Undoubtedly, not only the Olympic costs have brought the Greek economy to its current state, but the costs incurred to organize this game have accelerated the collapse of the Greek economy.
Professor of Crete University Minas Samatas, famous for her work on the Athens Olympiad, said before the 2012 London Olympic games that the 2004 Athens Olympiad brought a burden that would later drag the country into a deep economic crisis, and that civil liberties were largely pruned by the so-called anti-terrorism laws issued for Olympic security. he said. The budget deficit caused by the Olympic expenses reached 6.1 percent of the country’s gross product in 2004. So more than twice the Euro-Zone limits. Public borrowing to fund Greece’s expenses also exceeded $ 35 billion envisaged for 2004 to $ 43 billion. The national debt of the country has increased exponentially since 2004 and has risen to $ 469.8 billion (165 percent of GNP today) in 2010.
Just $ 1.5 billion was spent on Olympic security. Even installing security equipment in the city cost $ 300 million. The system, in which a country with a population of 11 million spends $ 300 million and is a complete fiasco, could not be used effectively even years after the Olympics.
In countries with a negative economy and macro indicators, the fact that the high-cost Olympic expenditures incurred could not provide real employment in the medium and long term, besides being unable to create an added value to the economy, it has a feature that triggers the negative trend in the economies of those countries.
The Purpose Of The Olympic Arrangement Varies By Country
Hosting Olympics is a great source of prestige and promotion as well as its cost.
Nowadays, the Olympics is a large-scale economic activity. For this reason, the reasons for the demand for the Olympics in practice differ in countries where sports evolved into show business and very important revenues were created.
The external impact created especially in developed countries, the existing general economic and sociological situation, the infrastructure, the great convenience in transportation and communication make a greater contribution to the economy than the external impact of the developing countries. Therefore, the main goals and objectives in the Olympic regulation in developing countries differ from those in developed countries. For example, while the issue of foreign promotion and prestige comes to the fore in our country, London calculates how to generate additional income from this business.
Can Get Profit in the Long Run
In a report by Goldman Sachs, the 2012 London Olympics are expected to increase Britain’s third-quarter GDP by 0.3-0.4%. However, as this growth comes from a short-term spending increase, it is predicted that this growth will be largely recovered in the fourth quarter when the Olympic games will be finished. So in the short term, the Olympic does not provide a significant net increase in GDP.
In the long run, thanks to the promotional power of the Olympics, cities and countries are thought to have a positive impact on tourism and investment revenues. The studies carried out after the 2008 Beijing and 1992 Barcelona Olympics indicate an important financial contribution in this regard.
Another benefit is that many new facilities will remain available to the host community. These facilities and numerous infrastructure projects increase the living conditions and attractiveness of the host city, leading to a valuation in housing prices. For example, after the 1984 Olympics, housing prices in Los Angeles achieved a further 5-10 percent higher appreciation to nearby regions within four to five years.