> What is the economic output? Entertainment as far as I can tell. For a few days every four years. That's not a good return on the time invested.
I‘d guess the vast majority of Olympians do compete in other events outside the Olympics and do provide more entertainment than just once every four years.
The Olympics don‘t pay the bills, but other events do. And many athletes are effectively employed by their countries, be it as soldiers, border guards or through some kind of sports support system.
> The tv rights and advertising sell for billions. In person ticket sales in the 100's of millions.
I acknowledge that this economic output is relevant, but the real issue for me is how this is distributed downstream.
I do not think it's correct that the IOC captures a ton of value [1], and at the same time we have huge issues in terms of funding, even in very rich countries [2].
The countries and athletes make their sacrifices (i.e., one hosting and investing and the latter personal finances), but the IOC still insists on this model.
Back in the day, we used to have the idea to make the Summer Olympic games cheaper by having a permanent country/facility and fewer sports, but for any reason the IOC is against it.
If it's a hobby then there's no expected return, so it feels closer to that.
I don't begrudge them, and would be in favour of a sensible fixed amount of federal funding, but it ain't a job.