In the 4recent years, the Olympic Games have grown into one of the most noteworthy mega-international sporting events attracting a large number of investors and bidders interested in hosting the games. Notably, the history of Olympic Games goes back as far as 1896, the year that saw Athens host the first modern Olympics. At the time, the games attracted only three hundred and eleven athletes from just thirteen countries in the world. This number has risen by thousand folds, an indication that the Olympics Games have gained exponential popularity as the year’s progress. Now, tens of thousands of individuals from all over the world gather in one city to witness or take part in the world’s most important mega-event (Feblowitz, 2012; International Olympic Committee, 2013). On this note, a notable evidence of this can be drawn from the great Sydney Olympics held in 2000 that attracted a total of 10,651 athletes from 199 countries across the globe (Malfas, Theodoraki, and Houlihan, 2004). As a result of this massive participation, the Olympics Games have had substantial global impacts especially on the economic conditions of the host cities and countries in general. They create a significant and long-lasting legacy for the host country and the Olympic movement as a whole, and also, each host creates new and exciting chapters to the history of this movement. This, therefore, means that the historical role of the Olympics Games Movement has gradually and significantly evolved from a local to a global level. Today, the athletes and more so the countries that host the Olympics each season benefit a lot from that. This paper critically evaluates the changing historical role of the Olympics Games Movement, with particular interest paid to its role in the global and national economic development, role, impacts, and legacy. To trace and/or understand the historical change, roles, economic development, legacy and impacts it is necessary first to understand what the Olympic Games movement is all about and as well as its goals. This movement originated as the brainchild of a Frenchman, Pierre de Coubertin and has been in existence even before the first Olympic Games were held in Athens in 1896. On this note, the Movement alongside the 6International Olympic Committee (IOC) were both officially established on the 23rd of5June 1894 at the Paris International Congress that Coubertin had organized at the Sorbonne (International Olympic Committee, 2015). It is in this Congress that Athens and Paris were selected as the cities to hold the first and second modern Olympic Games in 1896 and 1900 respectively. The Olympic movement is not comprised of a single entity; rather it incorporates athletes, organizations, and other persons/entities who conform to the guidance and guidelines set forth by the Olympic Charter. On this note, the Olympic Charter Rule 1.1 of 2015 defines 1The Olympic Movement as “the concerted, organized universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), all entities and individuals who are inspired by the values of Olympism (International Olympic Committee, 2015. Pp. 1). This Rule further holds that to be a part of the Movement requires recognition by the IOC as well as complete compliance with the Olympic Charter. Major bodies that belong or make up this movement are, in addition to the 3IOC, the National Olympic Committees (NOCs). The International Sports Federations (IFs), the Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs), coaches, referees/judges, sports technicians as well as other recognized, institutions, federations, and organizations. The Movement is under the high leadership and 7authority of the International Olympic Committee. Since its inception, the Olympic Games Movement has undergone various changes regarding its roles economic impacts and the legacy that it leaves behind. It is apparent that the more participants and supporters it attracts the more massive and profound its roles become. One of the notable historical changes can be viewed in regards to the membership of the Olympic Games Movement’s governing body – IOC – which has evolved just as much as the games themselves. On this note, it is pointed out that during initiation in 1894, there were only 15 individuals as members but as of 2016, this number has risen to 125 members drawn from different countries (International Olympic Committee, 2015; Malfas et al., 2004). According to the International Olympic Committee (2015), this increase in individual membership is reflective of the greater and important roles played by the Olympic Movement as a whole as well as by its constituent members. Without a doubt, the economic impact of the Movement has changed with time. In other words, the Olympic Games have greatly revolutionized the economic statuses and legacies of the cities, countries, and regions that have hosted the games at any one time in history. One fundamental role of the Olympic Movement is and has therefore been to implement Olympism as a philosophy of life using sports to encourage a balanced development of people as a crucial step towards building a society that is both peaceful and able to attribute a high place to individual dignity. Economic development is at the forefront in ensuring that the above is achieved, in particular through the creation of employment and other revenue generating activities that are pertinent to the Olympic Games. Economic development is made possible because it is in line with the primary goal of the Olympic Movement. On this note, this central goal is to use sports in various ways with the aim of contributing positively to the building of a better and peaceful world (International Olympic Committee, 2015). This is made possible each time the Olympics opens doors for people to exploit their talents and sporting prowess in a manner that not only sharpens them but also rewards their efforts by improving their economic status. This benefit transcends the individual athlete also to be of value to the host and other key players who make this mega-sporting event possible. The organizers have been mandated with a new role of widening the landscape of the Games. According toFeblowitz (2012) and Malfas et al. (2004), highly lucrative television deals have been used as channels of changing the landscape of the Olympic Games. According to this author, this has led to a well-documented although sometimes lamented commoditization of the Olympic event. The past two decades have clearly seen more and more countries bid for the opportunity to host the Olympics games in their cities. Local leaders believe that securing the opportunity to host such a mega-event has a great 2opportunity to improve the economic aspects of the region or city through the accumulated investment that is triggered by staging the Olympic Games. Malfas et al. (2004) point out that the commercialization and financial investment in the Olympic Game has over the years increased exponentially, and have in this respect given the following financial breakdown as evidence. They note that the television rights alone for the for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Sydney 2000 Games, and Athens 2004 Games involved an estimated amount of 872 million, 1.12 billion, and 1.7 billion US dollars respectively. Contrary the way things were during the beginning; the Olympics Movement has entered into a new era that has seen the Olympics host nations employ their most outstanding city and significant national funding, personal, and organizational investments to stage an economic and cultural showcase (Feblowitz, 2012). This has been with the primary focus being on the long-term legacy as well as the short-term glorification that comes along with hosting such an event. According to Malfas et al. (2004), the prospect of economic growth is the motivating factor behind the displayed interest and many bids placed for hosting the Olympic Games. They further point out that the legacies that are created by this hosting may be difficult to quantify but can nonetheless be observed long after the Games are over. This is especially in reference to the economic impact and legacy that is associated with hosting the Olympics. However, it is noted that at present, the hosting bids are reserved only and exclusively for the major cities in the world. No longer do the Games enable the smaller cities to be vaulted into international relevance, and as a result, the interested parties must do whatever it takes to increase their chances of qualification (Feblowitz, 2012; Malfas et al., 2004). The initial money in-flow is realized from sponsorships, broadcasters, foreigners/non-area travellers, athletes, as well as dignitaries from within and outside the host country. Put differently; the Games have the potential to increase a country’s growth domestic product (GDP) and jobs (Feblowitz, 2012). The Long-term economic benefits occur in the long run and especially through the creation of thousands of job opportunities for the locals and athletes. National revenue is also generated by the country’s tourism industry through the inflow of outsiders interested in watching the Olympics Games that greatly increases the number of non-area travellers that the country receives at any one given time. For example, hosting the Olympics saw London’s unemployment rate decrease by 1.2% in early 2012 and over 4 million new visitors by 2015. Atlanta experienced an economic impact of USD 5 billion in the 1996 Olympics and over USD 1.8 billion generated a decade later from entertainment venues, hotels, and high-rise residential buildings just to mention a few. Similarly, Barcelona’s hotel space grew by 38% between 1990 and 1992 while Vancouver received CAD 600 million thereby lifting the economic growth by 0.8% (International Olympics Committee, 2012; International Olympics Committee, 2013). Sydney’s GDP increased by USD 7.2 billion in 2000; 100,000 jobs were created and tourists increased by 1.6 million annually. All these are clear indications of the changing roles of the Olympics and the Olympic Games Movement’s roles especially in regards to the economic development of host cities and countries. All these have gone a long way in creating positive and long lasting legacies not just for the hosts but for the movement and the mega-event as well. However, despite all these economic benefits and positivity associated with the Olympics and the Olympics Movement, it does not go off the hook without a considerable amount of criticism. On this note, Malfas et al. (2004) inform that the Olympic Movement has been put on the critiques’ spotlight during the past few decades. Most of this is directed towards the international sports alliance and more particularly, the governing body – International Olympic Committee. The criticism arises from revelations and accusations of corruption in the upper levels of the Olympic Games Movement. Others criticize it based on the increased cases of doping and perceived leniency and unfairness in solving such cases. That notwithstanding, the extensive commodification and commercialization of athletes and the athletic events have also been subject to criticism following claims that the Olympic Movement is failing to act by the book (Feblowitz, 2012; Jennings and Sambrook, 2000; Malfas et al., 2004). The employment instability has also been criticized as a negative impact because they give people short-term and sometimes false hopes that their unemployment problems will be solved. The Games last for just a short period and therefore the host may not find it necessary to hire permanent full-time employees (Jennings and Sambrook, 2000). This, therefore, raises crucial questions about the sustainability of the employment opportunities created. Apparently, the Olympic Games Movement was established in 1892 to implement the ideals of Olympics through a conglomeration of individuals, institutions, and local and international organizations. The aim was to build a better and harmonious world through sports. However, the roles of this movement have changed in the contemporary times. Today Olympic Games Movement is taken to be everything and everyone that is involved in the Olympic Games. Although Olympicism remains a most prominent role and goal, the Games have moved a step higher to include job creation for all people into the picture. Today, jobs are not only created for the athletes alone but for the entire community hosting the Games each time. Although the duration of such jobs is questionable especially after the Games come to an end, there is no doubt that the economic impact is felt long after the mega event. The economic impact of the Olympic Games Movement irrespective of the apparent positivity and/or possible negativity always has a lasting impact on the Games and to a great extent represents the legacy that lives on long after the Games have come to an end. Each city that hosts the Olympics Games adds a new chapter to the historical role and legacy of the Olympic Games Movement and likewise, each Olympics events creates a huge and mostly positive economic impact for the city as well as a long-lasting legacy that remains long after the mega event is over.