One of the comments I heard on the radio over the last couple of weeks was that some countries do political games, i'e. China & USA Vs USSR in the '80s, some do national image upgrade games i.e. Greece, Spain, Rio.

But Britain and Australia did sport orientated games, and that is what made 2012 and 2000 the athletes pick as best games that they have competed in.

FE. If you run short of spare change I can send you a couple of bob. Seriously I think the BBC should contribute a few million to the games. They have probably contributed already but it has been the best advertising they could have wished for. So they should be asked for a bit more. (you can tell that I am in the bracket that no longer pays for my licence fee).

The TV rights are sold by the IOC.

NBC paid $1.18Bn, I can't find out how much the BBC paid

http://www.olympic.org/olympic-broadcasting

Quickbeam

"Did the BBC get paid to televise the games, and who got the money for the global rights?"

No, the BBC did not get paid. The BBC is funded by the licence revenue.

The worldwide broadcasting rights are paid for by many international TV and radio networks, and the revenue from them goes to the International Olympics Committee, and represents around 47% of that organisation's total revenue.

In turn, the IOC distributes most of its revenue - currently about 90% of it to support the staging of the games, and the development of sport.

Pine Man

I'm sorry I confused the issue. The host city is always responsible for the cost of running the Olympic Games, but Public money usually pays for the infrastructure - building the venues and roads, etc.

In all, Londoners have paid 13% of the total cost of the games. Londoners are taxpayers of course, so a big chunk of the public funding has also indirectly come from us. London businesses for example contribute over a third of the total UK tax revenue. There will obviously have been some offsetting benefits to London-based businesses, but it's too early to venture a guess as to how much that will be.