In July and August, the world came together to celebrate the Olympic Games, a symbol of unity, determination, and record-breaking achievements, bringing along a new era of
sustainability and innovation. Host cities are now embracing environmentally conscious practices, paving the way for a brighter, more responsible future. However, the financial burdens and environmental degradation of past Games serve as a stark reminder of the challenges that host cities face. Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020 are cautionary tales, while Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 offer beacons of hope. It’s time to rethink the Olympics’s future, prioritizing environmental and economic sustainability. Although cities expect to reap economic benefits from hosting the Olympic Games, many economists are now arguing that these benefits are exaggerated if not nonexistent. In contrast, the financial burdens are endless, including cost overruns, displacement of low-income residents, and debt. Once a host city has been selected by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), following a hefty bid price, the city is left with about a decade to plan, construct, and execute the Olympic Games. This preparation is extremely costly. Paris shelled out 4.5 billion dollars for infrastructure, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, exceeding the infrastructure budget by one-third. Supporting the Olympic Games means providing specialized sports facilities, adequate housing, functional roads, trains, and airlines. More often than not, this equates to years of construction and upgrades. Host cities must have a minimum of forty thousand available hotel rooms for athletes, as well as an Olympic Village where opening and closing ceremonies take place. Furthermore, in Tokyo’s case in 2020, COVID-19 required an additional 2.8 billion dollars to be spent on disease prevention. And while many host cities hope, or are led to believe, that these improvements will outlive the Games, they rarely do.
An unfortunate example is Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, where the 2016 Summer Olympics were held—the first Olympic Games to be awarded to a South American host city. The ESPN article “After the Flame” by Wayne Drehs and Mariana Lajolo revealed that only fifteen of the twenty-seven venues used to host the Games have been used since, while the rest lie abandoned and on the verge of disrepair. Maracaña, their infamous soccer stadium, was vandalized and later shut down after contention over responsibility for a 950,000 dollar electric bill. Moreover, the community pool in Rio that was converted into a canoe slalom course was closed and has yet to re-open. An elevator used to escort fans over a road in the former Olympic Village in Deodoro now leads to nowhere. In a country where golf is not popular, a twenty million dollar fairway constructed for the Games is now unsurprisingly struggling to attract players.
In 2016, Rio saw themselves sinking deeper and deeper into debt and requested financial help from the IOC (which receives a sizable chunk of Olympics profit) and was returned a fat “no.” When the Olympics promised a modernized, safer, cleaner Rio, the outcomes were hardly comparable. Brazil was once considered one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, and given Rio is one of its largest cities, the entire country sunk into its worst recession in history following the Games. As a result, training centers in Brazil have closed and coaches have fled the country, leaving athletes unsupported and desperate in their struggle to train independently and still reach their Olympic goals.
In truth, this is an unfolding trend in which we watch the games yield substantially less for the host cities than what they cost. The Montreal 1976 Summer Olympics’ projected cost was 124 million dollars and ended up surmounting to nearly three hundred million, according to the IOC. The city’s debt, weighing heavily on taxpayers, was finally paid off in 2006, thirty years later. Similarly, Beijing 2008 turned over 3.6 billion dollars in revenue but spent over 40 billion. Likewise, the Games in Tokyo 2020 cost 13 billion dollars, yet only generated 5.8 billion.
Although Paris is expected to maintain the streak of overrunning costs, they have made tangible headway in terms of economic and environmental sustainability. Paris hosted the cheapest Games in decades, the first Games to cost less than ten billion dollars since Sydney 2000. Economists associate this with Paris relying on low-impact, recycled materials during the construction process, as well as sourcing second lives for otherwise temporary structures. The Paris Olympic Village will be converted into offices and apartments, hopefully supporting a previously impoverished neighborhood.
Paris has already shown the world various more sustainable solutions for remedying the negative financial outcomes of hosting the Olympics; but a truly sustainable—and profitable—Olympics will require more than using existing sporting facilities and renewable energy sources. Economists also suggest low- or middle-income countries should stay away from hosting. Instead, Games can be hosted by larger countries that are better suited to absorb the costs. Alternatively, co-hosting should be a possible avenue to both lessen costs and increase the use of preexisting venues, allowing lower-income countries to play a role. Some economists have ventured so far as to say finding a single permanent or sparse few cities to host the games solely would be most viable, enabling the world to rely on a single location where venues would serve permanently.
The upcoming Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics looks very promising in the eyes of sustainability. Various events such as softball and canoe slalom, which would require temporary builds were they to be held in LA, are commencing over one thousand miles away in Oklahoma in existing venues. A New York Times article by Kurtis Lee, “How Los Angeles Aims to Make a Profit on the 2028 Olympics,” shows Los Angeles will be contributing eighty million dollars towards zero-emission buses and electric charging stations. Additionally, athletes will stay in dormitories in UCLA, to avoid any extra construction in the Olympic Village.
A truly sustainable Olympics requires significant changes. Paris has made progress, but more is needed. Economists suggest using existing facilities, renewable energy, and avoiding low-income host cities. A permanent or rotating host city model could be the solution. Los Angeles 2028 shows promise with sustainable approaches. The Olympics’s future depends on embracing change, ensuring a celebration of human achievement without burdening host cities.