London Olympics in 2012

The whole Olympics thing mystifies me. That is to say, the competition between cities to host the Olympics is a situation that just doesn't make sense to me.

As the title notes, apparently London has been selected to host the 2012 Summer Olympics. Props to London and all, but I find myself wondering why cities like London and New York would bother.

Every article I read on the subject points out that Olympics host cities wind up shouldering massive debt for decades to fund the infrastructure improvements, security, etc. necessary to host the influx of spectators and atheletes. Athens city officials are on record for having said: "We really spent more than we could afford," on their preparations for the 2004 Olympics.

In the case of a B-List city (in global terms) like Atlanta, this could conceivably make sense. Suddenly, for a month or so, the whole world is thinking about your city, and thousands of visitors who may not otherwise ever have visited pour in and get to know your city.

But for A-List cities like New York and London and Paris, which almost every single person in the world hears about almost daily, it seems counter-productive to me. You're shouldering all this debt, and building facilities that experience seems to show tend to be under-utilized after the event is over. In the end, as a percentage of total expenditures, does this make sense for a two-week deal, when pretty much everybody already knows who you are, and people from all over the world visit your city on a daily basis, anyway?