The Olympic rings light up, the opening ceremonies promise an event of international significance, and nations compete with speeches to convince their populations that they will host inclusive and historic Olympic Games. Behind this global spectacle, however, lies another reality: that of a mega-event whose effects, although temporary, have a lasting impact on urban areas and local populations, who are often relegated to the background. With the 2026 Winter Olympics approaching, this structural tension is re-emerging with a vengeance. For while Olympic prestige remains a powerful diplomatic and media lever, the social acceptability of the Games continues to erode.
The Olympic Myth: Between Hosting Costs And Short-Term Benefits
Since Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympics, Olympism has been presented as a universalist and pacifying project, whose objective is to “embrace the life of the world”. Thus, the Olympic Charter of July 2021 continues to promote apolitical sport, in accordance with the mission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Nevertheless, the Olympics are clearly political, and even geopolitical, and by their very nature as an international gathering they constitute a formidable sounding board for the world’s conflicts. Such is their inherent ambiguity: the speeches and ceremonies lend them a form of sacredness, while the spectacle makes them an eminently secular event.
One of the main blind spots concerns the cost-benefit analysis of hosting the Olympics. According to economic analyses by Robert A. Baade and Victor A. Matheson (Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2016), the Games are mostly a losing proposition for host cities: they generate positive net benefits only in specific and unusual circumstances. In other words, the cost-benefit ratio is more unfavourable for cities in developing countries than for those in the industrialised world, particularly due to oversized infrastructure that is rarely reused in the long term. Finally, it is important to note that the Olympics have always generated final costs that exceed initial budgets.
Local Populations Under Pressure
While candidate cities have many reasons for wanting to host the event, local interests may be at odds with that. The Tokyo Olympics illustrate this rupture in the recent history of the Olympic movement, marked by unprecedented organisational conditions. Tokyo 2020 was held in 2021, becoming the first Games in the modern era to be postponed. Numerous restrictions were imposed on athletes, the media and other stakeholders, as well as local and international spectators. The event took place in the context of a health emergency, in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, while a significant portion of the Japanese population expressed their opposition, citing among other things excessive spending and a potential deterioration in quality of life.
This pressure is systemic in nature. It is primarily economic, through increased public spending on preparations, which risks producing negative social effects. It is also urban, insofar as the Games can act both as accelerators of territorial change and as vectors of financial, energy and land resource depletion. Finally, it is democratic, given that budget overruns, environmental damage and urban gentrification can contribute to a decline in citizen participation. Geographers Jean-Pierre Augustin and Pascal Gillon (2021) therefore emphasise that the Olympics function as a “geopolitical showcase”, in which rural areas become instruments of soft power in the service of a national narrative, sometimes disconnected from local needs.
The Olympic Winter In The Face Of The Ecological Crisis
The Winter Olympics are marked by growing structural contradictions. With global warming emerging as one of the major challenges of the 21st century, scheduling international sporting competitions in mountainous areas henceforth poses technical, financial and environmental challenges. The increase in investment in snowmaking and snow farming, which are used to produce and preserve artificial snow (processes that consume large amounts of water and energy) illustrates this paradox: celebrating nature while contributing to its fragility.
For local populations already facing rising rents, heavy dependence on tourism or fragile ecosystems, the Olympics may therefore appear less as a window of opportunity than as an additional constraint. The challenge is thus to question the Olympic agenda, starting with the tension between the race for gigantism fuelled by emulation between host countries, the confrontation of national identities and the demands for restraint in the context of an environmental crisis.
The Advent Of Global Spectacle, The Erosion Of Local Democracy
The IOC now emphasises the sustainability and legacy of the Olympics, presenting them as models for future editions of the Games and inspiration for other major events. This shift in discourse responds to a widely documented crisis of legitimacy. As Yoav Dubinsky (2021) points out, when local communities have mechanisms for direct expression, they frequently speak out against hosting the Olympics, revealing a certain disconnect between the international ambitions of the Olympic movement and the realities experienced at the local level.
This structural tension raises a key democratic question: who decides on the Olympics, and for whom? While the event claims to be universal, its weight rests on specific territories, which are called upon to bear the consequences in the medium and long term. Consequently, the organisation of the Games can no longer be envisaged without explicitly taking local populations into account, especially when democratic acceptability is becoming an anticipated criterion in the bidding process. These are the challenges facing the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Olympics in Italy: reconciling Olympic ambition with territorial sustainability.
The Weight Of A Model That Has Run Out Of Steam?
The Olympics are at the heart of the debate. They generate stories, images and emotions on an international scale. Nonetheless, this symbolic power is no longer enough, as it masks negative effects. As social, environmental and political crises intensify, the Olympic model seems increasingly vulnerable.
Consequently, the main issue is no longer solely about how the Games are hosted, but rather their legitimacy. When local populations become stakeholders in the constraints generated by a global event, the Olympic project continues to have structural importance – not only for public finances, but also for democratic experiences and institutional trust.
