Be respectful
Los Angeles was able to have a surplus as most of the infrastructure was already built before the Games.
Sochi might have done okay if was actually an Olympiad, instead of a scam to enrich Putin and his cronies disguised as an Olympiad.
It also served as PR for the invasion of Crimea.
I think blue and red are supposed to be "Profit" and "Loss", not revenues and costs, since I'm pretty sure all Olympics have both revenues and costs. Also, the Y-axis is already labeled deficit and surplus, so why not just use those instead of conflicting, misleading terms?
There is another graph for detailed cost and revenue in the article (figure 2), the one is meant to be a summary to differenciate deficit and surplus
I feel like this should be adjusted for exchange rates in USD, so we can see the relative impact in local money.
For instance, Rio looks cheap, but the Brazilian Real is changing 1:5 right now. That would put it on par with Atlanta.
And I recall Sochi had a lot of grift/scheming going on but that's just comically awful.
Surplus/deficit of Olympic Games and World Cups, 1964–2018 (all values in USD2018). Notes: See Figure 2.
Not sure why you would want to convert to local money, the OG are a global event, announcers and TV rights aren't going to pay less because the local cost of living is lower