As the 2012 London Olympics slowly comes to an end this weekend, the Americans still maintain their lead in medal winnings. As of Friday morning, the United States led with 90 medals comprised of 39 golds, 25 silvers and 26 bronze.
At this year's Olympics, the U.S. swimmers cleaned up with 31 medals while track and field is trying to catch up with its 24 medals. They may still have a chance.
And unless your completely tuned out, you'll know that swimmer Michael Phelps won six medals, leading the overall U.S. medal count.
But this doesn't just mean those Olympians are coming home as decorated, victorious athletes.
It means they're coming home to a pricey tax bill.
Turns out even Olympic achievements can't escape the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
2012 London Olympics
Article Index
2012 London Olympics Means Sweat, Tears… and Costly Medals Tax
To continue reading, please click here...
2012 London Olympics: Economic Benefits Not What You Think
With the whole world eagerly focused on the 2012 London Olympics, it's easy to think of this year's games as one big fundraising event for the city - but it's far from the case.
Like any host city, London expected a three-week surge in visitors to draw record revenue for the region and its vendors.
But the 2012 London Olympics, like global sporting events before, will disappoint.
Instead of luring money to the city, it actually drives out the usual spenders and decreases tourism, drastically reducing revenue for local businesses. That means host cities hardly ever recoup the costs it takes to prepare for holding the Olympic Games.
Just look at Montreal.
Montreal, which hosted the 1976 Olympics, is the best example of the negative economic side effects of the Olympics.
The city's mayor infamously said "the Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby."
He couldn't have been more wrong.
Mismanagement and unexpected costs left the city's citizens with a $1.5 billion debt that took three decades to erase. The final payment on the debt was made in 2006.
"The government wants to say that not only are we going to have a good time with this event, but it's also going to make us rich," Stefan Szymanski, professor of sports management at the University of Michigan, told CNN. "And that's just not true."
Like any host city, London expected a three-week surge in visitors to draw record revenue for the region and its vendors.
But the 2012 London Olympics, like global sporting events before, will disappoint.
Instead of luring money to the city, it actually drives out the usual spenders and decreases tourism, drastically reducing revenue for local businesses. That means host cities hardly ever recoup the costs it takes to prepare for holding the Olympic Games.
Just look at Montreal.
Montreal, which hosted the 1976 Olympics, is the best example of the negative economic side effects of the Olympics.
The city's mayor infamously said "the Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby."
He couldn't have been more wrong.
Mismanagement and unexpected costs left the city's citizens with a $1.5 billion debt that took three decades to erase. The final payment on the debt was made in 2006.
"The government wants to say that not only are we going to have a good time with this event, but it's also going to make us rich," Stefan Szymanski, professor of sports management at the University of Michigan, told CNN. "And that's just not true."
To continue reading, please click here...