The Olympics — Are They Still Worth It?

The Olympic Games are the biggest sporting event in the world. Every four years, thousands of athletes from more than 200 countries come together to compete in dozens of different sports — from swimming and athletics to skateboarding and surfing. Billions of people watch on television. The opening ceremony is one of the most-watched events in human history. For two weeks, the whole world pays attention.

The modern Olympics began in Athens, Greece, in 1896, inspired by the ancient Olympic Games that were held in Greece more than 2,700 years ago. Since then, they have been held in cities across the world — from London to Tokyo, from Beijing to Rio de Janeiro. The idea behind the Olympics is powerful and simple: sport can bring the world together, promote peace, and celebrate the best of what human beings can achieve.

But behind the inspiring stories of athletes and medal ceremonies, there is a much more complicated reality. Hosting the Olympics costs billions of dollars. Cities must build new stadiums, transport systems, and accommodation for thousands of athletes and millions of visitors. The preparations take years and affect the lives of millions of local residents. And when the Games are over and the athletes go home, the host city is left with the bill — and the question of whether it was all worth it.

In recent years, this question has become increasingly urgent. Several cities that were expected to bid for the Olympics have withdrawn, saying the costs are too high and the benefits too uncertain. The number of cities willing to host the Games has dropped dramatically. Something that was once considered a great honour is now seen by many as a financial risk that few cities can afford to take.

The numbers behind hosting the Olympics are staggering. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics, which were delayed to 2021 because of the pandemic, officially cost around 13 billion US dollars — more than double the original budget. The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, cost an estimated 51 billion dollars, making them the most expensive Olympic Games in history. Even the 2012 London Olympics, widely considered a success, cost 15 billion dollars — three times more than originally planned.

Where does this money go? Most of it is spent on construction — building new stadiums, swimming pools, velodromes, and athletes' villages. Host cities also invest heavily in transport, building or upgrading roads, railways, and airports to handle the millions of visitors who arrive during the Games. Security costs are enormous — the London Olympics required 40,000 security staff.

The problem is that many of these expensive facilities are used intensively for just two weeks and then struggle to find a purpose afterwards. The phenomenon of abandoned Olympic venues has become so common that it has its own name — "white elephants." Athens, which hosted the 2004 Olympics, still has crumbling, unused stadiums more than twenty years later. Beijing's famous "Bird's Nest" stadium, built for the 2008 Games, sits largely empty. Rio de Janeiro's Olympic Park fell into disrepair within months of the 2016 Games ending.

Supporters of hosting argue that the investment creates jobs, improves infrastructure, and raises the international profile of the host city. Critics argue that the same money could be spent more effectively on schools, hospitals, and housing — things that benefit ordinary residents long after the athletes have gone home.

The financial costs of the Olympics are well documented, but there is another cost that receives less attention — the impact on ordinary people who live in the host city.

Preparing for the Olympics often involves the demolition of homes and the displacement of communities. In Beijing, an estimated 1.5 million people were displaced to make room for Olympic construction before the 2008 Games. In Rio de Janeiro, entire neighbourhoods were demolished to build stadiums and roads. Residents were moved to new housing on the outskirts of the city, far from their jobs and communities. Many received little or no compensation.

The Olympics also tend to increase the cost of living in host cities. Rents and property prices rise as cities are redeveloped, pushing poorer residents out of their neighbourhoods. This process — called gentrification — means that the people who are most affected by Olympic construction are often the ones who benefit least from the event itself.

There are also concerns about workers' rights. The construction boom before the Olympics relies heavily on migrant labour, and there have been repeated reports of poor working conditions, low pay, and safety violations at Olympic construction sites. Human rights organisations have documented serious concerns about how construction workers were treated before several recent Games.

Defenders of the Olympics argue that the event creates thousands of jobs, brings investment to neglected areas, and leaves a lasting legacy of improved facilities. But critics ask: a legacy for whom? If the people who lived in those areas before the Olympics can no longer afford to live there afterwards, the legacy belongs to someone else.

Despite the problems, very few people want the Olympics to disappear entirely. The idea of the world coming together through sport remains powerful and appealing. The question is whether the Olympics can be reformed so that the benefits are shared more fairly and the costs are more manageable.

Some reforms have already begun. The International Olympic Committee now encourages host cities to use existing stadiums rather than building new ones. The 2028 Los Angeles Olympics plan to use stadiums that already exist, which should dramatically reduce construction costs. The 2032 Brisbane Olympics in Australia are also planning to rely heavily on existing facilities.

Other proposals include rotating the Olympics between a small number of permanent host cities, eliminating the expensive bidding process and allowing cities to plan for the long term. Some have suggested splitting the Games across multiple cities or even multiple countries — an approach that was partly used for the 2026 Winter Olympics, hosted jointly by Milan and Cortina in Italy.

There are also growing calls for the Olympics to take the welfare of local residents more seriously — ensuring that people are not displaced without fair compensation, that construction workers are treated properly, and that the facilities built for the Games serve the community long after the event is over.

The Olympics at their best are genuinely inspiring — moments like Usain Bolt's record-breaking sprints, Simone Biles's extraordinary gymnastics, or a small country winning its first ever gold medal can unite and uplift people around the world. The challenge is to keep that inspiration while fixing the system that delivers it. Whether that is possible remains one of the biggest questions in global sport.