As of 2022, it has been 126 years since the first iteration of what we now call the modern Olympic Games. After more than a century of embodying the highest level of athletic achievement in this earth for starry-eyed young athletes, not only are the International Olympic Committee's (IC) efforts at containing public dissent gradually falling apart, the future of the Olympics themselves are clouded with doubt. Currently, the Olympics are at a crisis point - no one wants to host them. Bids are at an all-time low: the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games were given to Paris and Los Angeles, respectively, as all other bidders individually withdrew from the auction, while Brisbane was the solitary runner-up for the 2032 Games. Truthfully, the Olympics have always been a risky investment. In particular, they are notorious for devastating economies, breaking their promises for economic revitalization and bringing upon decades of debt. We will address three notable victims today and hope they provide us with some insight on the issue, helping us think critically about the events we witness on TV.

Victim 1: Montreal

When we visit the majestic, yet time-worn stadiums of Olympic host cities — Barcelona, Rio, Sochi — we tend to be overcome with the glories of sports, globalization, and wealth. Each city must fund every cent of their Olympics expeditions and scour for the money needed in their own treasuries; each city also cannot afford to lose face, thus we see these stadiums' designs grow larger and more modern than the ones before. The expenses for holding the Olympics is, unsurprisingly, taken from ordinary citizens in the form of taxes.

People have the Olympics to thank for their steeply ascending tax rates — sometimes taking the form of an altogether separate "Olympic Tax", which demands individuals to empty their own wallets for national pride. This exact scenario occurred in 1976, when Montreal proudly resumed the role of a welcoming host for that year's summer Olympics. The effects on its citizens were not all too welcoming, however. In honour of Montreal's pioneering and noteworthy example, economists coined the term "Montreal Trap" to describe the economic state that countries and cities are left in after taking on such a large and crippling responsibility.

Montreal started out positive, enforcing a budget of 120 million as the maximum amount for the Games in total, until it went on and exceeded that maximum by another 190 million dollars, nearly tripling the intended amount. Transportation fees inflated from 6 to 7.3 million dollars. No doubt this accumulated the city debt. Montreal citizens learned of a new tax - the infamous Olympic tax - which wasn't completely repaid until 2006. This fee was taken off the backs of innocent citizens, at least some of whom may not have thought it worth it to suffer thirty years of economic oppression just for a slight amount of pride and entertainment. Ultimately, the Montreal Olympics ended up costing 13 times above its estimated cost, around 1.5 billion dollars. However, that is not all.

Frustratingly, when this debt was finally repaid, those old, dilapidated buildings required new fees. For example, the ceilings needed to be changed, or else they would all be useless. To make things worse, the sporting events that these Olympic arenas now hold are sparse and low-paying. It is tragic that in exchange for thirty years of compensation is a one-time pass for fame.

The Montreal Trap, in a nutshell, illustrates the massive economic pressure that the Olympics brings to its host countries. In spite of this, one may still argue that Montreal citizens received their fair share of the bargain. In that case, it would be time to call upon the 2007 Greece economic collapse.

Victim 2: Athens

A country that was already in a bad state financially tried

to hold the Olympics. The result? Calamity. The 2004

Olympics are now commonly regarded as the main impetus behind Greece's later monumental financial collapse. "The reason that Greece is currently in this shape is rooted in the fact that we organised [sic] the Olympic Games," states a resident in the now-deserted Athens Olympic Village. Around 11 billion dollars were lavished onto this event-of-the-year, which is double what Greece initially planned to finance.

Again, we see that due to skewed estimates, planning, execution, or perhaps all three, the reality of what citizens had to pay soared much higher than their expectations. This amount does not even include the large infrastructural projects that Athens launched at the time, which, because they were being rushed to completion, demanded inflated costs. Yet again, most of the sports stadiums and amphitheatres, though crudely commanding locals to relocate for them to settle in, were left to crumble and rot with little use.

The policymakers could be largely blamed for this error.

The more economic pressure a country is under, the more often it is blinded, and attempts at revitalizing the economy through major events can often be the most direct contributor to disaster. The French economic catastrophe before the French Revolution was in part a result of the Seven Years' War with Britain, but the Seven Years' War was fought on behalf of monetary gain, despite backfiring. The Olympics have always presented themselves as a perfect opportunity for a country to revamp its economy; however, the travel revenues that the Olympics bring to any city are outweighed by the massive expenditure and unable to bring any long-term benefit. While Greece was left to struggle for breath in its battered state after such a spending spree, the IOC reaped profit — 985 million dollars. It made no answer to campaigns that called on it to donate some to Athens. Greece is still suffering and recovering to this day.

The IOC can evidently earn itself money, but when host countries mistake it as a chance for economic rejuvenation, real harm can be done. Citizens are often unable to stop this - some 83 percent of Japanese residents opposed holding the Tokyo 2020 games at all, as the newspaper Asahi Shimbun reports, but Japan still ended up hosting it. How much control citizens have over their city's choices depends on their level of democracy; it is safe to say that high taxation rates that come with the Olympic Games package have rendered it a relatively unpopular feat citizens.

Victim 3: Rio

At the time it was appointed host of the 2016 Olympics, Rio, like Greece, was facing its own economic problems; it was stuck in a debt trap. Brazil was forced to borrow from the International Monetary Fund, which is a Western committee acting as a giant benign bank that compelled countries to enforce reforms in return for loans.

In Rio, austerity measures were established, aiming to help the economy by drastically implementing cuts in government spending. These resulted in a myriad of social consequences, such as unemployment of social workers, removal of social security, cuts in education, and other harms to generally good services, which the Olympics only exacerbated. Approximately 13.1 billion was taken from the national bank to fund the

2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics — 3.5 billion dollars over the budget. Not to mention, another 8.2 billion dollars were spent on infrastructural renovations. The supposed tourism revenue that accompanied this investment was nowhere to be found.

Instead, because of this colossal hole of deficit that the Olympics left in the Brazilian economy, austerity measures were augmented. As more government services were underfunded - money stripped from schooling, pensions taken from elders, wages ripped from the hands of hospital workers — Brazil's state was swiftly deteriorating. Knowing now that the proper way to remedy an economic downfall is to increase spending, austerity measures only made Brazil's circumstances worsen, as baffled citizens find themselves with less and less spending power.

Rio is another demonstration of the Olympics accelerating countries from economic downturns to all-encompassing crises; the social impacts of such a decision are drastic. At the end of the day, tax-paying individuals — those who hold little power in policy-making — are harmed the most, lodged between the demanding forces of austerity and taxes, unable to sustain the economy.

That being said, what should we think of the Olympics? It is well established that hosting such an event is extremely risky, yet countries are compelled to participate in order to prove themselves on the world stage. Still, the Olympics necessitate extravagant spending and place a heavy burden on any economy, regardless of whether that burden can be borne by its citizens. In some cases, it is simply too heavy to bear, thereby culminating in the disasters of Athens and Rio. In some cases, great joy can be uncovered, which can mark a triumphant moment of national pride that lasts with a country for decades to come.

Beijing 2008 is widely regarded among its participants to be a great success: the IOC's policy of political neutralization effective at its peak powers, President George W. Bush attending the event live, everyone mingling in an optimistic, global look on the future. It is far too rash to declare the Olympics defunct because of its negative effects on regions in the past, but its dangers should be recognized. Ultimately, it all comes down to the question: is it worth it? Do these infrequent times of unity compensate for financial disaster? There may not be a straightforward answer. However, for now, it is necessary to take all perspectives into account. Policymakers should be aware of the commitment when one bids for the Olympics host seat, and take into consideration citizens' opinions on the matter.

The Olympics, convicted serial killer of economies, can and likely will lead to gaping amounts of debt, severe increases in taxation, and possibly plunge countries into economic crises, especially if a country is already unstable. Yet, in the hands of strong and capable states, The Olympics can be what it is intended to be: a celebration.