As India bids for Olympics, what research has found about health, economic impacts on hosts

Indian Express

11-05-2025

India is among the many countries interested in hosting the 2036 Olympics, having submitted a Letter of Intent to the International Olympic Committee.
As the country makes a strong pitch to bring the Games to India, the officials involved in the process have underlined the potential economic benefits, the tourism boost, and health awareness as some of the pros for hosting the Olympics.
But once the flame has been doused and the Olympic rings are a distant memory, what's actually left behind?
A study recently published in Social Science & Medicine used data from over 19,000 residents in London and Paris to evaluate the tangible and intangible legacy of the Olympics, particularly focusing on health behaviour, wellbeing, and economic return.
The researchers conducted a panel survey over three years, before, during, and after the 2012 Olympics, comparing changes in physical activity in London (the host city) to Paris (which didn't host but had similar traits since they had also bid for the 2012 Olympics).
Happiness factor
The Paris Olympics was a one big fortnight-long party along the Seine. The London Games, too, were a cultural high point, and a festive spirit gripped the city. In post-Games surveys, 65 percent of Londoners described the summer of 2012 as 'a summer like no other,' while 69 per cent believed the Games would inspire more adults to take up sport. Among children, this figure rose to a whopping 81 per cent.
Even economists documented statistically significant improvements in subjective well-being during the Games, suggesting that the feel-good factor of hosting such a spectacle can be real. But there's a caveat: the effects are temporary.
The study found that while happiness peaked during the Olympics, it largely returned to baseline within weeks of the closing ceremony. The uplifting emotions, while genuine, did not translate into sustained improvements in life satisfaction or mental health metrics.
'We then observe a gradual return to (almost) baseline during the post-Olympics period, suggesting a temporary effect,' the paper said.
Physical Activity
One of the key pitches that host cities make is that the Games would spur the public to adopt healthier, more active lifestyles. The assumption is that the visibility of elite athletes and upgraded sporting infrastructure will rub off on the population. The London bid made such claims boldly, promising a legacy that would turn the UK into a 'world-class sporting nation.'
Their key finding was this: while average activity levels didn't change significantly, there was an 18 per cent relative increase in physical activity among those who were previously inactive in London. This group was 'activated' by the Games. This was seen as a positive outcome.
The bad news, however, was that this burst in activity was temporary. The boost among inactive individuals lasted about 100 days. After that, people had returned to their pre-Olympic routines.
There was also no evidence that active individuals became even more engaged in sport. Nor was there a noticeable long-term reduction in smoking or alcohol consumption.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of hosting the Olympics is the financial burden it places on taxpayers. Estimates for recent Games range from $8 billion (Sydney 2000) to a staggering $52 billion (Beijing 2008). The most recent Paris Olympics cost around $9.5 billion.
While proponents argue that the Games boost tourism, infrastructure, and jobs, the academic literature is largely sceptical.
There's the case of Athens 2004, which ended up costing more than double its initial budget, pushing Greece deeper into debt. Many of the Olympic venues became unused 'white elephants', and while the Games brought temporary pride, they left behind crumbling infrastructure and a financial burden that contributed to Greece's later economic crisis.
The study also concluded that 'the London Games simply did not generate enough healthcare savings to justify the billions spent'. The argument about health is that the Games can inspire people to lead a healthier lifestyle, while improved infrastructure and connectivity also indirectly impact a city's healthcare facilities.
The study estimated that while the London Olympics may have saved around £4.2 million in healthcare costs, this was dwarfed by the £40 million spent on promoting grassroots physical activity. The result: a net loss of over £35 million. In short, the Games did not offer value for money when it came to public health returns.