Counterpoint - the infrastructure stays around. The stadiums get used and re-used, transport improvements benefit locals in perpetuity, tourism/trade brings in money to the economy, not to mention there are general "morale" reasons to host.
These are not profit making events to host, or at least they ought not to be. The benefits are varied and certainly not trivially reducible to profit/loss on the event itself.
This is sadly common, but not always the case. The London 2012 organising committee appear to have done a pretty good job of avoiding the infrastructure 'money pit'.
In fact, the 'legacy' of the Games was one of its main themes[1]. A ton of money was spent redeveloping Stratford, the area surrounding the Olympic Park, and the site itself has been converted into a park. Lots of the venues were temporary, and the major ones - e.g. aquatics, velodrome - are still being used. Many of the venues were also designed with conversion in mind - the aquatics centre was downsized, the stadium is being taken over by a football club. I think a lot of past problems stem from massively oversized venues that nobody can use afterwards, so hopefully that will be avoided.
> Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability?
Not really. While there might be some cases where some of the infrastructure is something where the operating/maintenance costs would be justified but which didn't get built because of the up-front capital costs, and where hosting a special event which happened to need the same infrastructure might provide an excuse (or an otherwise-unavailable source of funding) for the capital costs, that's rather exceptional. Normally, the most of the infrastructure needed for the event consists of things for which the operations/maintenance costs would not be justified once the event is over.
Vancouver 2010 is a fantastic example of just that. Yes, there were some developments which could have gone better (Olympic Village, for one), but some much needed infrastructure and stadium upgrades came out of it:
- Sea to Sky Highway went from being a ridiculously dangerous road between Vancouver and Whistler to being a pretty good road (still twisty, but there's only so much that can be done about that), and sorely needed these improvements for many, many years without budget for it.
- Canada Line also received a whole bunch of federal money to get built, probably bringing it ahead of schedule by many years. An airport transit line was badly needed in Vancouver, especially with $40 cab rides to downtown.
- BC Place's renovations got a major budget boost from the Olympics, allowing it to be turned into a great venue. The pressurized roof was a huge annoyance (air locks, yay! /s) and collapsed on several occasions, so the new retractable roof probably wouldn't have happened without the Olympic money.
- Cypress Mountain finally got off their ass and built a proper lodge with proper facilities to support the Olympics.
Vancouver also reused a lot of existing stadiums and infrastructure, opting to upgrade rather than build from scratch. It was honestly an example of a really, really well executed Olympics with a lasting legacy. There have been complainers the entire time, but honestly, it made Vancouver a better city. Closing of Granville for theentirety of the games also allowed the city to experiment with closing off city blocks for events, and that now has become a yearly tradition (along with Robson St). On a more sentimental note, it brought the country together in a unified passion which I had not seen before and have not seen since. It was truly a spectacular experience. I like rewatching the closing comments on CTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_dndXEGHI) as well as Stephen Brunt's video essay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8tzP3oeDg) every so often to remember that.
This is exactly what I’m talking about – Vancouver 2010, or Kiel+Munich 1972 are perfect examples for reusing existing infrastructure and upgrading it.
Even London 2012 was a great example – reusing infrastructure, upgrading it, etc is a good way to do it.
Another good idea: One of the recent UEFA cups was hosted by two countries together (actually, several of them were). Which is another good idea, several less developed countries working together to still get the profit off of the games, but sharing the costs.
On the contrary, recent experience with Olympics and World Cups alike shows that the stadiums often lie fallow, a complete waste of resources. Promised "transport improvements" are often never built in the first place, or built at a level far below what was promised to local residents. Tourism money fails to recoup what was invested.
One assumes the stadiums must meet a variety of criteria for power supply, cabling, vehicular access, camera gantries, internet connectivity, commentary positions, etc.
Probably easier to build new ones than adapt old (cf the demolition and reconstruction of Wembley to fix these and other issues.)
3 of the 10 stadiums built in Portugal for the Euro 2004 have been considered for demolition because they have been largely unused since the tournament and the municipalities have no way to fund their basic maintenance.
In many ways, the World Cup was a tragic waste of resources for South Africa, and even though it showcased the country (for that one month the South African government showed it could rise above mediocrity), the opportunity was soon squandered.
Most of the alleged spin-off infrastructure (Gautrain, new Durban Airport and Gauteng highways), would have happened regardless, and probably at much lower cost, because of price fixing and the general supply-and-demand situation in the construction industry as a result of the World Cup.
Stadiums and kind of businesses that appear nearby take up valuable space that could be used for higher-value economic activities. There was a rush of US mayors sponsoring stadiums in the 1990s. Almost all of those turned out to be net negative, compared with the opportunity cost.
These are not profit making events to host, or at least they ought not to be. The benefits are varied and certainly not trivially reducible to profit/loss on the event itself.