想象一下你要辦個宴會，但是指定你辦的客人們突然說，要是你不把全家里里外外好好收拾下，他們就不來了。為了達到要求，你跟伴侶和孩子說，換到更大更好的房子也不錯。雖然因為花費巨大，你沒錢繼續裝修，但沒準將來什么時候還有機會接手更多類似的宴會。而且，過程中每件事都在延誤，宴會結束后大量空間和昂貴的裝修都會閑置。鄰居們如果心存憐憫，會把你當成前車之鑒，如果刻薄點，你就是笑柄。這就是當奧運會主辦城市的感覺。

里約熱內盧的情況糟糕得多。想象一下上述情況全都發生了，再加上剛修好巨大游泳池里傳播疫情的蚊子滋生，而且因為沒錢付給維護的工人，泳池看起來一團亂。此外，巴西又遇上百年來最嚴重的經濟衰退，史上最嚴重的政治丑聞，還有全球醫療衛生危機。哦，別忘了帆船海灣的污水和沙灘排球場上的糞便，犯罪潮，不斷增加的流浪人口，還有遭破壞的世界遺產勝地。

巴西的海邊明珠，也是第一座主辦奧運會的城市里約真的遇到大麻煩了。真的，里約都已經宣布進入緊急狀態，是一般只有碰到颶風之類自然災害才會宣布的緊急狀態。里約希望借這個由頭申請聯邦資金完成奧運會籌備工作。不過，這里的緊急狀態跟真正的“災難”沾不上什么邊。除了運氣有點走背字，大部分狀況其實都是可以避免的，首先一條就是別去申請主辦奧運會。

當然了，等到奧運會開幕，短短兩個星期里人們會暫時忘記主辦城市的紛亂一邊，眼中只有瑰麗的盛會。待到曲終人散，人們回歸正常生活，巴西會發現在新建的高爾夫球場上至少浪費了150億美元；為富人區修好了地鐵線，但這條路上人人都開車；架好了價值2200萬美元的纜車線路，然而線路沿線的居民連自來水都用不上。

Imagine you’re?throwing a dinner party, but your guests—the ones who decided you should have the party—say they won’t come unless you make significant improvements to your entire home. To sell this undertaking, you tell your spouse and children that it really is time to have a larger, fancier house. You’ll probably host more dinner parties like this one at some murky unknown future date, even if you can’t afford the upgrade—which will cost many times more than estimated. Also, everything will be horribly delayed, and after the party, the extra space and most of the expensive improvements will go unused. At best, your neighbors consider you a cautionary tale. At worst, a punch line. This is what it’s like to be an Olympic host city.

For Rio de Janeiro, it’s much worse. Imagine all of the above, plus a plague of disease-spreading mosquitoes breeding in the oversize swimming pool you installed, which has gone to seed because you can no longer afford to pay the pool guy. Throw in a national recession, the worst in 100 years, plus a history-making political scandal and a global health crisis. Oh, and don’t forget the raw sewage in the sailing bay and the fecal matter on the beach-volleyball grounds, the crime wave, the swelling homeless population, and the bulldozed World Heritage Sites.

The Brazilian seaside jewel, the first South American city in Olympic history to play host, is a disaster. No, really: The city has declared a state of emergency, the kind normally declared during hurricanes and the like, as a way to collect federal funds to complete preparations for the Games. Very little about this particular disaster was natural, though. And apart from some bad luck, much of what has made it so could have been avoided—by never hosting the Olympics to begin with.

Of course, when the Games begin, the insanity of the host city’s decision will be, for two short weeks, if not celebrated, then at least momentarily pushed aside by the spectacle. People will move on with their lives, and Brazil will have wasted at least $15 billion on a new golf course, a subway line into a wealthy part of the city where everyone drives, and a $22 million gondola lift over a neighborhood that still lacks running water.

2014年在俄羅斯索契舉辦的冬奧會花費了510億美元，大量設施工期延誤，預算也嚴重超支。

為比賽修建的基礎設施往往是主辦城市最大的花費，也是最愚蠢的部分，但是高花費已經成為常態。以前也有城市從電視轉播權獲得不少收入，但如今國際奧委會要拿走七成，上世紀90年代還只占4%。門票銷售和游客能帶來不少現金，但近年來這部分只彌補了不到一半的投入，北京奧運會（支出491億美元）和索契冬奧會（510億美元）都是這種情況。相較而言，里約花費少很多，但要做平基建項目的賬也得20年。從現況看來，里約想學1992年的巴塞羅那一樣收支平衡幾乎不可能，巴塞羅那是近50年來兩座成功收回成本的主辦城市之一。

國際奧委會一向對大興土木營造奧運場館的城市格外偏愛，但隨著主辦城市虧損連連，奧委會開始自食其果。2004年奧運會還有12座城市申辦，2020年奧運會只有5座城市競爭。2022年冬奧會僅有兩座城市申辦，波士頓人民直接否決了申辦2024年奧運會的計劃。如今羅馬看來也要放棄申辦2024年奧運會。經濟學教授安德魯·津巴利斯特質疑：“難道奧林匹克精神就是每四年選一座新城市，花上200億美元大肆營建以后再也用不上的奢華體育場館？不是！奧林匹克精神是舉辦國際體育比賽，跨越種族將全世界聯系在一起。”

學界和城市學者圈里越發流行的看法是：取消申辦機制，指定永久的主辦城市。夏季奧運會方面，津巴利斯特最喜歡洛杉磯。1984年洛杉磯第二次舉辦奧運會，一年內就收回了成本，場館和基礎設施又都是現成的。國際奧委會肯定不希望這么干，但如果更多城市開始拒絕為沒用的場館砸錢，可能也會不得已而為之。

The infrastructure built for the Games is the most expensive aspect of hosting and often the greatest folly, but it has also become the?standard rationalization for the high costs. Historically, cities earned quite a bit of revenue from TV rights, but the International Olympic Committee now takes at least 70% of that revenue; as recently as the 1990s it took just 4%. Ticket sales and the influx of tourists offer quick hits of cash, but in recent years that revenue has never come close to half the cost of putting on the Games—certainly not for Beijing (which spent $49.1 billion) or the Winter Games in Sochi ($51 billion).Rio, while spending comparatively little, will be paying for its infrastructure projects for another two decades.?And from all evidence, it will see none of the revitalization of, say, Barcelona, which hosted in 1992 and is one of just two cities in the past half-century to make back what they had spent.

But in light of recent Olympic busts, the IOC’s tendency to be wowed by huge, purpose-built Olympic architecture has, perhaps, begun to backfire. While 12 cities bid for the 2004 Games, just five put in a bid for 2020. Only two competed for the Winter Games in 2022, and the citizens of Boston practically revolted over its potential bid for 2024. Now Rome appears poised to drop out of the 2024 running too. “Is the point of the Olympics to have a new city spend $20 billion every four years to build an ostentatious stadium they’ll never use again?” asks Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor and the author of Circus Maximus,?a book about the Olympics and the World Cup. “No! The point is to have an international sporting competition, for the world to come together and get over ethnic boundaries.”

One increasingly popular solution among academics and urbanists: Eliminate the bid to host altogether, and pick just one permanent host city. For the Summer Games, Zimbalist likes Los Angeles. It’s the only host (in 1984, its second run) to earn back what it put in within a year, and it has all the venues and infrastructure already in place. The IOC won’t entertain the notion, but if more cities start declining to shell out billions for useless stadiums, it might have to.?

1984年洛杉磯奧運會。洛杉磯是過去50年里成功收回成本的兩座主辦城市之一。（財富中文網）

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林