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."