Cities around the world are questioning if hosting the Olympics is worth it — and here's why
We're less than a week away from the start of the 2016 Summer Olympics from Rio, and officials are scrambling to put on the finishing touches.
The Olympic Village has been called "uninhabitable", though athletes are moving in nonetheless, and a ramp at the sailing venue was destroyed by 10-foot waves. The overall budget has skyrocketed.
With each passing Olympics, more and more cities around the world are starting to question if hosting the Olympics is worth it.
SEE MORE: Everything you need to know about the Summer Olympics
Most cities simply do not have the infrastructure required to withstand the two-week influx of athletes, coaches, fans, and media members. The money required to build state-of-the-art athletic facilities is soaring, and academic research suggests spending billions on a two-week event is not a wise investment.
In the worst-case scenario for host cities, Olympic venues go unused after the games and become white elephants — total wastes of space and money. We've seen this at a number of different Olympic sites around the world. Of course, the reasons this happens are specific to each country: Sarajevo, for example, suffered from a gruesome war that caused the 1984 Winter Olympic venues to crumble. Nevertheless, these photos from Reuters, Getty Images, and others have become symbolic of the downside of hosting the Olympics.
Will Rio follow a similar path?
Here's what Rio's 'uninhabitable' Olympic Village looks like less than 1 week before the opening ceremony >
See Also:
