If you ask my friends, you’ll learn that one of my favorite pastimes is watching any and all live TV. From awards shows to European song contests, from Apple tech announcements to political debates, I watch EVERYTHING. But the one thing that I look forward to every 2 years is the Olympic Games. Whether it be the curling in the winter, or the swimming in the summer, the Olympic games is something that brings me pure joy for the 2 ½ weeks that it runs on NBC. However, this year’s Summer Games in Paris will always have a dark cloud over it, because it could have been in my backyard. On September 12th, 2014, Boston placed in its bid to be the official host city of the 2024 Summer Olympic games. The games would have been the perfect opportunity for Boston to improve key infrastructure projects, like fixing the T and completing more housing to help offset the housing problem in the city. Bostonians would have been treated to an upgraded city, so what went wrong?

When the United States Olympic Committee announced Boston as the host city for the Olympics, some saw the games as an issue. A group called No Boston Olympics rose in popularity, arguing that the Olympic Games only drove the city into debt and decay. They cited other cities that had hosted the Olympic Games previously, specifically referencing the 2004 Athens Summer Games, which crippled the economy of Athens and Greece as a whole. The group also argued that the city of Boston should have been fixing the infrastructure without an Olympic deadline. Their fight against the Olympic games eventually came to a success, and Boston was swapped out for LA, who agreed to wait until 2028, leaving 2024 to Paris.

But did we need to pull out our bid? Were we able to dodge a bullet in not hosting the Games? To that, I’d say no. Mainly, there’s the money argument. The main concern for the Boston Olympics was that we would make no money and would cripple the city’s economy, going into debt for the bill that came with hosting the party. The plan was simple: to use Boston as the main venue for the entire event, not to build new venues. The colleges, existing arenas, and city landscape of Boston would’ve accommodated the Olympic needs quite well. Paris had a very similar idea, turning itself into the sporting venue, and it worked.The cost was approximately $4.8 billion, and the games made $7-12 billion. So, safe to say, the Games made plenty of money, and plenty of profit for Paris. We could have made billions for the city of Boston, but we let it go.

Additionally, there is the infrastructure argument. The city of Boston needed the T fixed anyway, and we needed to get started on it. The T is currently under construction, after a long time of waiting. If the Olympic deadline was over Boston’s head, then we would have gotten a completely working T, better roads, and new facilities in Boston. Looking at Paris, they were able to come together and clean the Seine river for the Games in record time. Yes, athletes got sick, but it was a miniscule amount compared to the amount it would have been had the Seine river not been cleaned. One could then argue that LA is not ready to host the Olympic Games. The city needs major work before they are able to host, like cleaning their polluted streets and dealing with their air pollution. Had Boston been considered for 2028, there would have been less work needed to be done.

Sadly, we cannot change the past. The Olympic Games have come and gone, and we missed our initial shot. The next games that the United States could bid for would be the 2036 Summer Games, but so far there are many countries looking to get that bid before the United States does. We are getting a new T, we are building a new soccer arena, and we are hosting some games for the World Cup in 2026, so we have something to look forward to in the City of Champions. But we could have had more. We could have had better trains now, a better Boston with more space for housing and more sporting events. We should have had the Olympics, and hopefully one day we will.