In Munich it actually turned out well. But I guess that's the odd one out.

Disagree. In the UK, the post Olympic venues of 2012 have been excellent resources to help train future stars, our performance at Rio (which was amazing for such a small country) would never have happened without all that investment in to sport 4 years (and longer) previously. People love to be negative about everything, that way you can only be 'surprised' or 'proven right'...but the sweeping statement of "it never does anything positive for the host" is simply wrong. Stop being a neysayer and start being part of the solution.

Maybe because its in America, but a lot of the same venues that were used in the 96 Olympics are still in use today for various public and private use.

It didn't go that bad for Barcelona though... Because instead of building new venues we almost reused everything and had real plans for these venues to convert into museums, sport centers or even theaters. the thing is, many countries feel the need to build everything from 0, and have no plans at all for the futur of these buildings. And that means creating debt and wast money.

Im sorry to burst your bubble, but we Germans usualy do very well with events of that size, and we hosted more than the Olympic games.

And all of that money they make, only to exploit the land and leave it impoverished. Shame on these people.

Olympics bring in alot of money to the host countries which is why they want to host it. Countries like the UK who have a post-olympic plan which further boost profit & can make good used of the facilities. Rio 2016 they had trouble making everything completed in time so they had to use cheaper easier to make products which also meant easier damaged. with they time frames and budgets etc they had they still managed to full off a good Olympics so people shouldnt be so negative