atlanta’s wealth can be borne by the extensive use of corporate sponsorship and the use of the
existing framework - two more tips for future Olympic hosts. Using sustainable structures for
competitive accommodation and (a) using existing athletic settings or (b) using athletic scenes

for post-Olympic income and corporate sponsorship can they provide large collections of
funding and funding.
Furthermore, those legislatures that impose the obligation to specifically finance Olympic
expenses, run extraordinary lotteries to raise capital and create venture funds with the sole
purpose of bringing profits. -out used for Olympic expenses cost a lot better than those who
don't. Selecting one or two urban areas for each plot would take these urban areas into
consideration in order to achieve economies of scale, obtain financial benefits to make the
Olympics more frequent, and consider grid development normal. In addition, achieving
economies of scale will significantly increase the rate of profitability in Olympic venues,
reducing open door costs. Additionally, selected Olympic urban communities would remove the
requirement for new urban areas to spend monetary measures to enable the Olympics,
eliminating the open door costs involved. to the integrity of the country by enabling the
Olympics.

Referencing
Blake, A., 2005. Economic impact of the London 2012 Olympics.
Kasimati, E., 2003. Economic aspects and the Summer Olympics: a review of related
research. International journal of tourism research, 5(6), pp.433-444.
Zimbalist, A., 2020. Circus maximus: The economic gamble behind hosting the Olympics and the World
Cup. Brookings Institution Press.
Bull, C. and Lovell, J., 2007. The impact of hosting major sporting events on local residents: An analysis
of the views and perceptions of Canterbury residents in relation to the Tour de France 2007. Journal of
Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), pp.229-248.
Kubo, H., 2014. The social and economic impact of hosting the Olympic Games: A guide to online
resources.
Rowe, D., 2012. The bid, the lead‐up, the event and the legacy: global cultural politics and hosting the
Olympics. The British journal of sociology, 63(2), pp.285-305.
Malfas, M., Theodoraki, E. and Houlihan, B., 2004, September. Impacts of the Olympic Games as mega-
events. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer (Vol. 157, No. 3, pp. 209-
220). Thomas Telford Ltd.
Bohlmann, H.R. and van Heerden, J.H., 2005. The impact of hosting a major sport event on the South
African economy. Journal of Tourism, 26(4), pp.595-603.