It’s not surprising that, as the biggest sporting event in the world, the Olympics have long been a major draw for sports fans and even ordinary tourists throughout the globe.
They’re also a major money spinner for local tourism: the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics, for example, generated nearly US$27.4 billion in tourism revenues for the city alone; the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics, on the other hand, earned over US$1.2 billion.
With that said, however, experts point out that this has not always been the case; Paris, as a matter of fact, proved to be a bust for many French business owners in the travel and tourism sectors as arrivals numbers floundered prior to and even during the Games.
Aviation intelligence firm OAG’s chief analyst John Grant put it quite bluntly when he said:
“The phenomena of the Olympics is that the local market doesn’t travel, while the regular business traveller, who would normally be traveling during that moment in time, stops and stays at home.”
Interestingly, seeing how we are mere weeks from the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina, there has hardly been any hype to whip sports fans into a frenzy, prompting one commentator to refer to the vibe as “muted” at best.
That said, we have to ask: in the context of global sports tourism, are the Olympics, regardless of whether these are the Summer or Winter Games, still relevant?
First up: do the Olympics benefit local communities and tourism?
To answer this question, we turn to a comment made by Dr Rachel JC Fu, chair of the Department of Tourism, Hospitality, and Event Management at the University of Florida.
When asked as to whether the Olympics benefitted tourism in host cities, she replied:
“The Olympics directly boost local tourism industries, leading to increased business for hotels, restaurants, and local attractions. Additionally, the Olympics improve infrastructure, such as transportation and public amenities, which enhances the quality of life in the community and boosts the city's image as a tourist destination.”
Fu added that the Games benefit the tourism sector of a host nation as it boosts their global visibility, directly stimulating tourism-related businesses whilst creating opportunities to promote the area’s heritage, natural sites, culture, and reputation.
Indeed, as previously mentioned, host cities stand to earn billions of dollars in tourism revenue from the Games, and public infrastructure in terms of access roads and public edifices are given a much-needed overhaul in order to meet the needs of a greater number of users than usual.
The knowledge that they have won the bid to host the Olympics should also prompt local governments to consider enhancements to public transit systems, promote public transportation, encourage carpooling, and support non-motorised transport like biking and walking.
Fu also recommends the construction of more energy-efficient buildings in keeping with the modern Olympic ethos for sustainable events, and this will call for the utilisation of renewable energy sources and sustainable materials to ensure that all Olympic facilities and infrastructures provide long-term benefits to the community.
Do the Olympics do more harm than good to host communities?
There is, of course, a downside to hosting the Olympics.
According to Dr Kyriaki Kaplanidou, director of the Sport Event Management graduate certificate programme at the University of Florida, hosting the Olympics often means diverting key funds that could have been used for public health, education, and food security into key infrastructure and other amenities for the use of athletes, their coaches, and audiences.
Kaplanidou added:
“Another major negative outcome is the large financial investment that is needed to host the Olympics, given the increasing number of athletes, sports, and adaptations needed in sport facilities to host the event based on the requirements of the International Sports Federations. I would add that financial investment depends on the International Olympic Committee expectations, which have been adjusted to face the new reality of cities being reluctant to spend so much money without a clear plan for the return on investment.”
Also, to go back to the CNBC piece on Parisian businesses failing to make bank during the Games, a massive influx of tourists has a downside that hits locals hard: overtourism.
Think about it: prices for even the most basic of meals or services skyrocket; public transportation is congested; streets are snarled through with traffic; and let’s not even get into the strain that power, water, and sanitation systems will be put under.
Another term has also become synonymous with Olympic infrastructure once the Games are over: white elephant.
Yes, many Olympic structures have been abandoned and left to fall into disrepair over the decades as these are either overspecialised and cannot be used for other sports as in the case of Beijing’s kayaking stadium and beach volleyball arena, or are simply too large to keep in order as the cost of maintenance can put a significant strain on national resources as in the case of the Olympic Park in Rio de Janeiro.
As a result, many centrepiece structures turn into eyesores over time, becoming more of a distraction rather than an attraction to tourists.
Moving forward: improving Olympic tourism
As the world looks forward to the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Games this February, it is time to consider some key improvements to make the Olympics less of a strain, more sustainable, and more beneficial to both locals and visitors alike.
Such measures ought to include:
- Optimise existing infrastructure as opposed to new builds The problem with most host cities is that, in their eagerness to comply with the standards of the International Olympic Committee, they develop an edifice complex and go mad with the construction of stadia and arenas that may not see use after the Games. Instead, they need to take stock of the venues that they have, then, whenever possible, have these refurbished to comply with the standards;
- If you’re going to build, build for long-term use This applies to Olympic Villages and Parks which are commonly used to house athletes and sporting staff throughout the Games. Rather than leaving them to moulder post-event, these may be turned over to local or national housing authorities to be converted into low-cost housing solutions. Alternatively, if built using modular pre-fab, these may be dismantled and the materials used elsewhere;
- Implement measures related to sustainability and conservation Public awareness programmes regarding sustainability need to be in place long before even a mere mention of the Olympics is made. Likewise, visitors need to be turned on to local recycling / upcycling programmes, as well as energy and water conservation initiatives already being implemented by host cities;
- You have four years: use it to improve infrastructure and facilities; The time frame between one Olympics and the next is four years. Rather than build up hype, host cities need to look at their infrastructure and make the necessary improvements early on, especially where public works and transportation are concerned. The period would also serve as a hiring and training period for staff set to be deployed in key venues throughout the duration of the Games; and
- Get locals involved One major issue that miffs locals in areas hosting the Games is that they are never consulted throughout the process of preparing for them. Locals can also help as tourist guides for travellers who wish to know more about the locations outside of the Games; they may also serve as auxilliary help during certain events. Getting the community involved turns locals into stakeholders into the event: not just as a matter of pride, but also in keeping with the true Olympic ethos of unity and peace through sport.
