Olympics: Going for the gold, spending in the red
The Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, starting in less than three months will likely take the gold for being the most expensive games in history. Which in turn raises the question: Why host them?
Originally estimated at some $12 billion, the final costs for hosting the Sochi games is expected to exceed $50 billion—far surpassing the high of $15 billion in Athens in 2004.
And experts say the money is unlikely to be recovered. In fact, no Olympic Games in history have made it into the black, according to Robert Barney, founding director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies at Western University in London, Ontario.
"Most of the games don't count the funds used by governments and taxpayers to subsidize them. When you do that, not one game has made money," he said.
But cities and nations repeatedly make lavish promises and put on extravagant efforts to host the Olympics largely because the politicians who lobby for the games are different from the politicians who have to clean up the mess.
"The problem is they don't see the issues that come eight or 10 years out after they actually host them," he said. "The politicians who pushed for the games are long gone and don't have to face the problems of cost overrides and empty stadiums that aren't being used after the games end."
After Olympics, Sochi goes back to being Sochi?
Sochi, where the games open on Feb. 7, is located in a remote part of Russia—on the Black Sea coast near the border with Georgia. It has a subtropical climate and is considered a summer resort.
Reasons cited for the climbing costs at Sochi include kickbacks to local construction companies, tight security measures to prevent terrorist attacks—and building winter facilities in local mountains.
(Read more: NBC cable networks concentrate on hockey, curling)
Russian officials have cited their desire to turn the city of 343,000 people into a destination for winter sports after the games have ended.
"Like most host communities, the Russians hope to increase tourism and expose the world to Russian culture and progress," said Pat Rishe, professor of economics at Webster University.
But it's questionable whether Sochi can become a tourist destination, said Arthur Fleisher, professor of economics at Metropolitan State University of Denver.
"Will people flock to Sochi after the games? It's highly unlikely," he said.
"You're building these stadiums and places to go, but who goes to them after the fact? Look at Athens or Beijing. Most of the facilities there are in bad condition and unused and they cost hundreds of millions to maintain," he said.
A report by an opposition leader in Russia claims that building the new Olympic Stadium in Sochi will cost $19,000 per seated fan, as opposed to the average cost per fan in previous games of $6,000.
The report also states that more than 90 percent of the money being used in Sochi is coming from the government and not private enterprise.
"The Russian government has a ridiculous amount of money invested in the Sochi games," said Christopher Finlay, a professor of communication studies at Loyola Marymount University.
"The issue is: Can they create a brand new ski resort area for people to come to?" he said. "It could lead to an investment benefit, but who knows if it will," said Christopher Finlay, a professor of communication studies at Loyola Marymount University.
Hosting has its good side
None of this is to say there aren't benefits to being a host city, if only for the short term.
"It's a feather in the cap of leaders who were responsible for getting the games," said Rishe. "It's also the idea that the games will bring development and that the facilities will be used after the games are over. At least that's the feeling."
One study says that cities that become hosts, as well as those that don't but make a bid, experience a 30 percent increase in international trade, as they "show themselves to be open for business with the global community."
And another says that host countries win 54 percent more medals than when they're not a host nation.
But not every city feels the pull of hosting. Denver had been awarded the 1976 Winter Games but Colorado voters rejected a $5 million bond issue to help finance the games in 1972—amid reports of drastically rising costs to host them.
Without the state's money, the International Olympic Committee moved the games to Innsbruck, Austria.
Putting games where the infrastructure is
Some say that the games should be hosted by cities that are ready-made to handle them.
"I'd love to see both the Summer and Winter Games rotate among five to six host cities," said Rishe.
"It would be similar to the Super Bowl. They would be in cities that have the facilities and infrastructure mostly in place to handle the games. It would make things more cost-effective. But I doubt the IOC will let that happen," he said.
"The problem is that developing countries would feel left out if the games kept going to only certain major cities," said Scott Minto, director of the sports business management program at San Diego State University.
Other alternatives include different ways of looking at construction. Chicago, which has been hosting international events since the 1893 World's Fair, proposed a possible construction solution in a recent bid.
"Chicago in its failed attempt at hosting the 2016 Games came up with the idea of dismantling some of the buildings for the Olympics and salvaging the materials to cut down the cost of maintenance," said Barney. "That could be a way to go in the future."
'Grandiosity of it all'
There's no doubt the costs of hosting Olympic Games are rising,
The summer Olympic Games for 2016 and the Paralympic Games are being held in Rio de Janeiro—which will also be hosting soccer's World Cup in 2014—at a reported cost of $14.4 billion. At least that's the bid Rio put in at the time it was awarded the games in 2009.
Brazilian officials have said that most venues for the games are already in place. But more spending is seen for ongoing projects such as airport and subway expansions and construction of roads in and out of Rio.
(Read more: As Batista empire implodes, Rio feels whiplash)
Experts see the money spent in Rio going well beyond the initial bid.
"I don't expect Brazil to see a net economic benefit from the games," said Fleisher.
"There are short-term benefits for sure, but you have to wonder if some of the money couldn't be better spent on health care or other items people need," he said.
While cities will continue to bid for hosting the Olympics, a change in the economics would be welcome, said Barney, noting that it took Montreal 30 years to pay off the billion-dollar debt it incurred during the 1976 Games.
"There's nothing like attending an Olympic festival, and I've been to many," he said. "It's a great experience on TV and the competition is so good. It's just that something has to be done about the grandiosity of it all."
—By CNBC's Mark Koba. Follow him on Twitter @MarkKobaCNBC.