By Noquel A. Matos
President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and celebrity host
Ophra Winfrey flew to Copenhagen, Denmark to lobby for their hometown
Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games. The attempt reinforced with a
charged emotional speech from the first lady reminiscing about how
inspiring it was to watch Olympic Games in the lap of her sick father
and President Obama’s speech on the great qualities of the city of
Chicago was not enough to get their city the host title. Brazil with a
heavy bid of US$240 billion knocked out the passionate warriors on the first
round, along as with other contesting cities, Madrid and Tokyo.
Chicago that was expected to win the hosting privilege because of President Obama’s exclusive support was the first to lose. The defeat came as a strong blow to the city that had spend $50 million in the last four years to get to host the event; by the time that Brazil was announced winner the charismatic supporters of Chicago had already left the room in Lebron James fashion, knowing they were already eliminated from the hosting title race.
With the current economic crisis unfolding in this nation one cannot help but wonder
if this wasn’t for the better. Historically, we have seen how expensive is to host a sporting event of the magnitude of the Olympic Games. Athens, for example, that hosted the 2004 Olympic ended spending 10 times its estimated budget. In addition, to millions of dollars more to maintain the large state of the arts stadium that it does not even utilize.
On the other hand there are those who argue that it is rewarding to host an event that sparks tourism, which in turn revives the economy. However, one is tempted to ask if increased tourism in Chicago could have helped bring the United States out of its economic recession.
Tell us what you think. Is it more beneficial for the United States to actually not host the 2016 Olympics than to have hosted it?
Post your opinion!
No comments:
Post a Comment