Final answer:
Host cities should view the Olympic Games as an opportunity for global exposure but also consider the potential social and economic costs, as seen in the experiences of Rio and South Africa. Historical and economic analyses suggest that the positive impacts may not always outweigh the negatives.
Step-by-step explanation:
Host cities should view their relationship to the Olympic Games as an opportunity to showcase their culture, infrastructure, and societal progress on a global stage. However, they should also be mindful of the social stratification and economic implications that come with such a major event. The experience of the 2016 Rio Olympics highlighted how media coverage can focus on negative aspects such as unsanitary conditions and environmental concerns.
Similarly, South Africa's experience with the World Cup demonstrated the socioeconomic trade-offs of hosting international sports events, including controversy over the displacement of local populations and the significant financial investments made at the expense of other community needs.
Furthermore, historical events like the 1936 Berlin Olympics illustrate how countries have used sports as a platform for political propaganda. The ancient Greek Olympic Games served as a unifying force for the Greek people, much like modern Olympics attempt to promote international unity and peace.
Nevertheless, economic studies suggest that the economic impact of hosting such events is lower than expected due to the reallocation of household entertainment spending, which could potentially harm the local economy.