Should the Olympics have a permanent home?


modern Olympic Games are international sporting events that consist of sport
games in which thousands of athletes from
around the world compete in different categories. It all started in ancient
Greece, where these games were held and today they are considered the world’s
most important competition with more than 200 nations participating. The
Olympics are organized once in four years always in different host countries. Being
so important they affect in the economies of the host countries and lately
there has been a discussion whether the Olympics should have a permanent home
or not. By looking at this issue in different points of view there are
advantages and disadvantages of having a permanent home for Olympics.

To begin with,
hosting the Olympics costs a huge amount of money. These countries must provide
everything so that the whole event goes in the right way. All the facilities
even the ones that do not exist must be constructed. For instance, the areas
where each competition will be organized are the most crucial part. The
accommodation must be built not only for the athletes, but also for the
visitors and fans. The transport system is another thing that must be taken in
consideration, because it is necessary to carry people quickly to their
destinations. As a result few countries want to host the Winter Olympics. No
one wants to invest billions into infrastructure for games that most of the
world ignores.

Secondly, during
the years of construction, a great number of people are displaced. Estimates
say that the organization of the last 20 Olympic Games displaced 20 million
people. Thirty thousand African Americans were obliged to move during the
Atlanta Games, because there were not enough place for sport venues; 1.25
million people lost their homes during
the Beijing Games.  As 1Cooper, H.S. (2005) said “No city welcomes the enormous disruption
every four years.” (p.85-98). This disruption would cause a great cost of
money, but also it would bring chaos and dissatisfaction when the event

the other hand there a lot of those who think that changing the host city every
time has a lot of benefits. They are based in the fact that during the
preparation of the event more labor force will be needed. So a large number of
jobs in various sectors are given rise, making the employment a priority.
However many of these jobs will be temporary, so it does not solve the
employment problem.

being an expensive business, the government itself would find difficulties in
funding these  events. This would be an
ideal opportunity for advertising many companies that compete to sponsor these
events. But not always all the money needed can be covered by advertising and
sponsorship, so the citizens most probably may have to pay increased taxes.

conclusion, considering both pros and cons whether the Olympics should have a
permanent home or not, I think that it would be more convenient if there was
one. An uninhabited Greek island would be
ideal, reachable by ferries as well as planes. Having
a permanent place for the summer Olympics would also return the Games to their
historic birthplace, Greece, so why not return them to their origin?  .