I have traveled many many places.<quoted text>You may have a point there, but the fact is that Paris applied to hold the Games, and London was found to be more attractive.
I don't think it had anything to do with infrastructure and transport (probably worse in London) but the country's enthusiasm and "joie de vivre" displayed when the bids were presented.
Paris was defeated before it started: lack of interest from the population that see scandals everywhere and thrive on conspiracy theories.
London had ... Boris Johnson, a mayor who motivated everyone and became a stalwart for the Games.
Olympics are a PR exercise for a country, that's why they compete to organise them. They are not money-making businesses and can leave debts behind, depending how the organisers manage the assets later. I don't think we are doing too bad there, although the disposal of the main Olympic stadium to a local football club for a fraction of its value raised a fre eyebrows.
Transport in London is the best in all the world.