The official website of the Olympic Games features pages and pages to explain the benefits of hosting the event. Economic and social data explain the benefits projected even for games that have not yet taken place. A kind of propaganda for an event that has seen better days, at least when it comes to the desire of cities to host. What was a way to change the image of a city or country with this soft power tool is becoming an extra expense on a bill that often doesn’t add up.
The economic impact of mega-events such as the Olympic Games on host economies is widely debated, with studies showing that optimistic predictions of economic growth rarely prove true. This is because the historical cost of hosting an edition of the games, whether summer or winter, has been increasing since the 1960s, increasing significantly with each edition (Sochi, which hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics, had the highest cost in history, at USD 51 billion; Beijing in 2008, cost USD 40 billion). Concern about the legacy of a series of “white elephant” structures affects all host cities, as well as creating space for extra spending. But then why host an edition of the games? Because it is a way of pushing the city in a new direction, giving it an administrative, tourism and cultural boost.
In this sense, the Paris Olympic Games tried to create an image of concern for the environment and the sustainability of the event itself. With an estimated cost under USD 10 billion, the Olympic Committee and the city joined forces to try to make the most of the infrastructure already available in the city, in addition to trying to cut carbon emissions in half, compared to previous games and encourage the use of low-carbon materials such as wood and concrete. The now famous image of Mayor Anne Hidalgo swimming in the Seine before the games started to prove that the investment was worth
it and that the water sport competitions would not have issues taking place in the now clean, most famous river in France.
In practice, this worked only superficially: despite efforts, athletes faced health problems from the Seine’s water, which affected the planning of competitions such as the triathlon. The Olympic Village proved to be underwhelming, with closed bathrooms and a lack of food from catering and the city suffered from poorly planned basic services, such as delays in transporting athletes, faulty bus, and train systems and even an increase in theft. All during an extraordinary heat wave.
Comparing the Paris Games, the Brazilian edition went through a similar experience, albeit more expensive — costing around USD 13 billion (BRL 43.7 billion). According to the “Legacy of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Economic Impacts” report organized by Fundação Getúlio Vargas and published in July 2024, the event generated BRL 99 billion and BRL 51.2 billion in GDP, feeding a production chain that involved several sectors. Improvements such as to Rio’s light rail network, the revitalization of the old port area (with the implosion of the perimetral overpass) and the bus corridors have improved urban mobility and brought new spaces to the city that now hosts events in different areas, in addition to being part of the itinerary of tourist attractions in one of the most visited cities on the planet, all carried out at a time of considerable political
instability in the country, given the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff and the
concern, at the time, about the Zika virus. In an article published in the Brazilian Journal of Tourism Research, the perception of the Olympic impact on the city and the creation of a more modern image, which presents itself from the opportunity of hosting an Olympics, became apparent to the city’s population in urban mobility and increased tourism in the capital of Rio de Janeiro, despite management mistakes over the years and several structures that were abandoned after the games.
At the end of the day, hosting an Olympic Games is a very risky decision, an expensive rebranding opportunity. All factors count when weighing whether the financial investment will be converted into the city’s plans, regardless of which direction they go. The event is a unique opportunity to demonstrate soft power, to appear to the world as a safe, well-structured, culturally open city. Cities like Los Angeles, for example, which has already hosted one edition of the Games and will host the next once again, have successfully used the infrastructure left behind by the games. Barcelona took advantage of the mission to revitalize some of its neighborhoods and beaches. Other cities end up facing difficulties in managing this Olympic legacy after the end of the event. Paris was the first experience in which, objectively, an attempt was made to create a high-impact event, but at a low cost. It remains to be seen whether this culture and the lessons learned from the event will remain in the city or end at the end of the event, at the whim of politics.
