One way in which London can benefit from hosting the Olympics in 2012 is by economic means. According to the London 2012 Legacy report (2007), the economic legacy of the Olympics can be very powerful and is a key reason for cities to want to bid to host the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics can improve the unemployment rate of the city and also bring a lot of business to local companies. Around 1,500 UK businesses have won contracts worth £5billion for the 2012 Olympics in London (London 2012 Olympics official website, 2010). This huge sum of money being given to businesses has been great for UK businesses especially during the hard times of the recession. However, jobs were meant to be created for the many local people of the East end of London but this would seem not to be the case. According to the Hackney Citizen newspaper website (2010), there is only 1 apprentice out of 150 that is actually from Hackney in the East End of London. One of the aims of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is to create jobs for local people however, this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore, economic benefits of hosting the London 2012 Olympics include the chance of bringing in new businesses into the area, possibly from other countries. Holding the Olympics has in the past meant that companies from other countries have decided to open up businesses in those countries. For example, after the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, more than 200 American companies opened offices in Catalonia the host city for the Barcelona Olympic Games (Kornblatt, 2006). The same could happen after the London 2012 Olympics and this could again help improve the unemployment numbers in the London area. However, there is a danger that the area may become so affluent that rising prices could force local people out of the area (London legacy report, 2007). Also, there is the added benefit of extra tourism to the city which means local businesses such as hotels and restaurants will gain extra business during the Games, however this is only a short term boost to businesses and the economy. Also, London is already a top tourist destination and ranks number one as “the best city to locate a business” (London Legacy report, 2007). So the likelihood of there being a long term increase in tourism is low. One main point that needs to be made that it is possible that most of these economic benefits might be short term benefits and it is possible that many of the sports facilities may end up lying empty for a long time just like the Millennium Dome did years ago (Economics Help website, 2009). There are many economic benefits to gain from hosting the London 2012 Olympics; however there are also some dangers to consider.
Furthermore, there are many social benefits to hosting the London 2012 Olympics that may justify the economic budget for the games being increased. According to the London 2012 legacy report (2007), states that London 2012 provides the city an opportunity to “address barriers to change, target hard to reach groups and model new attitudes and behaviours”. The prestige of being part of the community where a major global sporting event takes place can bring out the civic and national pride in a person that can only bring a community together which is a great thing for a community who is known for having a troubled background. In fact Price Waterhouse Coopers (2005), state that 77% of Londoners believe that the creation of the “feel good” factor that is created when hosting the Olympics can enhance national pride, motivate and inspire children. Also, they believe that the legacy of sports facilities is just as important as the financial rewards of hosting the Olympics are. It may bring groups of people together who may not normally work or socialise together but they will do now because they all have a common interest or goal. Another social benefit considered to accompany hosting the Olympics is a reduction in crime. Although major events such as the Olympics are considered to increase petty crimes during the weeks of the games it is said to decrease crime in the longer term (Ohmann, 2006). According to the London Legacy report (2007), it is believed by many that sport programmes in general help to reduce crime. The sports facilities could be used after the Olympics to provide sports programmes to try and get teenagers into sport and keep them away from gang culture. However, Coalter (2000), states that programmes like that tends to rarely last long enough to have any meaningful impact. It is therefore difficult to tell how successful this method would be to cut crime.
Increased sports participation may be another benefit of hosting the London 2012 Olympics and may justify the increase on the financial budget for the games. The Sydney Olympics in 2000 and Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002, “were found to have boosted young peoples sporting activity” (London legacy report, 2007). It has been said that regular physical activity reduces the presence of coronary heart disease risk factors (Gutin et al., 1994). Participation in sports can also be seen to help the increasingly growing problem with obesity in Britain right now. According to Edwards (2007) Britain has the highest rate of obesity in Europe. Surely anything that encourages sport has to be a great advantage in the fight against the growing problem of obesity in Britain right now. The leisure complexes built for the London 2012 Olympics could be used afterwards for locals and give them access to leisure facilities that they would never have had before. Approximately £80billion is spent on the National Health Service (NHS) every year (Economics Help website, 2009). However, if more people took part in sport more and became healthier then maybe the government would not have to spend as much on health care and spend it on other things such as education. The £9.3billion spent on the Olympics may be worth the cost if it helped improve the health and fitness of the people of Britain and relieve some of the stress the National Health Service is under. The £9.3billion that is going to be used to pay for hosting the London 2012 Olympics is a small price to pay for improved health considering the money spent on the National Health Service every year.
There are also benefits for the environment if hosting the Olympics that could give some form of justification to the financial budget of the games having to be increased. The redevelopment of the East End of London for the Olympics means that there is a chance to develop sustainable infrastructure that is kind to the environmental. For example, Price Waterhouse Coopers (2005), states that some of the environmental benefits the East End of London will receive is the redevelopment of brown field land, investment in low carbon energy infrastructure and creation of a major urban green space. They could also be an example to the whole of the Britain and illustrate that it is possible to build infrastructure while still taking care of the environment. Therefore, the environmental benefits would benefit the whole country in the long term. However, there are some adverse effects on the environment from hosting the Olympics in London in 2012. There will be an increase of road transport in the area in order to get supplies to building sites and to remove waste as well. Furthermore the air quality will deteriorate around the building sites due to construction work and demolitions (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2005). There are both positive and negatives impacts on the environment of the East End of London due to the Olympics being held there in 2012.With all the problems with climate change in the world now it is more important than ever for everyone to play their part in making the world a more environmentally friendly place to live. The positive impacts that hosting the games in 2012 will have environmentally for the country, could be seen to be worth the £9.3 billion being spent to host the games.
In conclusion, there are many reasons why the increased financial budget for the London 2012 Olympics can be justified. In the long run the country will manage to make some of the money back that they spent on the games through bringing more businesses into the country and creating more jobs. Although there is a risk that some locals may be priced out of the area. However, ultimately more businesses in the area will give the country the economic boost it needs after the recession that hit Britain a few years ago. Furthermore, hosting the London 2012 Olympic Games has social benefits as well such as creating a sense of civic pride in the East End of London and in the long term hopefully cutting crime as well. Also, the amount of people participating in sport should increase after the games which will hopefully improve the health of some of the population and help tackle the obesity problem and put less people at risk of having heart attacks. Ultimately, decreasing some of the stress the National Health Service is under. Hosting the Olympic Games has many environmental benefits, which with the climate change problems in the world today cannot be ignored and this is Britain chance to illustrate to the world how to hold a sustainable Olympics. For all these reasons, it is justifiable that the financial budget for the London 2012 Olympic Games was increased as these benefits are too much to pass up and let money get in the way of lasting legacy for Britain.
Bibliography
-
BBC Website, (2008), “Recession looming for UK firms”,
-
Cecil, N. (2008), “MPs set to condemn spiralling budget for 2012 Olympic Games”,
-
Coalter F, Allison M, Taylor J. (2000). The role of sport in regenerating deprived areas. Edinburgh: SECRU
-
Edwards, R. (2007), “Britain is sickliest nation in Europe”,
-
Economics Help website (2010), “MPs raise concern over London 2012 Olympics Budget”,
-
Gutin, B., Islam, S., Mansos, T., Cucuzzo, N., Smith, C. and Stachura, M.E. (1994), “Relation of body fat and maximal aerobic capacity to risk factors for atherosclerosis and diabetes in black and white seven-to-eleven year old children”, Journal of Paediatrics, 125, 847-852
-
Hackney Citizen Newspaper website, (2010), “Only one hackney apprentice on Olympics site”,
-
Kelso, P. (2007), “Cost of Olympic stadium nearly double by 2012”,
-
Kornblatt, T. (2006), “Setting the Bar: Preparing for London's Olympic legacy”,
-
Lea, M. (2008), “London 2012 could cost £20billion... TEN times original budget, ex-Olympics chief predicts”,
-
London 2012 Olympics official website, (2010), “Latest Progress”,
-
London Legacy Report, (2007), “London 2012 legacy research: final report”,
-
Ohmann, S. Jones I. and Wilkes K. (2006), “The perceived social impacts of the 2006 football World Cup on Munich residents”, Journal of Sport and Tourism 11 (2), 129-152
-
Price Waterhouse Coopers, (2005), “Olympics Games Impact Study: Final Report”,
-
Williams, R. (2005), “London calls and will go on calling”,
