As the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics conclude, the Games raise familiar questions that follow almost every Olympic host: how much did they cost, and did the benefits outweigh the investment?
For decades, cities have competed fiercely for the prestige of hosting the Olympics, which promises economic growth, tourism booms and global visibility. Yet in recent years, enthusiasm to host has cooled. Costs have risen over time, and financial risks and environmental pressures have made the benefits less certain.
The most recent fixtures, including the Summer Games in Paris 2024 and Winter games in Milano Cortina 2026, suggest a different approach may be emerging. Both focused on sustainability, limiting large-scale construction and reusing existing infrastructure wherever possible, reflecting a broader shift in how cities and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are thinking about future Olympics: less about building new facilities and more about adapting what already exists.
Before a city is even selected, preparing and submitting a bid to the IOC can cost between $50-$100 million. Once chosen, the city must prepare for the influx of athletes and tourists. These projects can improve roads, railways and airports for long-term public use,1 but the financial debt is often substantial. Montreal’s 1976 debt took 30 years to repay, for example, while Sochi’s infrastructure is expected to cost Russian taxpayers nearly $1 billion annually for the foreseeable future.2
Organisers typically highlight a range of potential benefits that offset these costs. Job creation is commonly cited, although the impacts can be temporary, with roles often going to workers already employed. The tourism effect is also mixed due to higher prices, crowding and security measures. In the case of Milano Cortina 2026, Italian officials hope improvements to transport links and Alpine cable-car networks will leave a lasting legacy for regional tourism and development.3
Measuring the overall economic impact is challenging. Some studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggest hosting the Games can increase international trade,4 while other economists have found little evidence of long-term effects on GDP.5 For Paris 2024, the estimated boost to GDP was around 0.07%. Milano Cortina 2026 is estimated to generate about $6.3 billion in immediate spending, slightly above the $6.2 billion budget, underlining how finely balanced the costs and benefits can be.
One key debate in Olympic economics is whether the Winter Games are less financially risky than the Summer Games. At first glance, the Winter Olympics appear much smaller: around 3,000 athletes compete in roughly 100 events, compared with over 10,000 athletes across 300 events in the Summer Games.
However, the specialised infrastructure required for winter sports – sliding tracks, ski jumps, and mountain transport networks – can make the Games particularly expensive. The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics remain the costliest in history at an estimated $50 billion, due largely to building infrastructure from scratch and developing both coastal and mountain venues simultaneously.6 Similarly, the 2022 Beijing Winter Games cost an estimated $38.5 billion, including major investment in a high-speed driverless rail line connecting venues.7
Recent hosts, such as Paris and Milano Cortina, have increasingly focused on controlling costs, often with IOC support. The 2024 Paris Olympics centred on upgrading existing infrastructure rather than building new venues, and relied almost entirely on facilities previously used for events such as the French Open and the 2016 European Football Championship. Paris budgeted about $8 billion for the Games, and the French Court of Auditors later estimated total public spending at about $7.85 billion – far less than Tokyo 2020’s $13 billion or Rio 2016’s $20 billion.8
Similarly, Milano Cortina 2026 cost around $6.2 billion, one of the lowest in decades,9 partly due to two cities co-hosting events as well as reusing existing venues. Preparations were not without challenges: the Cortina sliding centre went over budget10 and Milan’s ice hockey venue faced delays.11 Yet compared with previous decades’ overspending, the IOC has highlighted both the Paris and Milano Cortina Games as examples of more sustainable hosting.
Future Winter Olympic Games may increasingly involve multiple host cities or broader regional partnerships, particularly as climate change reduces the number of reliable winter sports destinations. Research suggests that by the 2050s, only about 45 to 55 of the 93 locations that have previously hosted Winter Olympic events will remain climate-reliable.12
Some experts suggest expanding the geographic scope of future Games to entire regions like the Rocky Mountains in the United States and Canada, or the Tyrol region of the Alps, to help with snow reliability.13 Other proposals include rotating the Winter Olympics among climate-reliable host locations or shifting the schedule slightly earlier to improve snow conditions.14
The experiences of Paris 2024 and Milano Cortina 2026 suggest that the Olympic model may be evolving. Faced with rising costs, public scrutiny and environmental pressures, host cities are increasingly prioritising using existing venues, shared hosting arrangements and infrastructure projects that serve long-term public needs.
While the financial benefits remain debatable, these approaches reduce the risks that have discouraged many cities from bidding previously. By focusing on sustainability, regional cooperation and practical legacy planning, they may move away from billion-dollar mega-projects towards a more modest and sustainable model of hosting one of the world’s largest sporting events. What is not disputed however, is that the Olympics always inspires a spirit of international cooperation, comradery, healthy competition and national pride – which many would consider priceless.15
[1] The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games | Council on Foreign Relations
[2] The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games | Council on Foreign Relations
[3] Olympic infrastructure: the struggle to create a lasting legacy
[6] Sochi Winter Olympics 'cost billions more than estimated' - University of Birmingham
[7] Beijing 2022 may cost more than US$38.5bn, says report - SportsPro
[8] The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games | Council on Foreign Relations
[9] The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games | Council on Foreign Relations
[10] Inside The Games • Milano Cortina admits overruns, backs legacy
[11] How Italy Is Struggling to Finish an Ice Rink Before the Olympics - The New York Times
[12] To survive warming winters, the Olympics will need to change » Yale Climate Connections
[13] To survive warming winters, the Olympics will need to change » Yale Climate Connections
[14] To survive warming winters, the Olympics will need to change » Yale Climate Connections
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The information presented herein provides a general update on market conditions and is not intended and should not be construed as an offer, invitation, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any specific investment or participate in any investment (or other) strategy. The subject of the communication is not a regulated investment. Past performance is not an indication of future performance and the value of investments and the income derived from them may fluctuate and you may not receive back the amount you originally invest. Although this document has been prepared on the basis of information we believe to be reliable, LGT Wealth Management UK LLP gives no representation or warranty in relation to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented herein. The information presented herein does not provide sufficient information on which to make an informed investment decision. No liability is accepted whatsoever by LGT Wealth Management UK LLP, employees and associated companies for any direct or consequential loss arising from this document.
LGT Wealth Management UK LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom.
Suzy Waite is a Senior Investment Writer at LGT Wealth Management, covering macroeconomic events, geopolitics and financial markets. She was previously a journalist for 14 years working in New York, London and Hong Kong, and most recently at Bloomberg, where she covered hedge funds and asset management. She also worked at Haymarket Media and Euromoney Institutional Investor where she focused on asset management, commodities and equity capital markets.
