The build-up to the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina has been far from smooth. The ice rink has been delayed and beset by problems, while the bobsleigh track has sparked controversy. Past Winter Games have often faced late completions and ballooning costs; 2026 may be a tipping point.
“Quite frankly, this is inexcusable, especially for something like a multi-purpose arena,” Victor Matheson told DW, referring to the delayed ice rink. “It might be a bit more understandable for specialized venues that need to be constructed specially for the Olympics, but from an economics perspective, if you don’t already have facilities in place, like a major indoor venue that can be used for hockey, you probably shouldn’t be bidding for the Olympics in the first place.”
Matheson, a professor of economics at the College of the Holy Cross whose work focuses on the economic impact of major sporting events, highlights a recurring problem: expensive facilities can become “white elephants” — venues that sit unused after the Games. The estimated budget for Milan-Cortina is north of $3.5 billion (€3 billion). Some reports suggest a possible economic boost of about €5 billion from tourism and infrastructure, but that remains an estimate.
“Local citizens and taxpayers have said again and again that while the Olympics are fun events, they don’t necessarily want to get stuck paying for someone else’s party,” Matheson said. He argues that countries where citizens have little say in hosting decisions are more likely to take on the Games than vibrant democracies. That dynamic helps explain why recent major events have gone to places like Beijing, Qatar, Russia and, in the future, Saudi Arabia for large sporting tournaments.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is a non-profit organization; roughly 90% of revenues from the Games are funneled back into sport and athlete development, including aid for hosts. In 2018, the IOC pledged $925 million for Milan-Cortina, slightly less than the $970 million given to Beijing in 2022. Yet the IOC largely depends on committed hosts to stage the Games. “The weird thing that people don’t realize is that the IOC really doesn’t have the money to put on its own events. It only has the history and the property rights to its name and the rings. It needs committed partners to actually host the Games,” Matheson said.
Matheson notes that the problems in Milan-Cortina stem mostly from the local organizing committee rather than the IOC. The IOC has tried to reduce burdens, for example suggesting sliding events be moved to Switzerland instead of building an expensive new bobsled track in Cortina — a suggestion reportedly spurned, perhaps by pride. “It certainly looks like pride got in the way of economics or efficiency at multiple points in this Games,” he said.
Longer-term reforms have been proposed for years. One idea is a handful of rotating or permanent hosts to cut costs and reuse facilities, but choosing such hosts raises political concerns: what happens if a chosen host backslides into authoritarianism or human-rights abuses? Multi-country hosting, used by FIFA at times, can spread costs, reduce new infrastructure needs and increase post-Games facility use.
Matheson praised some moves being tried elsewhere. The organizers for the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympics are expanding the geographic footprint — for instance moving softball to Oklahoma — to use existing venues, reduce costs, expand fan access and boost revenue by staging events where demand is high.
As preparations continue for Milan-Cortina, the recurring question remains: are the financial and social risks of hosting the Olympics worth the spectacle? For now, citizens and economists alike are watching closely.
Edited by: Chuck Penfold