This blog post examines why the Olympics, once a symbol of national development, have transformed into a symbol of massive costs, structural deficits, and burdens on citizens. We explore this through the IOC’s revenue structure and case studies from various countries.
The national pride was fleeting, but the aftereffects lingered. It’s said that hosting the Olympics once can mean decades of repaying interest. Why has the Olympics, once seen as a symbol of national pride, now become a thorn in the side?
Just a few decades ago, hosting the Olympics was synonymous with national development. The 1988 Seoul Olympics, in particular, is cited as a prime example of success. Seoul used the Olympics as an opportunity to build large-scale infrastructure and develop the city. At the time, Seoul citizens witnessed the city’s transformation daily. The Han River opened up, subways were laid, and the world came to know Korea. During the 16-day Games, 2.9 million spectators visited, generating significant economic ripple effects. Korea gained a foothold in the global tourism market, strengthened foreign investment, and enhanced global economic partnerships. Above all, the Seoul Olympics provided Korea with the opportunity to be recognized as an advanced nation in the international community, alongside its economic growth dubbed the ‘Miracle on the Han River’. The fact that the Olympics could transform a nation’s standing was a clear reality back then.
However, the atmosphere has now completely changed. The question is no longer ‘who will host it’, but rather ‘why should it be hosted’. Indeed, while a fierce competition among 12 cities took place for the 2004 Athens Olympics, only two cities—Paris and LA—remain candidates for 2024. Unusually, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to award the 2024 and 2028 Olympics simultaneously. Whereas bidding wars were fierce in the past, cities are now playing a game of avoidance. The reason lies in the structural losses the Olympics leave behind.
Consider a prime example: The 1976 Montreal Olympics incurred costs 13 times the original budget, leaving citizens to pay off the Olympic debt only after 30 years. The 2004 Athens Olympics faced a similar fate. Massive budgets were poured into constructing large-scale stadiums and infrastructure, but inadequate post-event utilization left many venues as idle facilities. While there were short-term positive effects like tourism stimulation and infrastructure improvements, long-term consequences included significant debt accumulation and economic burdens. International organizations like the OECD pointed out that Greece’s national debt crisis was not unrelated to Olympic expenditures.
The 2020 Tokyo Olympics saw its budget balloon after being postponed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Japan’s Board of Audit, the total cost of the Tokyo Olympics reached approximately 1.7 trillion yen, or about 17 trillion won. This figure exceeds the original plan by more than 20%. Public sentiment in Japan was also cold. An NHK poll in 2021 showed 78% of Japanese citizens opposed hosting the Olympics.
The 2024 Paris Olympics aimed to be a ‘cost-effective Olympics’ by utilizing 95% of existing facilities and minimizing budget overruns. However, new social conflicts emerged, including controversies over the forced relocation of migrants and homeless people, and accusations of greenwashing.
Examining the Olympics’ revenue structure makes the problem even clearer. The IOC takes over 70% of the profits generated from broadcast rights and other sources. Meanwhile, the host country bears most of the costs for infrastructure construction and operation, security, transportation, and more. Ultimately, a structure where “the IOC takes the profits while the host country shoulders the costs” has become entrenched. As the Olympics grow larger, broadcast rights fees and sponsorship income increase, and the IOC captures a significant portion of those profits. This inevitably raises questions about who the real stakeholders are and whether this structure is truly fair.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, widely regarded as a success, stands as an exceptional case. LA maximized the use of existing facilities and actively attracted private capital, resulting in a surplus. However, most cities hosting the Olympics have incurred deficits by building new stadiums and infrastructure. The IOC refers to the facilities left behind as the ‘Olympic legacy,’ but criticism persists that inadequate post-event utilization often leaves them as idle structures, increasing the burden solely on citizens.
Now, not just the Olympics, but major international events like Expos and World Cups are facing reevaluation. The Osaka Expo, held less than a month ago, is even being described as literally “on the verge of disaster.” This was covered in detail in a previous video, so please refer to it.
Busan invested hundreds of billions of won to bid for the 2030 World Expo but ultimately failed to secure it. The government is also pursuing the bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics. Seoul, with its superior international recognition and infrastructure, was often treated as a foregone conclusion. However, at the Korean Sport & Olympic Committee’s 2025 Regular General Assembly in February, Jeollabuk-do Province was selected as the final candidate to challenge for the Olympic bid. What is the public opinion? Indeed, there are significant doubts about whether Jeonbuk possesses the infrastructure to host the Olympics. Moreover, the vivid memory of the recent Jamboree event held in Jeonbuk further fuels the debate.
Some even raise fundamental questions about the sustainability of mega-events like the Olympics or Expo. Many nations and cities still expect a boost to their national brand through large-scale events. However, vast amounts of data and case studies starkly reveal the reality.
First, deficits outweigh profits. Most major events exceed budgets and run deficits, with the burden ultimately falling on citizens’ taxes.
Second, citizens’ quality of life declines. Preparations involve large-scale construction and traffic restrictions, leading to side effects like rising real estate prices and increased rents.
Third, idle facilities proliferate. After the Olympics, stadiums and facilities built at enormous cost are often left abandoned. In cities like Athens, Beijing, and Rio, ‘Olympic ghost stadiums’ have emerged as a social problem.
Fourth, international organizations shirk responsibility. Bodies like the IOC and FIFA reap the profits but bear no responsibility for the side effects: deficits, idle facilities, and the burden on citizens. Ultimately, the burden falls on the citizens.
Can short-term national image boosts and temporary tourist attractions justify decades of lingering financial burdens and social costs? Today, a single piece of content can move the world. The influence built daily on YouTube and Netflix might be more important than a single festival. How do readers view this issue?
