The Winter Olympic Games are 100 days away, and many people are looking forward to seeing what Pyeongchang, South Korea has to offer the world. But should they be hosting it at all? Some people are in favor of making the Olympics consistently take place on one home city, lifting the burden of paying billions of dollars for the Olympics from other countries. Others believe the Olympics is the world's game and deserves to be rotated among different cities. What do you think?
Athletes from around the world gather in a new city every four years to not only compete but to interact with other cultures from other participants and the city itself. Having a host city gives the Olympics a soul. Every city has a culture they want to show to the world and a different flavor of how to present the games. If there was only one host city, there would be no culture to get the spotlight to shine.
Here is David Kilgour of The Epoch Times with more:
Successfully using the Olympics as advertisement can result in a tourism boom with financial rewards...Barcelona ran up a debt to host the 1992 Games, but the city’s image gained enormously, tourism flourished, and there was favorable development. Since it experienced a long-term benefit, Barcelona is often cited by Olympic promoters.More than a century after the Olympic flag’s creation, the Olympic symbol of five interlocking rings still represents the union of the five continents and the meeting of the athletes of the world at the Olympic Games. If feasible, we should continue to honor the idealism of the games by continuing the rotation of venues on the five continents.
