Introduction

The excitement around the Paris 2024 Olympics has captured global attention, with millions tuning in to witness history in the making. Amidst the fervor, India is looking to make its own mark by expressing interest in hosting the 2036 Summer Olympics. The prospect sounds thrilling—millions of tourists, global prestige, and a chance to showcase India's rapid development. However, the question arises: is hosting such a monumental event truly a wise decision for India's economy? While the Olympics symbolize international unity and athletic prowess, the financial reality of hosting could be more challenging than anticipated. In this analysis, we’ll explore the economic risks and rewards of India potentially hosting the 2036 Games.

Economic Misconception: The Myth of Prosperity

Many countries bid for the Olympics believing it will generate billions in profits and create a lasting economic legacy. This is the dream sold by proponents, yet the reality is starkly different. Hosting the Olympics often results in significant financial losses, not gains, for the host cities.

Take Beijing 2008 for example, which had a staggering total cost of over $42 billion, but generated only $3.6 billion in revenue. This vast difference between expenditure and income is a common theme across Olympics. Similarly, the London 2012 Olympics cost an estimated $18 billion to organize, yet it generated just $5.2 billion in revenue. The mismatch between the investment and returns highlights a fundamental flaw in the perception of hosting the Olympics as a path to economic prosperity.

So, why are these projections often so misleading? One reason is the underestimation of infrastructure costs. A city must build stadiums, athlete villages, and transport systems that often have little use once the games are over. These structures, while necessary for a few weeks, become a burden on the city’s budget due to high maintenance costs.

In the case of Beijing, many of the facilities have been left unused or underutilized. The iconic Bird’s Nest Stadium, which cost $480 million, now sits mostly empty and costs around $11 million annually to maintain. These costs, coupled with rising security expenditures due to global concerns like terrorism, quickly spiral beyond initial estimates.

In addition, the security budget for the Olympics has dramatically increased over the past few decades. For instance, the 2012 London Games spent nearly $1.6 billion on security alone, driven largely by fears of terrorism in a post-9/11 world. These massive financial outlays show that hosting the Olympics is rarely the profitable venture it’s imagined to be.

Tourism Myths: The Short-Lived Boost

Another common justification for hosting the Olympics is the expectation of a surge in tourism. Many argue that global attention on the host city will result in millions of visitors and long-term benefits for the tourism industry. However, history shows that the tourism boom is often short-lived, and in some cases, entirely non-existent.

A prime example of this is Rio de Janeiro, which hosted the 2016 Olympics. Brazil spent more than $13 billion to prepare for the event, but after the closing ceremony, Rio saw no lasting boost in tourism. On the contrary, many reports indicated that tourists avoided Rio in the months leading up to and after the Olympics due to fears of crime and instability. While the event itself drew international visitors, the long-term tourism bump that Brazil hoped for failed to materialize.

Similarly, the Athens 2004 Olympics offers a cautionary tale. Greece spent over $15 billion on the event, a huge sum for a relatively small economy. While there was a brief surge in visitors during the games, Greece struggled to capitalize on any long-term benefits. By 2010, the nation faced a crippling economic crisis, and many of the Olympic venues built for the games were left in disrepair. Today, several of Athens’ stadiums are abandoned, a stark reminder of the temporary nature of Olympic-driven tourism.

Contrast these examples with Barcelona 1992, which is often cited as the rare success story of Olympic-driven tourism. Barcelona effectively used the games to rebrand itself as a global destination. The city underwent major renovations that were aimed not just at hosting the games but at transforming Barcelona into a long-term tourist hub. The results were extraordinary—by 2010, Barcelona was the fifth-most visited city in Europe. However, what many fail to acknowledge is that Barcelona's success came from meticulous long-term planning, not from the Olympics alone. It remains the exception rather than the rule.

Branding and Propaganda: The Hidden Political Agenda

Beyond economics and tourism, countries have historically used the Olympics for political gains and propaganda, often masking severe underlying issues. One of the most infamous examples is Nazi Germany’s 1936 Berlin Olympics. Adolf Hitler used the games as a platform to showcase the strength and unity of the Nazi regime. The world saw a well-organized, impressive event, but behind the scenes, Hitler’s racial policies were in full swing. Jewish athletes were barred from competing, and the event was used as a tool to promote Aryan superiority. Germany projected an image of peace and prosperity, but within a few years, the world would witness the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust.

A more recent example of Olympics-as-propaganda is Russia’s Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. The event, which cost over $50 billion, was part of a broader strategy known as "sportswashing"—using international sports events to distract from human rights abuses and internal political issues. At the time, Russia was facing international scrutiny for its treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals, crackdowns on political dissent, and its involvement in Ukraine. Hosting the Olympics allowed Russia to briefly reframe the global conversation, showcasing its modernization and national pride while silencing critics. Yet, the economic returns were poor, and many venues built for the games are now underutilized or abandoned.

The 2014 Sochi Olympics serves as a prime example of how the Olympics can be used for political rebranding while leaving the host country with a crippling financial burden. It also shows how short-lived the propaganda effect can be—soon after the games, Russia was once again at the center of global controversy, and the long-term benefits of hosting the Olympics remained elusive.

Cost Overruns: The Unavoidable Trap

One of the most consistent problems with hosting the Olympics is the massive disparity between projected and actual costs. Historically, nearly all modern Olympic hosts have experienced significant cost overruns, often exceeding initial estimates by billions of dollars. These overruns stem from several factors, including the need for large-scale infrastructure development, security concerns, and unpredictable global events.

A prime example is Sochi 2014, which holds the dubious distinction of being the most expensive Olympics in history. Russia initially projected a cost of $12 billion, but by the time the games concluded, the total expenditure had skyrocketed to over $50 billion—more than four times the original estimate. The bulk of this money was spent on infrastructure projects that were either unnecessary or have since become underutilized, leaving a gaping hole in the country’s finances.

Similarly, Brazil’s 2016 Rio Olympics was a financial disaster. While the initial projection was $2.8 billion, the final cost soared to $13 billion. Brazil, a country already struggling with economic and political turmoil, found itself saddled with immense debt. Many of the Olympic facilities, including the once-celebrated Maracanã Stadium, are now abandoned or in disrepair, further exemplifying the financial burden of hosting.

Another notable example is Montreal 1976, a cautionary tale for any aspiring Olympic host. Montreal’s budget initially projected a cost of $120 million, but the final bill came to $1.6 billion. The city was left with a debt that took 30 years to pay off, with Montreal's residents contributing to the debt through increased taxes.

Even the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, held under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic, faced massive cost overruns. Initially estimated at $7.3 billion, the final costs ballooned to over $15 billion. While Japan is an advanced economy, the financial toll of these overruns was still deeply felt, particularly in a post-pandemic world where economic recovery was already fragile.

India’s Existing Economic Fragility: A House of Cards?

India’s interest in hosting the 2036 Olympics must be viewed through the lens of its current economic challenges. While India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, it faces significant internal issues, such as poverty, inflation, unemployment, and a fragile healthcare and education system. Hosting the Olympics, which could easily cost tens of billions of dollars, would stretch the country’s financial resources even further.

India’s poverty rate remains a critical concern, with millions of citizens living below the poverty line. Meanwhile, unemployment rates have remained high, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit India’s economy hard. These challenges are exacerbated by inflation, which has increased the cost of basic goods, putting further pressure on the population.

Spending billions on hosting the Olympics would divert crucial resources from sectors that desperately need investment. Healthcare is one such sector. India’s healthcare system was stretched to the breaking point during the pandemic, highlighting the need for greater investment in hospitals, medical equipment, and healthcare workers. Education is another area where India faces significant gaps. The country has a large youth population, but many lack access to quality education and vocational training. Investing in these sectors could create long-term benefits for India’s economy, lifting millions out of poverty and providing them with the skills they need to succeed.

The Opportunity Cost: What Else Could Be Done?

The term "opportunity cost" refers to the potential benefits that are lost when one course of action is chosen over another. In the case of hosting the Olympics, the opportunity cost is enormous. The billions that would be spent on building stadiums, athlete villages, and security infrastructure could be used to address some of India’s most pressing challenges.

For example, India could invest in infrastructure projects that benefit the entire population, such as improving roads, bridges, and public transportation systems. These projects would not only create jobs but also enhance the country’s overall productivity and global competitiveness. Similarly, the money could be used to build affordable housing for the millions of Indians living in slums or substandard conditions.

Another area where India could invest is in renewable energy. As the world shifts towards a more sustainable future, India has the opportunity to become a leader in solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. Investing in this sector would reduce India’s dependence on fossil fuels, create jobs, and help address the global climate crisis.

The billions spent on hosting the Olympics could also be used to address rural poverty and improve access to clean water, sanitation, and electricity in underserved areas. These investments would have a far more significant and lasting impact on India’s population than the temporary boost provided by hosting a sporting event.

Case Study Comparisons: Learning from Failure

India can learn valuable lessons from past Olympic hosts that faced economic disaster. The experiences of Rio 2016 and Athens 2004 provide particularly relevant case studies.

In the case of Rio 2016, Brazil was grappling with a deep recession, political corruption scandals, and widespread poverty at the time it hosted the Olympics. The games, instead of providing a financial boost, exacerbated the country’s problems. Today, many of the Olympic venues in Rio are abandoned, and the city continues to struggle with poverty and crime. India, like Brazil, has vast economic disparities and faces a range of social and political challenges. Hosting the Olympics could similarly divert resources away from addressing these critical issues.

Athens 2004 is another cautionary tale. Greece spent over $15 billion on the games, which contributed to the country’s massive debt and eventual economic collapse. The Greek government’s excessive spending on Olympic infrastructure, combined with poor economic management, pushed the country into one of the worst financial crises in its history. For India, a country still recovering from the pandemic and grappling with the long-term effects of demonetization and rising inflation, the risks of following a similar path are all too real.

India’s Geopolitical and Economic Landscape

India’s economic fragility is further complicated by its volatile geopolitical environment. The country is still recovering from the economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused widespread job losses and strained government resources. Additionally, the lingering effects of demonetization, which aimed to curb corruption but caused short-term economic disruption, are still being felt.

Moreover, India’s economy is susceptible to inflation, particularly in essential commodities like food and fuel. Hosting the Olympics, with its massive infrastructure and security costs, would put additional pressure on a government already grappling with inflationary pressures. In such an unstable economic environment, the risks of hosting the Olympics are amplified.

The Infrastructure Mirage: Grand Stadiums, Empty Seats

One of the most alluring aspects of hosting the Olympics is the potential for infrastructure development. The idea of building state-of-the-art stadiums, athlete villages, and new transportation systems often draws support from both governments and the public. These projects are pitched as long-term investments, with promises that they will serve as catalysts for urban renewal and boost local economies. However, once the games are over, many of these projects turn into liabilities.

The term "white elephants" refers to expensive facilities that are seldom used after the Olympics, yet require significant funds for maintenance. A stark example of this is Rio 2016, where several of the Olympic venues, including the iconic Maracanã Stadium, have fallen into disrepair. The venues, once bustling with activity, now sit empty, their upkeep draining public resources that could have been used for more pressing societal needs. Similarly, the Beijing 2008 venues, including the famous Bird's Nest stadium, are largely underutilized and require millions of dollars annually for maintenance.

In some cases, cities even struggle to find buyers for the Olympic infrastructure. For instance, Athens 2004, despite initial plans to transform its venues into public spaces and facilities, has seen many of them fall into disuse. The cost of maintaining these venues has been a significant contributor to Greece’s long-term economic difficulties.

The Indian Context: Infrastructure Challenges

For a country like India, with its existing infrastructure challenges, hosting an event as massive as the Olympics presents an even greater risk. India struggles with inadequate public transportation, unreliable electricity supplies, and poor urban planning in many of its cities. The prospect of building new infrastructure for the Olympics might seem appealing, but these projects would need to be constructed on top of an already fragile system, potentially exacerbating existing issues.

India’s public transportation system, for example, is vastly underdeveloped in many regions. In major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bangalore, overcrowded trains and buses are a daily reality for commuters. Building Olympic-standard transportation infrastructure would require massive investments, but history has shown that these projects often do not provide long-term benefits for the general population. After the games, they may simply add to the burden of an already stretched public transport system without solving the underlying issues.

In addition, India faces a severe lack of basic amenities in many parts of the country. Millions of citizens still lack access to clean drinking water, sanitation, and electricity. Investing billions of dollars into constructing Olympic venues and facilities may look good on paper, but it would divert essential resources away from addressing these critical needs. The focus on urban centers and elite infrastructure for a global event could widen the gap between rich and poor, leaving vast portions of India’s population behind.

The Delhi Commonwealth Games: A Lesson in Unrealized Promises

India’s experience with the 2010 Commonwealth Games (CWG) in Delhi offers a cautionary tale about the gap between promised infrastructure improvements and the long-term reality. At the time, the CWG was hailed as India’s opportunity to showcase its growing economic power and development potential. The government invested heavily in building new sports complexes, upgrading transportation networks, and beautifying the city. However, the games were marred by corruption scandals, delays, and shoddy construction.

Despite the massive investments, many of the facilities built for the CWG are now either underutilized or have fallen into disrepair. For example, the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, which was revamped for the games, is used sporadically and requires significant funds for upkeep. Other venues, such as the Talkatora Stadium and the Commonwealth Games Village, have faced similar fates. The infrastructure improvements promised to the public, including better roads, transportation systems, and urban renewal, have not materialized as expected. In fact, much of the infrastructure developed for the CWG is now seen as an example of wasted public resources.

The Delhi CWG experience highlights how infrastructure built for large sporting events often fails to provide long-term benefits for the general population. Instead of improving the lives of ordinary citizens, the event left behind a legacy of unfinished projects, crumbling venues, and financial burdens.

The Reality of Crumbling Venues

The experience of past Olympic and Commonwealth Games hosts reveals that the infrastructure developed for these events often becomes a significant financial liability. Olympic stadiums and athlete villages, once filled with excitement and global attention, quickly become outdated, underused, and expensive to maintain.

For instance, in Athens 2004, the city invested heavily in building new sports complexes, but many of these facilities have since been abandoned. The upkeep of these "white elephants" places a strain on public finances, contributing to Greece’s already dire economic situation. Similarly, in Rio 2016, many of the Olympic venues are now empty, with the Brazilian government struggling to maintain them while dealing with broader economic and social issues.

This pattern is not unique to the Olympics. India’s 2010 Commonwealth Games is another example of how large-scale infrastructure projects for sporting events can become financial burdens. The cost of maintaining these venues, combined with the lack of long-term use, has led to public disillusionment and questions about the true value of such investments.

The Indian Case Study: Infrastructure vs. Public Need

The prospect of hosting the Olympics in India must be carefully examined in light of the country’s existing infrastructure challenges and past experiences. While building new stadiums and facilities might seem like a step toward modernization, the reality is that these projects are likely to become long-term financial burdens. India’s experience with the Delhi CWG should serve as a warning that the gap between promised improvements and the reality of crumbling or underutilized infrastructure is all too real.

India’s focus should be on addressing its critical infrastructure needs, such as improving public transportation, providing access to clean water, and ensuring reliable electricity. Investing in these areas would have a far greater impact on the country’s development and the well-being of its citizens than building Olympic venues that may be used for only a few weeks. Moreover, the billions of dollars that would be spent on hosting the Olympics could be better used to improve basic amenities and create infrastructure that benefits the entire population.

Heightened Security Costs: The Evolving Threat Landscape

The tragic events of the Munich 1972 Olympics stand as a grim reminder of the potential dangers associated with hosting international sporting events. The attack by a Palestinian terrorist group, which resulted in the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches, changed the way the world viewed security at the Olympics. After that, safety measures for Olympic Games underwent a transformation, becoming more stringent and costly. This was further heightened after the 9/11 attacks, leading to an era of heightened global security concerns.

For instance, the Sydney 2000 Olympics allocated $250 million for security, which, at the time, seemed substantial. However, just four years later, the security budget for the Athens 2004 Olympics skyrocketed to a staggering $1.5 billion. The post-9/11 environment required even more robust security frameworks to protect against evolving threats, such as suicide bombings, hostage situations, and potential cyber-attacks targeting essential infrastructure.

The costs didn’t stop there. The Beijing 2008 Olympics is estimated to have spent about $6.5 billion on security measures. This included high-tech surveillance, security personnel, and cutting-edge technological solutions to mitigate the risk of terrorist activities. Similarly, London 2012 implemented a comprehensive security plan, deploying 18,000 security personnel, including armed forces, to ensure the event's safety at a cost of nearly $2 billion.

The exponential rise in security expenses is reflective of a global trend where the stakes for safety have grown considerably. Not only are the physical venues and athletes at risk, but large gatherings like the Olympics also present opportunities for cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure, such as transportation systems, power grids, and even healthcare networks. Any host country, therefore, has to prepare for a wide range of security threats, both physical and digital.

India’s Security Concerns: A Complex Geopolitical Landscape

India’s security concerns in the context of hosting the Olympics are even more pronounced. Positioned in a volatile geopolitical region, India has long-standing tensions with neighboring countries like Pakistan and China, which could heighten the risk of politically motivated attacks. Moreover, the threat from internal groups, including insurgents in states like Jammu and Kashmir or Naxal-affected areas, adds another layer of complexity to the security landscape.

Given the global visibility of the Olympics, terrorist organizations may view such an event as an opportunity to further their agenda. Hosting the Olympics in India would likely make the country a prime target for potential terror attacks, necessitating an unprecedented level of security measures. In an environment where even small-scale events sometimes attract security risks, the scale of an event like the Olympics would likely require massive mobilization of resources, including the military, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement.

Moreover, India’s diverse geography—from sprawling metropolitan areas to remote rural regions—presents logistical challenges in securing vast areas across different terrains. For instance, securing a multi-city Olympic event would require coordinated surveillance across air, land, and sea, in a country where security forces are already stretched thin due to ongoing counter-terrorism operations and regional conflicts.

Additionally, India has been dealing with increasing cybersecurity threats, particularly from neighboring countries. Ensuring the safety of digital infrastructure, including transportation networks, communications, and utilities, would require significant investments in cybersecurity, alongside the physical security apparatus. Given the complexity and cost of protecting against both traditional and non-traditional threats, the financial burden of Olympic security could be overwhelming for India.

Massive Financial Burden: Past Olympic Experiences

India can look to past Olympic experiences to understand the potential costs of such security efforts. Brazil's Rio 2016 Olympics had to deploy over 85,000 security personnel, including police and military forces, at a cost of $900 million. Despite these measures, Rio experienced a surge in crime, and security forces struggled to maintain law and order in some areas. Additionally, Sochi 2014, hosted by Russia, reportedly spent $2.5 billion on security, making it one of the most expensive in history.

For India, replicating such security efforts would involve mobilizing vast resources, not just financially but in terms of manpower. India's police-to-citizen ratio is already among the lowest in the world, and many regions face a chronic shortage of trained personnel. Hosting the Olympics would require ramping up both personnel and technological infrastructure to address the variety of security concerns, a task that could prove financially crippling.

India’s current budget for homeland security is substantial but may not be enough to accommodate the immense costs associated with hosting the Olympics. The opportunity cost of diverting funds from critical areas like healthcare, education, and poverty alleviation to fund Olympic security could have far-reaching consequences for India’s social and economic development. The magnitude of resources needed to protect such a large-scale event could severely strain India's economy, especially given the country’s ongoing recovery from the pandemic and other financial challenges.

India’s Internal Security: Managing Diversity and Dissent

Another critical consideration is India’s internal security situation. The country has a complex and sometimes volatile mix of political, religious, and ethnic tensions. Managing dissent and preventing violence in such a diverse society could complicate efforts to maintain peace during the Olympics. Large-scale events like the Olympics are often accompanied by protests, both from domestic and international groups. Given India's history of civil unrest, such protests could quickly escalate into larger security concerns.

The Khalistani movement, insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir, and ongoing Naxalite activities in parts of central and eastern India all present risks that need to be factored into security planning. While these issues are typically contained to specific regions, the global visibility of the Olympics could make these groups more likely to act during the event, knowing they could attract worldwide attention.

In addition, managing a vast crowd, which would include millions of visitors, could overwhelm India’s existing security infrastructure. India’s large population and the fact that the Olympics would attract tourists from all over the world mean that crowd control and public safety would be major challenges. Large crowds, combined with security risks, have the potential to create dangerous situations, as seen during some religious festivals and public gatherings in India, where stampedes and accidents have occurred.

Overstated Employment Benefits: The Temporary Nature of Olympic Jobs

One of the most common arguments in favor of hosting the Olympics is that it generates a vast number of jobs. These jobs are mostly in construction, hospitality, and services, which are required to build the necessary infrastructure, accommodate tourists, and manage the logistics of the event. However, while this may be true, most of these jobs are temporary. The construction jobs, for instance, typically last only for the duration of the building phase, after which workers are left to find new employment.

Los Angeles 1984, often hailed as one of the most economically successful Olympic Games, did create jobs, but they were predominantly short-term roles. The long-term economic impact was minimal, as the city had already developed much of its infrastructure, meaning fewer new facilities needed to be built. By contrast, more recent Olympic Games, such as Rio 2016 and Athens 2004, saw job creation numbers fall drastically once the games ended, leaving behind little in terms of sustainable employment.

Furthermore, the types of jobs created are often low-wage, temporary positions with few benefits. These positions, particularly in the hospitality and services industries, tend to disappear once the tourists leave and the Olympic venues shut down or fall into disuse. This temporary employment boost may provide short-term relief, but it does little to address the underlying employment challenges in a host city or country.

Case Studies: Los Angeles 1984 vs. Recent Games

The Los Angeles 1984 Olympics is often cited as a success story in terms of job creation. The city turned a profit and created a wave of employment, thanks in part to its strategic use of existing infrastructure and limited need for new construction. However, it is important to note that LA was an exception. The city already had many of the facilities needed to host the games, meaning the demand for new construction—and the associated jobs—was lower than it would be in less developed cities. LA also benefited from a strong local economy and a well-developed tourism sector, which allowed it to capitalize on the influx of visitors during the event.

In contrast, more recent Olympic Games have shown how the promised employment benefits can fall short. Rio 2016, for instance, did create thousands of jobs in the lead-up to the event, but these were largely in the construction sector and disappeared once the games concluded. After the Olympics, Rio was left with a significant unemployment problem, and many of the newly built facilities—such as the Olympic Village—were either abandoned or underused. Similarly, Athens 2004 created jobs during the construction phase, but once the games ended, the Greek economy struggled to absorb the surplus labor, contributing to the country’s financial struggles in the years following the event.

India’s Employment Challenge: Temporary Gains, Long-Term Struggles

India, with its vast population and existing economic challenges, faces a particularly difficult situation when it comes to the potential employment benefits of hosting the Olympics. The country’s labor market is already characterized by a high degree of instability, with many people employed in low-wage, informal jobs that offer little security. Given these conditions, the promise of Olympic-related job creation may hold some appeal, but the reality is likely to fall far short of expectations.

The vast majority of jobs created by the Olympics are temporary, concentrated in the construction, hospitality, and service industries. While this may provide a short-term boost, these jobs are unlikely to have a lasting impact on India’s broader employment picture. Once the games are over, most of these positions will disappear, leaving workers to return to the informal sector or face unemployment once again.

Moreover, many of the jobs that are created will require specialized skills, particularly in the construction and infrastructure sectors. However, a significant portion of India’s workforce lacks the training necessary to take advantage of these opportunities. This means that many of the Olympic-related jobs will either go to already-skilled workers or, in some cases, foreign contractors brought in to oversee the projects. As a result, the broader population is unlikely to benefit significantly from these short-term employment opportunities.

The Informal Sector: A Barrier to Olympic Employment Gains

India’s informal sector presents another significant challenge when considering the potential employment benefits of hosting the Olympics. The informal economy, which encompasses a wide range of low-wage, unregulated jobs, employs an estimated 80% of India’s workforce. These workers often lack access to formal contracts, benefits, and job security, meaning that even if they are employed in Olympic-related projects, they may not see significant long-term gains.

For instance, workers in the construction sector may be employed to build new stadiums, roads, and other infrastructure, but these jobs are likely to be temporary and poorly paid. Once the construction phase is over, these workers will return to the informal sector, where they may struggle to find stable employment. Additionally, the informal nature of much of India’s labor market means that many workers may not be able to access the benefits associated with formal employment, such as healthcare, pensions, or job security.

The Olympics also typically bring a wave of temporary jobs in the hospitality and service sectors, such as hotel workers, event staff, and cleaners. However, these jobs are often low-wage positions that disappear once the games are over. The transient nature of these positions means they do little to address the long-term employment challenges faced by India’s vast informal workforce. In a country where stable, formal employment is already scarce, the temporary boost in jobs associated with the Olympics is unlikely to provide lasting economic benefits.

Limited Impact on Broader Employment Challenges

In the grand scheme of India’s employment landscape, the jobs created by hosting the Olympics would be a drop in the ocean. With millions of Indians already struggling to find stable, well-paying jobs, the short-term employment boost provided by the Olympics would offer little in terms of long-term solutions. Furthermore, the cost of hosting the Olympics could divert funds from other areas of the economy that are more likely to create sustainable jobs, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development.

India is already grappling with high unemployment rates, particularly among young people and those in rural areas. Hosting the Olympics would do little to address these underlying issues. Instead of focusing on short-term job creation through the Olympics, India could invest in initiatives that promote long-term, sustainable employment growth, such as skills training programs, entrepreneurship initiatives, and infrastructure development projects that are designed to benefit the broader population over the long term.

Alternatives to Hosting the Olympics: Soft Power, Tourism, and Business

In the race to bolster international prestige, hosting an event as grand as the Olympics can seem like a tempting prospect. However, the financial and logistical risks involved often outweigh the potential rewards. For a country like India, where economic disparities and infrastructural gaps remain significant, investing in more sustainable, long-term strategies to enhance its global image and economic strength is a more prudent path. These strategies can take the form of leveraging soft power, developing sustainable tourism, and improving the ease of doing business. Such approaches can offer more lasting and meaningful benefits than hosting a one-time event like the Olympics.

Soft Power as a Better Investment

Soft power—the ability to influence global affairs through cultural, diplomatic, and economic means—is an effective tool for nations seeking to increase their influence without the hefty financial burden of hosting international events. Countries like South Korea and Japan have demonstrated how strategic investments in soft power can boost global recognition and improve international relations. These nations have cultivated global followings in areas like culture, technology, and education, which, in turn, have bolstered their economies and international standing.

South Korea, for instance, has successfully built its global influence through the Hallyu wave, which encompasses its pop culture exports such as K-pop, K-dramas, and films. By investing in its entertainment industry, South Korea has not only improved its cultural clout but has also attracted millions of tourists and fans worldwide, creating a long-lasting economic and diplomatic impact. Similarly, Japan has harnessed its rich cultural heritage and technological advancements to create a significant global presence, particularly through anime, manga, and its technology sector.

India, too, has the potential to enhance its global standing through its rich cultural and technological heritage. With Bollywood, classical music, dance, literature, and spiritual tourism, India possesses an abundance of cultural assets that can be leveraged to increase soft power. Instead of pouring billions into hosting an event like the Olympics, which may provide only short-term attention, India could focus on boosting its global cultural exports, expanding international partnerships, and fostering global academic exchanges. For instance, Indian cinema, with its diverse genres and storytelling, has already started making waves on international platforms, and this can be expanded to further promote India’s cultural influence.

Additionally, India’s growing technology sector offers a unique opportunity to enhance its soft power. The country is already known as a global hub for IT services, and further investment in technological innovation and education could cement India’s reputation as a leader in this field. By establishing international collaborations in science, technology, and innovation, India can strengthen its position on the global stage without the need for hosting extravagant international events.

Sustainable Tourism Growth

Tourism is often cited as one of the primary benefits of hosting the Olympics, with proponents arguing that the influx of visitors will create lasting economic gains. However, the reality is that the tourism boost from such an event is typically short-lived. Host cities may experience a spike in visitors during the games, but this often subsides quickly, leaving behind costly infrastructure and empty stadiums. A more sustainable approach to tourism would focus on enhancing India's long-standing attractions, such as its rich history, cultural heritage, and natural beauty.

India has immense potential to grow its tourism sector by promoting its historical landmarks, spiritual destinations, and natural wonders. Rather than relying on a one-time event to attract tourists, India could focus on developing cultural tourism and heritage tourism. For example, India is home to several UNESCO World Heritage sites, such as the Taj Mahal, Jaipur’s Pink City, and the Ajanta and Ellora caves. With better infrastructure, safety measures, and international marketing, these attractions could draw visitors year-round, offering a far more sustainable source of tourism revenue than the Olympics ever could.

A powerful example of leveraging culture for tourism growth is South Korea's K-pop phenomenon, which has significantly boosted tourism. K-pop concerts, fan events, and tours of locations featured in popular K-dramas have drawn millions of international visitors to South Korea. India could adopt a similar strategy by promoting its own cultural assets, such as Bollywood, classical art forms, and traditional festivals, to appeal to global audiences.

Japan provides another instructive case. The country has successfully promoted anime, traditional culture, and modern attractions to build a unique tourism identity. Rather than focusing on a single event, Japan has consistently marketed itself as a blend of tradition and modernity, attracting visitors interested in everything from ancient temples to high-tech cities. India could emulate this model by enhancing its own tourism infrastructure and focusing on niche tourism markets such as wellness, yoga, ecotourism, and culinary tourism.

Ease of Doing Business: A Long-Term Investment in Economic Growth

While hosting the Olympics may bring short-term attention to a country, attracting sustainable foreign investment requires long-term reforms. One of the most effective ways to attract international businesses and investors is by improving the ease of doing business. Countries that make it easier for companies to operate, by reducing bureaucratic hurdles, improving legal frameworks, and providing stable infrastructure, can attract long-term investments that contribute to economic growth far more effectively than any single event.

India has made progress in recent years, rising in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings, but there are still significant challenges. Issues such as regulatory uncertainty, inconsistent tax policies, and infrastructure bottlenecks remain barriers to business growth. Rather than spending billions on the Olympics, India could focus on addressing these structural issues, which would create a more attractive environment for investors and companies looking to establish operations in the country.

Take, for example, Singapore and Hong Kong—two countries that have built their economies on being business-friendly environments. By offering stable governance, clear regulations, and efficient infrastructure, they have managed to attract global businesses and investors. India could follow a similar path by continuing to simplify its tax system, improving its logistics and transportation networks, and offering incentives for foreign direct investment (FDI).

Improving the ease of doing business also has a multiplier effect, as it encourages entrepreneurship and the growth of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). These businesses are the backbone of the economy and are more likely to create long-term, sustainable jobs than the temporary employment boost provided by hosting the Olympics. By fostering a business-friendly environment, India can build a robust economy that is better equipped to handle the challenges of globalization and technological disruption.

.    .    .

References:

1. Olympic Economic Impact and Cost Overruns - Zimbalist, A. (2015). Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Brookings Institution Press.
2. Infrastructure Challenges Post-Olympics - Flyvbjerg, B., Stewart, A., & Budzier, A. (2016). "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost
3. Security and Terrorism Risks in Hosting Global Events - Toohey, K. (2008). "Terrorism, Security, and the Olympic Games." Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 32(1), 99-119.
4. Economic Fragility and Opportunity Costs for India - Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions. Princeton University Press.
5. Tourism and Employment Myths - Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (2016). "Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 201-218.
6. India’s Employment Landscape - Mehrotra, S., & Parida, J. K. (2019). "India’s Employment Crisis: Rising Education Levels and Falling Non-agricultural Job Growth." The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 62(2), 151-173.
7. Environmental and Social Costs of Hosting the Olympics - Gaffney, C. (2013). "From White Elephants to White Tigers: Stadiums and Urban Development in South Africa and Brazil." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1124-1141.