I am not sure how much Chicago would have gotten out of it, money-wise. The US does have an advantage over most other countries in that it does not need a large building campaign to meet the requirements - it has most of the necessary infrastructure anyway. Still, hosting the Olympic Games is quite expensive.
On the whole, the biggest benefit would be prestige and national satisfaction. However, as others have pointed out the vogue is to have the Olympics in new places. Also, do not forget that the US already hosted two olympic games, in the last 20 years - a summer one in 1996 in Atlanta and a winter one 2002 in Salt Lake City.
I am not sure how much Chicago would have gotten out of it, money-wise. The US does have an advantage over most other countries in that it does not need a large building campaign to meet the requirements - it has most of the necessary infrastructure anyway. Still, hosting the Olympic Games is quite expensive.
On the whole, the biggest benefit would be prestige and national satisfaction. However, as others have pointed out the vogue is to have the Olympics in new places. Also, do not forget that the US already hosted two olympic games, in the last 20 years - a summer one in 1996 in Atlanta and a winter one 2002 in Salt Lake City.