---

Olympics in the US — Beneficial Exposure or Unwanted Debt?
The U.S. could soon be making the choice between the pros and cons that come with hosting the Olympics

By Elizabeth Robinson

 
The American flag was hanging off the front porch. The neighborhood streets were quiet and still. There was an electricity and tension in the air contrasting the eerily empty streets, stores and restaurants. Julie Bowen and her two young daughters left their house on the warm July afternoon and walked three blocks to a street they’d driven down countless times. Millions of people were gathered, simply waiting. Suddenly, a rush of cyclists came whizzing by. A sea of colored uniforms and various nationalities blurred together as the bikes passed.

“There were all these athletes from all their countries and here they are riding their bikes, competing for their sport on our neighborhood street,” Bowen said. “It was very exciting. I mean the Olympics are just exciting.”

The 1996 Summer Olympics were held in Atlanta, Ga., after taking place outside the U.S. for over 10 years. The Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City followed six years later. But now it’s been over 12 years since the games were in the U.S., and it could be at least another 10 years before they return — if not more.

In 2013 there was talk of Minneapolis bidding to host the 2024 Olympics, but hopes of bringing the games to the Midwest were shot down after deliberation among city leaders.

“I believe it will be seriously discussed at some point in the future,” said Melvin Tennant, president and CEO of Meet Minneapolis . “However, the community has determined that events like a Super Bowl, a World’s Fair or a Final Four are more immediate priorities.”

R.T. Rybak, former Minneapolis mayor, formally declined the opportunity to bid for the Olympics largely due to the high expenses, the rocky relationship between the United States Olympics Committee (USOC) and the International Olympics Committee (IOC), and other projects and priorities being pursued by the city.

Tennant said there would be a “ramp up of fundraising and a massive amount of coordination required over an extended period of time between governmental and quasi-governmental units and the private sector. It would take a supreme effort to establish a common set of long-range priorities.”

A City Divided

Chicago leaders know exactly what Tennant is talking about. In 2007 the Windy City was chosen as the U.S. Olympic bid city for the year 2016, but the IOC selected Rio de Janeiro instead. While many were upset at the loss of the chance to host the Olympics, others in Chicago were relieved, like the people who organized the No Games Chicago campaign.

“It’s a crazy idea, but the Olympics are a big business that really help a small group of people,” said Tom Tresser, who helped coordinate No Games Chicago. “And they tend to be people who build hotels, advertising agencies, construction unions, real estate developers, banks to finance this and Coca-Cola. But the people that live in the cities? Give me a break.”

Tresser and the No Games Chicago campaign had four major reasons for their opposition to the Olympics: the political corruption, the financial impact of the games, the environmental impact both prepping for and holding the games and the misalignment of priorities among Chicagoans.

The finances alone played a huge role in the campaign’s discontent with the Olympics. The people of Vancouver were stuck with $1.5 billion of debt following the 2010 Olympics, and the 2012 London games cost upwards of $10 billion more than what was budgeted. At the time, the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City were the most expensive winter games, coming in at nearly $2 billion. Now, the planners of the most recent Sochi games spent over $51 billion, becoming the most expensive in Olympic history.

“That’s totally crazy,” Tresser said. “I don’t understand how any modern city can possibly stomach something like that.”

Lasting Impacts

Although there are several negative and questionable aspects of hosting the Olympics, there are also several positives, like the unprecedented exposure, new infrastructure and improvements to a city and — of course — an extreme sense of patriotism.

Bowen recalls the feelings of tension and patriotism in Atlanta leading up to and during the 1996 Summer Olympics. The stress of the looming congestion, the architectural additions to the city, the extensive planning and the thought of Atlanta being scrutinized by the world were daunting. But hosting the Olympics brought welcome change and lasting effects in Atlanta.

“I can remember thinking all the money that had been spent, was it really worth it?” Bowen recalled. “But there were so many facilities that were built and so much infrastructure, so a lot of that is still downtown.”

Centennial Park was one of the biggest improvements that the Olympics brought to the city, Bowen said. The area that previously consisted of low-income housing was revived and reconstructed into what is now Centennial Park.

“It was horrible housing where nobody should live, and now it’s a beautiful park,” Bowen said. “It’s a gathering space still, there are outdoor concerts. Really, if I had to think about a lasting effect of the Olympics, that transformation of that horrible part of our downtown was huge.”

The Olympic Future

David Wallechinsky, the president of the International Committee of Olympic Historians, has sat through several bid presentations with the IOC and recognizes several factors that go into hosting the Olympics. The IOC sends out evaluations to each bidding city to judge it on infrastructure, preparation, financial viability and overall presence. But sometimes, it’s more than just the basics. Sometimes it’s the IOC’s general opinion of the city or country being evaluated. It’s hypothesized that this has played a role in the recent failed attempts by the U.S. to become an Olympics host.

“It’s a somewhat complicated affair, which had to do with internal Olympics politics where the United States Olympics Committee kind of offended the IOC. So those were some daunting years in which the U.S. was on the outs,” Wallechinsky said. “Now that has ended. I would say, for example, if the United States wants to bid for 2024, it would probably be well received by the IOC in a few years.”

Hosting the Olympics is no small feat, but there are plenty of cities within the U.S. that could be up for the job. The USOC sent letters to the mayors of 35 cities across the country to gauge interest in bidding for the 2024 games, including Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Minneapolis and St. Louis.

Although the possibility of the U.S. hosting the Olympics is real, the USOC has very real requirements of a host city. Along with adequate space for the millions of visitors flocking to the city, the host city needs to build an Olympic Village to host 16,500 athletes and provide space for around 15,000 members of the media. The city would need a major public transportation system and a workforce of 200,000 people, and to top it off, the USOC predicts an operating budget of at least $3 billion.

With a more accepting relationship between the IOC and the USOC, Wallenchinsky believes the possibility of the Olympics returning to the U.S. is not far off. But once again, this calls to mind the pros and cons that past Olympic host cities and past bidders have presented. City leaders around the U.S. will have to decide which matters most — a boost of pride and patriotism throughout the country, or the potential harm and impact on the host city. They’ll have to decide soon, though, before another city swoops in and snatches the opportunity.

---

---

---

Heading Photo by Mike Hewitt, Courtesy of U.S. Olympic Committee Archives
Centennial Park Photo by Robert Neff

• 
• 
• 
•