Giant costs and financial risks
The cost of hosting the Olympics is enormous and often spirals out of control. The cost of organizing Paris 2024 exceeds eight billion euros, which is double the original estimates. These expenses are largely financed by broadcast rights, sponsors and tax money raised by the French people. The question is who really benefits from these huge investments. Often these are property developers and large corporations, while the average residents see little return on these expenditures. Researchers Bent Flyvbjerg and Allison Stewart (University of Oxford) showed in 2012 that since 1960, the cost of the Summer Games has averaged 179 percent higher than originally budgeted. This is nothing new, as during the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, the budget went 250 times over in just two years: from forty million guilders in 1962 to over ten billion in 1964.
Displacement of vulnerable groups
During preparations for the Paris Games, 12,500 homeless people were removed from the city and taken to other French cities. Large boulders were placed in front of their former sleeping places to prevent them from returning. Such measures show that the interests of vulnerable city residents are being subordinated to the event. The same thing happened before at the 1988 Seoul Games, where about 720,000 people were forced to move to make way for Olympic infrastructure. Vulnerable groups are thus subordinated to the organization of the Games. What would the godfather of Olympic thought, Pierre de Coubertin, have thought about this?
Unused facilities
Investment in the Games should also be investment in the city, but often this has not worked out well. Many cities struggle with unused and dilapidated facilities after the Games are over. There are many examples of this. The 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro saddled the city with neglected sports complexes and huge financial problems. Athens (2004) is still struggling with the effects of cost overruns and debt that contributed to Greece's economic crisis. Montreal (1976) was not able to pay off the huge debt that resulted from greatly exceeded cost estimates until 2006. If the cities had known this in advance, would it have been worth it to them?
Barcelona 1992
Still, there are examples of cities that have benefited from hosting the Olympics. Most notable is Barcelona 1992. Those Games significantly transformed the city. Some 17% of the budget went to sports facilities. The other 83% was invested in urban improvements, such as infrastructure, public spaces and housing. It led to a long-term economic boost and improved Barcelona's international reputation, through stunning images of, for example, clean jumping with the Sagrada Familia designed by Antoni Gaudi in the background. Barcelona became a top tourist location after the 1992 Olympics This is admittedly largely due to the successful city planning, which had been underway since the death of Spanish dictator Franco in 1975. The European Tour Operators Association (ETOA) wrote in 2006 that this development most likely would have occurred even without the Games. But the 1992 Olympics certainly helped accelerate developments and tourism growth.
Solution
The next Olympics will be in Los Angeles (2028) and then Brisbane (2032). The question is which cities still have an interest in hosting the Games. In smaller countries like the Netherlands, it is hardly possible or justified anymore. Even for cities like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, the risk is too great and the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. Do we want the Games in countries where there is at least discussion about human rights? The risk is that FIFA-like situations will arise and only cities like Doha (Qatar) or Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) will show interest so they can boost their image on the backs of athletes. My solution is to host the Games again in Greece in the future. A permanent venue ensures responsible investment and can reduce the pressure on the population because the infrastructure is set up for quadrennial visits by athletes and their entourage. It avoids awkward political moments because a dictator wants to make good cheer or because human rights are violated in an organizing country. It is also better for the environment, because the Games can be organized much more sustainably.
Conclusion
For many reasons of a sporting, political and lasting nature, it would be a good idea to eventually host the Olympic Games again in the country where it all began, namely Greece. In short: Back to Olympia!