Why No City Wants to Host the Olympics Anymore: The Real Reasons Behind the Declining Bids

By Jayson Panganiban June 18, 2025 09:57

Once a coveted honor, hosting the Olympic Games has become a burden many cities now avoid. The glamor and prestige that once accompanied the Games have been overshadowed by spiraling costs, public opposition, and questionable economic returns. The stark reality is that the Olympics have evolved into a financial and social risk few cities are willing to take.

Skyrocketing Costs and Financial Risks

The primary reason for the decline in Olympic bids is the staggering cost of hosting the Games. A University of Oxford study found that since 1960, the average cost of staging the Olympics has been triple the initial bid price, with cost overruns occurring “with 100% consistency”. For example, the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics reportedly cost $50 billion, making it the most expensive Games in history. The 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics were initially budgeted at $1.5 billion for staging and $2-6 billion for infrastructure but ended up costing an estimated $13 billion. Tokyo’s 2020 Summer Olympics, delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, doubled its initial $7.3 billion budget to over $15.4 billion.

These enormous expenses often fall on taxpayers, with cities forced to guarantee coverage of any cost overruns during the bidding process. Montreal’s 1976 Summer Olympics left the city with $1.5 billion in debt that took 30 years to pay off, earning the Olympic stadium the nickname “Big Owe”. Such financial burdens have made citizens and governments wary of bidding. In Calgary, 56% of residents voted against a 2026 Olympic bid due to fears of economic strain amid a struggling local economy.

Public Opposition and Social Concerns

Public opposition has become a decisive factor in cities withdrawing from Olympic bids. Referendums and polls have shown widespread skepticism about the Games’ benefits. Concerns include displacement of residents, environmental damage, and the long-term utility of Olympic venues. Many cities have witnessed “white elephant” stadiums expensive facilities built for the Games but left underused afterward. The social cost of hosting, including disruptions and increased security expenses running into billions, further dampens enthusiasm.

Cities like Boston, Rome, Hamburg, Stockholm, and Krakow have all dropped their bids citing lack of public support and budget worries. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has struggled to secure hosts, leading to unusual measures such as awarding the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics simultaneously to Paris and Los Angeles to ensure stability.

Economic Benefits Often Fail to Materialize

While proponents argue that the Olympics boost tourism, create jobs, and enhance international recognition, economists remain skeptical. Studies show that many anticipated economic benefits fail to materialize, leaving cities with long-term debts and underused infrastructure. Los Angeles’ 1984 Olympics remain a rare example of profit, achieved by relying heavily on private financing and existing venues. However, recent Games have required massive public investment, with limited returns.

The declining interest in hosting the Olympics reflects a broader reckoning with the Games’ true costs. As Bruce Kidd, professor and former Olympian, notes, “The primary, understandable reason is the fear of tremendous costs, with increasing tax burdens and few benefits to show for it”. Until the IOC reforms the bidding process and addresses the financial and social risks, the Olympic flame will continue to burn brightly in fewer cities’ imaginations.

In essence, the Olympics have become too costly, too risky, and too controversial for most cities to embrace, signaling a need for fundamental change if the Games are to remain a global celebration rather than a financial nightmare.