It's all about the money

Ahead of the IOC's decision about which city will host the 2016 Olympic Games, the organisation's President, Jacques Rogge, has stated that: “I share the view...the economics should not drive our decision...it is not the economics but leaving a sustaining legacy.” In other words, the city that potentially will deliver the highest revenues will not necessarily win the right to host the Games. To what extent is this an acceptable, appropriate or realistic view? When many host countries are using billions of pounds of domestic tax-payer's money, are Rogge's views not entirely appropriate? Don't citizens of host nations deserve for the Games to at least break-even, if not actually make a profit in order to reward their sacrifices? Isn't there an argument that the IOC has an obligation to work towards generating an acceptable financial return for their hosts? What's wrong with making a profit from such sporting events anyway? The IOC surely makes such a profit, doesn't it? Perhaps this is an unnecessarily calculating view? Surely playing host to the world's biggest sporting event provides other rewards that directly or indirectly generate benefits for host countries that cannot and need not be measured in financial terms? Nevertheless, if Rogge's views do actually prevail in most cases, how does/how will legacy strategy be affected in countries seeking to bid for the Games? If the expectation is that money invested in hosting the Games is not expected by the IOC to generate a commercial return, what other returns are available to any hosts of the Games? Indeed, doesn't this stance effectively reduce the Olympic Games to the position of e.g. an infrastructural investment, rather than being a celebration of sport? That is, doesn't the whole 'legacy effect' relate more to the construction of e.g. new roads, railways etc, rather than delivering a memorable Games? Although, in the end, is the intended outcome of hosting the Games really a straight choice between profit and some notion of legacy?