The announcement that the 2016 Olympics will be held in Rio de Janeiro was met with wild celebration by locals. Cities all over the globe compete furiously to   bring the Olympics home, and the residents of Rio were eager to welcome the world to their doorstep.

Aside from the tremendous prestige generated by having global attention for several weeks, people welcome the Olympics because of anticipated revenue from corporate sponsorship, the selling of broadcast airtime to advertisers, and increased long-term tourism due to a raised profile. These perceived economic advantages make it seem as though winning an Olympic hosting bid is like winning the lottery.

Unfortunately, the Olympics are far more likely to harm the average resident of Rio than to help him or her. Construction of giant mega-stadiums and the gentrification of large urban areas in preparation for the games’ visitor surge will displace many.

For proof of this, one needs look no further than the city of Vancouver, today on the eve of the 2010 Winter Games. Human Rights watchdog groups have been lobbying vigorously to curb the evictions and displacements that are befalling the city’s poor as Vancouver reshapes itself to host the Games. Loopholes in legislation which protect civil liberties and rights of tenancy are being exploited to evict residents and clear space in which to erect Olympic infrastructure and stadiums. In addition, the homeless are being “cleaned” from the streets, that is to say, arrested or rounded up and shuttled to who-knows-where.

Faulty legislation is not the only mechanism by which the underprivileged can be made to suffer for the Olympics’ sake. The enormous amount of money that will be invested into areas surrounding Olympic landmarks will raise property value at an unnaturally rapid rate. Vastly increased rents will follow, and as a result, those who live in what is currently low-income housing will become unable to continue paying rent, and will find themselves homeless.

One can expect these effects to be particularly profound in Rio de Janeiro. The socio-economic map of Rio is such that some of the world’s lowest-ranked neighbourhoods on the Human Development Index are scattered throughout the boroughs of the city, many a matter of steps away from affluent urban centres, and not just concentrated in a single, low-income district. The games are going to be held at various stadiums throughout the city as well, not concentrated either. If either the games or the city’s poor were centralized, it is conceivable that the two spheres could partly avoid one another. However, with the poor living throughout the city, and the games being held throughout the city, there is no chance that the two will not clash. Olympic displacements may be worse than any city in recent memory, and the cost to the people of Rio will be immense. Increased poverty and homelessness will exacerbate the city’s already infamously high rate of crime and violence.

One might think that the revenue earned by the Olympics will allow Rio to compensate its population for the trauma it will suffer – that the economic boost will make the displacements and evictions a worthwhile sacrifice. Such an attitude is mere wishful thinking.

Corporate sponsorship and advertising will certainly bring capital, but the very nature of commercial trade is to funnel and concentrate money to one or two other parties. These will likely be other corporations, or perhaps even a branch of Rio’s municipal government. Either way, the money is not likely to be equitably redistributed, and the underprivileged who will suffer most will not reap financial benefits after the fact.

Tourism is more promising, at least in theory. Foreign visitors spend money not just on hotels, but also at shops, restaurants, and so forth. In this way, some tourist money is injected directly into many strata of a population. However, Rio de Janeiro is already a famous vacation spot. The Olympic promise of long-term tourism is mostly important for less frequently considered destinations. For example, Salt Lake City successfully bolstered its reputation as a skiing centre by hosting the 2002 Winter Games. For Rio, this kind of advertising is unnecessary. It is Brazil’s former capital, the third largest city in South America, and is world famous for its history, landscapes, and festivals. It will certainly see a tourism surge for the duration of the Games, but in the long term, it does not need the Olympics’ help to advertise as a holiday destination. The promise of tourism, therefore, is woefully insufficient compensation for infringements on civil liberties.

Even if the economic advantages were realized to their maximum potential, and the earnings gathered were redistributed responsibly and justly, the importance of these gains is commonly over-estimated. They are sudden, short term bursts of capital which have little effect on a city’s overall economic landscape. James Wood, an economist at the University of Utah was quoted in the Voice of America on January 2006, describing the relative insignificance of Olympics-generated revenue versus a more commonplace event: the relocation of a company. Such an event brings new people with new incomes, increasing spending, and attracts further migration. These are the sorts of changes, he argues, that alter economic patterns. A sudden influx of capital, he says, “doesn’t mean too much” for the typical family.

With only a little investigation it becomes clear that hosting the Olympics will not be beneficial to the people of Rio; its only likely consequence is the provision of short term monetary boosts which will fall along existing economic disparities. Corporations and the government will receive temporary reinforcement through sponsorship and advertising deals, while the underprivileged will suffer particularly extreme evictions, displacement, and rent increases that will put them on the streets. This means that the best case scenario, unfortunately, is that the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro will widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Perhaps it is not worthy of celebration after all.

Zak Rose · Ottawa, Canada

Zachary Rose is a Canadian citizen with a Bachelor's degree from McGill University in Political Science, specializing in the developing world and international relations. Aside from politics, his passions include fencing, acting and directing for the theatre and cooking with woks.

zak@antillean.org