Introduction
The decision to host a major sporting event such as the Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup, or even a regional competition like the Southeast Asian Games involves the commitment of billions of dollars in public funds for infrastructure, security, and operations. Proponents of hosting argue that these events generate economic returns, national prestige, and lasting social benefits. This essay argues that the costs of hosting major sporting events are justified, as they deliver tangible and intangible benefits that extend far beyond the event itself when managed responsibly.
Hosting major sporting events stimulates significant economic activity through infrastructure development, tourism, and increased consumer spending that can deliver lasting benefits to the host economy.
Explain
The preparation for a major sporting event requires substantial investment in transport, hospitality, and sporting infrastructure that can serve the host country for decades after the event concludes. The influx of international visitors generates revenue for hotels, restaurants, retailers, and service providers, while the global media exposure can boost tourism and foreign investment for years to come. When planned strategically, these economic effects can represent a genuine return on the initial investment.
Example
The 2012 London Olympics, which cost approximately 8.77 billion pounds, is widely regarded as a successful example of event legacy planning. The Olympic Park in Stratford was deliberately located in one of London's most deprived areas, and its transformation into the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park has catalysed the regeneration of East London, attracting over 40 billion pounds in private investment and creating thousands of permanent jobs. Singapore's hosting of the 2015 Southeast Asian Games similarly leveraged the newly completed Singapore Sports Hub, a 1.3-billion-dollar facility that continues to host international events, concerts, and community sporting activities, ensuring that the infrastructure investment serves the nation long after the Games concluded.
Link
This demonstrates that hosting major sporting events is not a waste of resources when the economic planning is sound, as the infrastructure and economic stimulus generated can deliver lasting benefits that justify the initial expenditure.
Hosting major sporting events enhances a nation's international profile and soft power, generating diplomatic and reputational benefits that are difficult to achieve through other means.
Explain
In an interconnected world, the global visibility afforded by hosting a major sporting event provides an unparalleled platform for nation branding and diplomatic engagement. The host nation is placed at the centre of the world's attention for weeks, with billions of viewers forming impressions of the country through the event's presentation, organisation, and hospitality. For smaller nations in particular, this exposure can significantly elevate their standing and influence on the international stage.
Example
Singapore's hosting of the inaugural Youth Olympic Games in 2010 was a strategic decision to showcase the city-state's organisational capabilities and cosmopolitan identity to a global audience. The event, which featured over 3,500 athletes from 204 countries, was praised by the International Olympic Committee as one of the best-organised events in Olympic history, significantly enhancing Singapore's reputation as a world-class host city. This reputation has since facilitated Singapore's hosting of other high-profile international events, including the annual Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix, which generates an estimated 150 million Singapore dollars in tourism receipts each year and reinforces the nation's brand as a vibrant global hub.
Link
This illustrates that the resources spent on hosting major sporting events can yield substantial returns in soft power and international prestige, benefits that are especially valuable for smaller nations seeking to maximise their influence and visibility on the world stage.
Major sporting events foster national unity and social cohesion by creating shared experiences that bring diverse communities together in collective celebration and pride.
Explain
The social value of hosting a major sporting event lies in its unique capacity to generate moments of collective emotion and national identity that transcend the everyday divisions of a society. These shared experiences create social memories and bonds that strengthen the fabric of a nation, particularly in diverse or newly independent countries where the sense of national identity may still be forming. The intangible benefits of social cohesion and civic pride, while difficult to quantify, are no less real or valuable than economic returns.
Example
When Singapore hosted the 2015 Southeast Asian Games, the event coincided with the nation's 50th anniversary of independence, creating an extraordinary confluence of sporting excitement and patriotic celebration. Singapore's athletes delivered their best-ever performance with 84 gold medals, and the shared experience of cheering for national heroes galvanised a sense of collective identity and pride that many Singaporeans described as uniquely powerful. The 2019 SEA Games hosted by the Philippines similarly united a nation often divided by regional and socioeconomic disparities, with Filipino athletes' record medal haul generating nationwide celebrations that transcended these divisions.
Link
This confirms that hosting major sporting events is not a waste of resources, as the social cohesion and national pride they generate are invaluable for building and sustaining the collective identity that diverse societies need to thrive.
Counter-Argument
Critics argue that the costs of hosting almost invariably exceed projections, citing Bent Flyvbjerg's finding that every Olympic Games since 1960 has experienced cost overruns averaging 172 per cent. They point to the 2014 Sochi Olympics, which ballooned from 12 billion to over 51 billion US dollars, and Greece's 2004 Athens Olympics as cautionary tales of fiscal irresponsibility that burden taxpayers for decades.
Rebuttal
While cost overruns are a legitimate concern, they reflect poor planning and governance rather than an inherent flaw in hosting. The 2012 London Olympics, which cost approximately 8.77 billion pounds, is widely recognised as a successful model of legacy planning, with the Olympic Park catalysing over 40 billion pounds of private investment in East London. Singapore's hosting of the 2015 SEA Games leveraged the already-constructed Sports Hub, ensuring that infrastructure served the nation long after the event concluded. The lesson is not to avoid hosting but to host wisely with rigorous fiscal discipline.
Conclusion
In conclusion, hosting major sporting events is not a waste of a country's resources when the investment is approached with strategic planning, fiscal discipline, and a long-term vision for legacy infrastructure. The economic stimulus, international visibility, and social cohesion generated by these events can deliver returns that far exceed their costs, as demonstrated by successful hosts such as Singapore and London. The key is not whether to host, but how to host wisely.
Introduction
Despite the celebratory rhetoric that accompanies the awarding of major sporting events, the historical record is littered with examples of host nations left with crippling debt, underutilised infrastructure, and unfulfilled promises of economic transformation. The resources devoted to hosting these events represent opportunity costs that could have been invested in healthcare, education, housing, and other priorities with more direct and lasting impact on citizens' lives. This essay contends that hosting major sporting events is indeed a waste of a country's resources, particularly for developing nations with pressing social needs.
The costs of hosting major sporting events almost invariably exceed initial projections, leaving host nations with enormous debts that burden taxpayers for decades.
Explain
The history of major sporting events is characterised by a consistent pattern of cost overruns, with final expenditures routinely exceeding initial budgets by factors of two, three, or more. This phenomenon arises from a combination of optimism bias in the bidding process, the escalating demands of international sporting bodies, and the logistical complexity of delivering world-class infrastructure within tight deadlines. The resulting debts are borne not by the sporting organisations that profit from the events but by ordinary taxpayers.
Example
The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia were initially budgeted at 12 billion US dollars but ultimately cost over 51 billion dollars, making them the most expensive Olympic Games in history. Greece's hosting of the 2004 Athens Olympics, which cost approximately 11 billion euros, is widely cited as a contributing factor to the country's subsequent sovereign debt crisis. A 2020 study published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy by Bent Flyvbjerg found that every Olympic Games since 1960 had experienced cost overruns, with an average overrun of 172 percent in real terms, suggesting that fiscal irresponsibility is not the exception but the rule in mega-event hosting.
Link
This strongly supports the view that hosting major sporting events is a waste of resources, as the systematic pattern of cost overruns means that the financial burden imposed on host nations is consistently and significantly greater than anticipated, diverting funds from more productive public investments.
The infrastructure built for major sporting events frequently becomes underutilised 'white elephants' that impose ongoing maintenance costs without generating proportionate benefits.
Explain
Sporting mega-events require specialised venues such as Olympic stadiums, aquatic centres, and athletes' villages that are designed for peak demand during a brief competition period. After the event, these facilities often prove too large, too specialised, or too expensive to maintain for everyday use, leaving host cities with imposing but economically unproductive structures. The phenomenon of abandoned or underutilised Olympic venues has become a global pattern that undermines the legacy arguments made by hosting proponents.
Example
The 2004 Athens Olympics left Greece with over 20 purpose-built venues that fell into disuse and disrepair within years of the Games, with the former Olympic softball and canoe slalom venues becoming overgrown wastelands that symbolised the broken promises of the event's legacy plan. Brazil's 2014 World Cup produced several underutilised stadiums, most notoriously the Arena da Amazonia in Manaus, a 40,000-seat stadium built at a cost of 220 million US dollars in a city whose local football team attracts average crowds of fewer than 5,000. The stadium now serves as a bus parking depot on most days, a stark illustration of resources squandered on infrastructure with no sustainable post-event purpose.
Link
This illustrates that hosting major sporting events is a waste of resources, as the specialised infrastructure they require frequently becomes a long-term financial liability rather than a lasting asset, draining public funds that could have been invested in genuinely useful infrastructure.
The economic benefits claimed by proponents of hosting are consistently exaggerated, with independent studies showing that the promised boosts to tourism, employment, and GDP rarely materialise.
Explain
Bid documents and feasibility studies commissioned by aspiring host nations routinely overstate the economic benefits of hosting, while failing to account for displacement effects, opportunity costs, and the temporary nature of event-related employment. Independent academic research has consistently found that the actual economic impact of hosting falls far short of the projections used to justify the expenditure. This gap between promise and reality suggests that the decision to host is driven more by political vanity and lobbying than by sound economic analysis.
Example
A comprehensive 2022 study by economists Victor Matheson and Robert Baade, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, reviewed decades of research on the economic impact of mega-events and concluded that there was 'little evidence' that hosting the Olympics or World Cup generated significant net economic benefits for host cities or nations. The 2010 South Africa World Cup, projected to generate 2.1 billion US dollars in economic activity, was found by subsequent analysis to have produced a net economic impact close to zero once the costs of infrastructure, security, and displacement of regular tourism were accounted for. South Africa's own treasury acknowledged in 2011 that the event had not delivered the anticipated economic transformation.
Link
This reinforces the argument that hosting major sporting events is a waste of resources, as the purported economic justifications are consistently undermined by independent evidence showing that the promised returns are illusory, leaving host nations with the costs but not the benefits they were led to expect.
Counter-Argument
Proponents of hosting argue that major events generate significant economic stimulus, international visibility, and social cohesion that justify the investment. They cite Singapore's 2015 SEA Games, which coincided with the nation's 50th anniversary and generated an extraordinary outpouring of national pride, as evidence that the intangible benefits transcend simple cost-benefit analysis.
Rebuttal
However, the intangible benefits of national pride and social cohesion are precisely the kind of unmeasurable claims that allow governments to evade accountability for overspending. Independent academic research, including Matheson and Baade's 2022 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, consistently finds 'little evidence' of net economic benefit from mega-events. The 2004 Athens Olympics left Greece with over 20 derelict venues, and Brazil's Arena da Amazonia now serves as a bus depot, demonstrating that the promised legacy of hosting is more often a liability than an asset.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the evidence strongly suggests that hosting major sporting events is, more often than not, a waste of a country's resources. The pattern of cost overruns, white elephant infrastructure, and unmet economic projections is too consistent to be dismissed as the failure of individual hosts. For developing nations in particular, the billions spent on sporting spectacles would be far better invested in the unglamorous but essential work of building healthcare systems, schools, and housing that directly improve citizens' lives.