It's expensive because of the all the bullshit that comes along with it. Bringing in athletes from around the world and having them compete, while expensive, could be paid for with ticket sales and perhaps a sensible amount of advertisements.
The trouble is when you force the host to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure each time, when more than adequate facilities are already available. It's expensive because they make it so, not because it has to be.
For my part I won't be watching the Olympics and I'll go out of my way to avoid its sponsors for the duration of the Games and for some time afterward.
>The trouble is when you force the host to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure each time //
Unfortunately it's the politicians, that want to be part of something big, spending other people's money, that choose to spend hundreds of millions. If all the countries simply said to the IOC "we're not going to spend silly money, haven't you heard there's a recession on" then it could all be done with existing infrastructure.
Meanwhile the UK could have bought everyone a Raspberry pi, a pushbike, trainers and a tracksuit and still had change to offer a free year of swimming with the £160-200 per person budget (£10bn to £12bn/ 60 million people).
The trouble is when you force the host to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure each time, when more than adequate facilities are already available. It's expensive because they make it so, not because it has to be.
For my part I won't be watching the Olympics and I'll go out of my way to avoid its sponsors for the duration of the Games and for some time afterward.