In the French existentialist tradition.
Everyone agrees that it's the world's worst Disney theme park.
Why was it built despite the dire financial situation Disneyland Paris was in? This probably guaranteed that it'd be a cheaply built, subpar park. But wouldn't building a bad park also guarantee that DLP's financial situation would be worsened?
Was the logic that they'd invest in a whole new park to draw more visitors and get them to stay at the resort for longer (at the resort's excessive amount of hotel rooms) rather than making major improvements to Disneyland? Or was it that, like a lot of Disney's overseas projects, as part of their original deal with the government to build the park, they agreed to add new parks and resorts after a certain timeframe? Or is investigating the logic behind Michael Eisner's decisions a futile exercise altogether?