[dagw]

Are their any actual legit studies that have shown if hosting an olympics is worth it for the overall economy or not?

Lots, probably hundreds. Most of them conclude 'it depends, but basically not worth it'. But the gist is that if you are already a functioning city and popular tourist spot (like London) you'll get close to zero benefit (at massive costs). London actually significantly had less total tourists the year of the Olympics compared with the preceding and following years.

Some cities, like Barcelona, Seoul and possibly Rio de Janeiro saw some benefit in terms of raising awareness of the city as tourist destination and better infrastructure for handling tourism. Both led to increased tourism the years following the Olympics. Barcelona and Seoul where also however cheaper events than current Olympics so it is hard to compare.

Also only the Summer Olympics has shown any sign of positive benefits on tourism. Winter Olympics has basically no effect.

[HenryBemis]

The upside is that you modernise your city.

In this case, they would have receive X thousand/million of tourists, which they won't come. If you travel to Japan (e.g. from Europe) you don't just go for the events. You also say an extra 5-10 days. That is a big loss for the tourist industry, the millions of mouths eating in restaurants, drinking in bars, and on top of the costs/profits, imagien that the state takes a 5-10-20% on taxes, which would be reinvested to the country (education, infrastructure, health, etc.)

It is a worse case sceario for the country. All these expenses and not near enought he revenue..

[dagw]

The upside is that you modernise your city.

In some cases that is true. But I've been to Tokyo twice as a tourist and didn't see much in desperate need of modernization.

And even if your city is in need of modernization, hosting an Olympics is a very inefficient way to go about it. The only argument that can be made is a political one where it is easier to convince the government to spend $10 billion on hosting the Olympics (and spending some of that on infrastructure renovation) rather than just spending $2 billion on infrastructure renovation. In fact the Mayor of London even said: “I bid for the Olympics because it’s the only way to get the billions of pounds out of the government to develop the East End – to clean the soil, put in the infrastructure and build the housing.”

However as many cities have found, the modernization done to host an Olympics aren't necessarily the modernizations a city needs the most long term,

In this case, they would have receive X thousand/million of tourists

Would they be getting more that they would otherwise though? As I mentioned elsewhere, London saw a clear drop in tourists visiting over the Olympic summer (with a matching decrease in restaurant and shop revenue), since it turns out many people who want to visit London would rather do so when there isn't a major sporting event causing massive chaos.

I mean yes. Spending all that money preparing for an Olympics and having no one show up is probably worse than having people show up. But not hosting the Olympics in the first place would obviously be the most financially prudent move

[iso1631]

London normally[0] gets twice the number of international tourists as Tokyo, it's only $100 return flight from Europe and easily available for a weekend, and even flights from the US aren't extortionate, and are very frequent.

Tokyo is in the order of Seoul, Miami, Barcalona rather than London, Paris, Dubai, New York.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_internationa...

[fomine3]

Yes, not so much.

* Adoption of Credit card and NFC payment on real shop is growing.

* Smoking in restaurant/bar/road is well restricted

* Haneda airport add a runway, by plane flying over Tokyo

* Airbnb is allowed in some situation because of lack of hotels for audiences

* R-18 Porn books are removed from convenience store (IMO it's bad for people who not affordable to internet, it should be zoned but not banned)

* It is rumored that police forces print industry/digital content shop to strictly hide/put mosaic on that on porn content, due to the Olympic. (Why it matters??)

[newsclues]

So we should pick cities in developing countries in need of modernization and have the global community fund it?

Instead of incremental improvements to wealthy nations, the Olympics is the opportunity to build up the developing world a as and highlight it for the world to see.

If only the IOC was not the peak of corruption

[dagw]

Honestly, it's not the dumbest idea. Shame it will never happen.

[Aromasin]

This was a massive benefit that came from the UK Olympics. Almost every facility that was used throughout the games continues to be used to this day.

"When the Park opens fully in spring 2014, it will provide a world-class hub for performance and community sport, offering a range of 25 indoor and outdoor activities every day, all year round. The iconic Aquatics Centre will offer two 50-metre pools and a diving pool, as well as seating for 2,500 spectators, while the Velodrome will be reopened as the Lee Valley VeloPark, providing state-of-the art cycling facilities. The Eton Manor hockey and tennis facilities, meanwhile, will operate as Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre, offering two outdoor hockey pitches, six outdoor and four indoor tennis courts. In 2015, the venue will stage the European Hockey Championships – the first international sporting competition secured for the Park after the Games.

The centrepiece of the Park – the Olympic Stadium – will also host elite international sporting action, including five matches during the 2015 Rugby World Cup and the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017. From 2016, it will also be the home of English Premier League football club West Ham United, who will take residency as the Stadium’s long-term anchor tenant.

The Olympic Park’s Copper Box venue has already reopened for public use, offering courts for 20 different sports including basketball, boxing and badminton as well as a state-of-the-art gym. The venue will not only provide fantastic facilities for the community, it will also be a home for elite sport, with the London Lions basketball team set to play their home matches at the arena.

But the Games have not only provided London and its residents with new sporting facilities, they also led to major infrastructure improvements, with Transport for London investing GBP 6.5 billion in its transport network in preparation for the 2012 Games.

This investment included ten railway lines and 30 new bridges, which will continue to connect London communities after the Games, while at least 60 Games-related projects were initiated to promote greener travel, including a GBP 10 million investment to upgrade pedestrian and cycling routes across London.

The Olympic Village, meanwhile, will also provide a permanent legacy for the whole of London, creating a brand new residential quarter of the city, to be known as “East Village”.

The Athletes’ Village is being transformed into 2,818 new homes – including 1,379 affordable homes – providing essential new housing for more than 6,000 people in east London. New parklands, open space and community facilities will also support the communities that develop in the area following the Games."

[leoedin]

From a logical point of view, we could have spent that money on those venues without the Olympics. There was nothing stopping us spending £6.5bn on transport, or building flats in Stratford, or building a velodrome, without the Olympics. In fact, you could argue it would be more cost effective - many of the Olympic venues aren't wholly suited to other uses (eg the stadium isn't the stadium a football team would build).

The only real argument for the Olympics from a legacy point of view is that it provides a fixed deadline and a potential for very public failure if you don't deliver - which probably stopped a lot of the graft and politicising that would normally accompany infrastructure investments of this size.