The legacy of Paris puts future Olympics at risk—is it time to pick a single, permanent host for the games?

By utilizing existing infrastructure for 95% of events, aligning with the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and rejuvenating the Games’ reputation, Paris set a new standard for future hosts. 

Despite Paris’ innovative approach, the issue of exorbitant costs in a world of wealth inequality, polarization, and climate crisis remains. This raises the question—could a single, permanent host for the Games be a more sustainable solution, both economically and environmentally?

Every Games has promised an enduring legacy. Athens expanded its metro system, London cleaned up a huge part of its East End, Barcelona an unused seafront, but each has had mixed results. London 2012 built only 13,000 of 40,000 promised affordable homes, leaving a patchy legacy and a social divide Paris is keen to avoid.

Paris—the green Olympics?

Paris hasn’t built any white elephants, and the only two new developments built for the Games will house Paris’ basketball team and leave a substantial wooden Olympic-sized pool in a neighborhood where 78% of children cannot yet swim. Crucially, the Games are intended to link this suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, the poorest part of France, to central Paris. 

Controversially, Paris has spent a lot of money cleaning up the river Seine, which has been legally unswimmable since 1923 because of high bacterial levels, and it intends to open up three permanent swimming sites to the public after the Games host the open-water swimming events. The city has also added 34 miles of cycle lanes, and 25 pools across the city have been renovated.

Aside from this legacy, the jury is out on how far hosting the Olympics leads to tourist dollars in the short term. The cost for Paris to host was much lower than other Olympics—$9.7 billion—but research shows that the economic benefits are unclear. Jobs are temporary, and in the case of Paris, not as many tourists came as expected. Bloomberg reports that in the end, 87% of spectators will be French, Paris hotels were slashing prices by 40% two days before the opening ceremony to lure visitors in, and AirFrance-KLM estimates a loss of €200 million this summer due to fewer bookings than expected.

The long-term prognosis for Paris’ tourism is more apparent. Every frame of every sport has included a backdrop of iconic Paris, seared into viewers’ minds: beach volleyball at the Eiffel Tower, skateboarding at Place de la Concorde, equestrian events at Versailles, and surfing at stunning Teahupo’o in French Polynesia.

Losing relevance?

It’s this backdrop that may likely decide the legacy of the Games. With declining ratings at each successive Olympics, many question its relevance, particularly after the bad press from the corruption of Sochi and Rio and the ghost arenas of a COVID-19 Tokyo. Despite adding skateboarding, three-on-three basketball, squash, and an annual e-sport Olympics for video gaming, there are doubts that a younger generation will tune in. 

After all, Taylor Swift can attract five times more luxury travelers than the Games to Paris, and some wonder if athletes might be reaching the limits of how far they can keep beating world records.

Amidst global tension, though, the Olympics serve as a crucial unifying event. Against the backdrop of recent fractious European and French elections, the Games provide a global truce, a moment for 206 countries to unite under a single flag and five multicolored rings. 

France has taken the opportunity to rebrand its capital and culture under a more inclusive frame, in everything from its Welcome To Paris video and its opening ceremony along the Seine. With no political party in charge, Paris needs the IOC right now, just as much as the Games need Paris to deliver. And if Paris’ boulevards, the Eiffel Tower and the rebuilding of the Notre Dame cathedral can’t inspire the world, what can? This rebranding effort has the potential to inspire the world and redefine the Games for a new era. 

The climate change challenge

There are other issues at play, though, not just how relevant the Games are or how cost-effective they can be. The climate is in crisis and bringing very particular challenges, not least the juggernaut of travel required for athletes, trainers, support staff, and travelers to attend the Games every four years. 

Maja Hitij—Getty Images

July 22 and July 23 were the hottest days worldwide, and Paris is 1.8 degrees warmer than when it hosted the Games in 1924. In a city not known for its air conditioning, athletes are struggling to find ways to keep cool. And all this as the birthplace of the Olympics, Greece, was fighting rampant forest fires.

Then there’s the policing. QR codes and security barriers have made Paris impenetrable, requiring 30,000 police officers, 18,000 French military personnel, and 25,000 private security guards. General Christophe Abad said that since the end of World War Two, “there has never been such a massive mobilization of military forces on French soil.”

So, is there an argument for keeping the Olympics in one place or selecting the same places?

LUDOVIC MARIN—AFP/Getty Images

The IOC is leading a more streamlined process, less scandalous, more collaborative, and more confident of leaving a lasting legacy in democratic countries (the upcoming Games are in LA in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032). 

For the Winter Olympics, the IOC has already named the French Alps to host in 2030. Once again, France is using 95% of existing infrastructure and is the first to come in under the $2 billion budget. Likewise, Salt Lake City in 2034 already has the existing infrastructure left over from its 2002 scandal-engulfed Olympics, which has been a big draw for organizers keen to limit costs. However, natural snow might remain elusive, and no one wants the environmental costs of producing fake powder.

Some have made calls for Greece to take back the summer Games forever, paid for by the IOC, reusing stadiums and working with local communities to get the best possible outcomes for everyone. The argument is that it would be far easier to organize, less open to corruption and extravagance and could be used for training at other times too. Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, supports rehousing the Olympics permanently in Greece, a move that could bring stability, sustainability, and a renewed sense of purpose to the Games.

Others think Los Angeles would make a perfect permanent host. As hosts in 1984, they are the only city to make a profit to date because they used existing facilities and because of high TV broadcast revenues. It’s a city that can manage tourists and security.

There are just two concerns about keeping the Games in the same place. First, is it possible for residents of a host city to permanently do so, particularly when it would involve taxpayers’ money and a huge inconvenience? Second, and more importantly to competitors, would anyone want to give up the bump in support that athletes receive when competing in their home countries? Time will tell, but for now, the traveling circus goes on.