Germany should host the Olympic Games

Published: April 2026

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

The question of whether Germany should host the Olympic Games arises regularly – currently in connection with possible bids from Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and the Rhine-Ruhr region. The German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) is at present examining which of these candidates it should put forward in the international competition for the 2036, 2040 or 2044 Games [Ref: DOSB].

Supporters see this as a unique opportunity for international visibility, investment in infrastructure and a renewed enthusiasm for sport. Martin Kessler of the Rheinische Post argues that Germany is well suited to host the Games: ‘Germans are a sports-loving nation, good organisers and welcoming hosts. At the same time, the country offers the assurance that such Games would not descend into gigantism, would remain environmentally sustainable and would present a friendly face to the world.’ [Ref: Das Parlament]

Critics, however, point to enormous costs. In fact, the financial scale of such mega-events is considerable: the Olympic Games in London 2012 cost around £9 billion. Economist Klaus Wohlrabe confirmed in an interview with the German Press Agency that Olympic Games are ‘still significantly more expensive… than originally estimated’. [Ref: Die Zeit]

In the context of tight public budgets, therefore, the question arises whether events of this scale are still appropriate. At the same time, many international sports organisations are seeking democratic host countries with stable infrastructure – an argument often made in favour of Germany.

The central question therefore is:

Should Germany host the Olympic Games today – or is the price too high?

THE OLYMPICS DEBATE IN CONTEXT

A waste of money or a force for regeneration?

Critics argue that the Olympic Games have become almost impossible to budget reliably. International experience shows that costs almost always rise significantly – often at the expense of taxpayers. An analysis by the University of Oxford found that almost all Olympic Games since 1960 have exceeded their budgets, on average by more than 150 per cent. More recent examples point in the same direction: for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, costs increased substantially over the course of planning compared to initial estimates.

Supporters, however, counter that a significant share of the costs is covered by revenues. The Olympic Games are financed not only through public funds, but also through ticket sales, international broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals and merchandising. The international TV rights for the 2021–2024 Olympic cycle alone generated $4.7 billion for the International Olympic Committee (IOC), part of which is distributed to host cities and sports federations, helping to finance the Games.

Critics respond that a considerable portion of expenditure still comes from public funds – particularly for infrastructure, security and urban development. This raises concerns about priorities: Is it justifiable to spend billions on a short-term event, while many municipalities struggle with housing shortages, ageing infrastructure and staff shortages?

Another criticism concerns the post-Games use of Olympic venues. Many former host cities have struggled to maintain large sports facilities in the long term, as seen in Athens 2004. The German magazine Focus noted that ‘the sports facilities, most of which were built especially for the Games, have now been left to decay. The pool in the Olympic Village resembles a rubbish dump.’ [Ref: Focus] In response, the IOC has introduced reforms such as the ‘Olympic Agenda 2020’, encouraging the use of existing or temporary venues and more flexible hosting models: For Los Angeles 2028, for example, ‘no new permanent structures will be built for the occasion – a first for any Summer Games since London 1948 – with organisers instead drawing on Southern California’s deep roster of world-class arenas, stadiums, and open watercourses’. [Ref. Olympics.com]

In addition, a central argument of supporters is the so-called ‘Olympic legacy’. The Games are not intended to be just a sporting event, but a catalyst for urban development: new transport links, additional housing and green spaces. A frequently cited example is London 2012, where large parts of a former industrial area in East London were transformed into a new district with parks, housing and sports facilities. Similarly, Paris 2024 placed a strong emphasis on urban development. Around €3.6 billion was invested in infrastructure projects, including transport improvements, housing and the renovation or construction of sports venues, including, for example, the extension of Metro Line 14.

This argument is also often made in the German context. Supporters believe that an Olympic bid could help bundle investments and accelerate their implementation. In a guest article in Der Tagesspiegel, Verena Pausder argued that a bid could be a major opportunity for Berlin. The Olympics could be ‘a driver of real change – if approached in the right way… The Games do not only mean costs, but also investments that would hardly come to Berlin on this scale without such a bid. Much of what is currently on long waiting lists could be implemented more quickly or made possible in the first place.’ [Ref: Tagesspiegel]

Critics, however, question whether such developments depend on hosting the Games at all. They argue that similar investments could be achieved more directly and with fewer risks. Concerns are also raised about gentrification and rising rents, potentially displacing existing residents. As Marie Frank wrote in taz, ‘once rents rise even further, it will become clear to everyone that the Olympics are not a good idea in a city already struggling with a housing crisis’. [Ref: taz]

The question therefore remains contested: Are the Olympic Games a financial risk – or an investment that can accelerate long-term development?

At a deeper level, the issue raises a broader question: Should major public spending always be judged primarily in economic terms – or are there cases where societies may choose to invest in projects for their wider cultural or social value?

Sport for all – or sport for show?

Another key argument in favour of the Olympics is their potential to promote sport more broadly: Supporters believe that elite athletes can inspire wider participation. As Isabel Bernstein and Joachim Mölter put it in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: ‘Where outstanding athletic performances are achieved and athletes become role models, enthusiasm grows among the population to take up sport themselves – especially among children and young people.’ [Ref: Süddeutsche Zeitung]

However, critics argue that structural problems often remain unresolved. In Germany, many sports clubs already face limited capacity, with a shortage of facilities, coaches and funding. According to the DOSB, thousands of sports halls are in need of renovation, and many clubs are unable to accept new members. MDR Aktuell reported that one in six sports clubs fears for its existence: ‘Too few volunteers and too little funding for the maintenance of sports facilities.’ [Ref: MDR Aktuell]

Marie Frank in taz expressed her scepticism as follows: ‘Even in sport itself, which is supposedly benefiting from the spectacle, the money does not go where it is needed: smaller, less prestigious facilities or swimming pools will continue to deteriorate, while elite sport is generously funded and the commercialisation of sport is further intensified.’ [Ref: taz]. There are positive examples, though. In Paris, around 80 smaller sports facilities were renovated as part of Olympic preparations and are now available for grassroots use.

The debate therefore raises a fundamental question of sports policy:

Can elite sport act as a driver for mass participation – or does it risk distracting from the underlying challenges facing grassroots sport?

THE SPIRIT OF THE OLYMPICS

Is it possible to view the Olympic Games simply as a sporting event – independent of economic or political considerations? For many supporters, this is precisely where the true value of the Games lies: The Olympics provide a stage for extraordinary achievements. As Oliver Fritsch wrote in Die Zeit, the Olympic Games have ‘an immeasurable value… they celebrate human talent… In this lies a value that remains immeasurable – perhaps greater than ever before.’ [Ref: Die Zeit]

In addition, the Olympic Games are considered one of the largest global sporting events, followed by billions of people on television and online. The Paris 2024 Olympic Games reached an estimated global audience of around five billion viewers. What makes the Olympics unique, supporters argue, is also the concentration of sporting excellence: within just a few weeks, dozens of world championships effectively take place at once, bringing together athletes from across disciplines in a single location. For sports enthusiasts, this creates a rare and intense atmosphere – a global ‘festival of sport’ that is difficult to replicate.

Smaller formats point in a similar direction. Multi-sport events such as the European Championships in Munich 2022 – a format featuring several European Championships held in a single location, including the European Athletics Championships – or formats like the annual Die Finals in Germany show how combining competitions across sports can create a special experience that goes beyond individual events. Marie Reichert, the 2024 Olympic champion in 3×3 basketball, was enthusiastic about it: ‘I was at Die Finals in Dresden recently and I was absolutely thrilled. Seeing how many people were there and what a positive atmosphere there was reminded me a bit of Paris. It really makes you want more’, said Reichert. [Ref: ARD Sportschau] The Olympic Games represent this idea on a global scale.

Therefore, it is argued that events such as the Olympic Games cannot be reduced to cost-benefit calculations. They can inspire individuals, create shared experiences, and foster a sense of collective belonging. The experience of London 2012 is often cited in this context. Millions of people lined the streets across the UK to watch the Olympic torch relay, and tens of thousands volunteered. For many, the Games were not just something to watch, but something to be part of.

Citizens may identify not only with athletes, but with the role of their country as host. In Germany, the 2006 Football World Cup is often remembered as a moment of collective enthusiasm and openness, when large parts of the population actively participated in a shared national experience. Supporters argue that the Olympic Games could create similar moments of connection and common purpose like the ‘Sommermärchen’ 20 years ago: ‘I realised just how much happiness and fond memories people associated with the summer of 2006 whenever I mentioned the book I was working on. Ah, 2006! Without fail, I’d be told a personal story from those weeks every single time’, said Roland Reng, when he presented his book about that legendary German summer to the public in 2026.

Hosting the Olympics also creates a unique international atmosphere. Visitors from all over the world gather in one place, similar to the experience of major football World Cups. During the Games, the participating National Olympic Committees often establish ‘national houses’ or cultural spaces, where countries present themselves through sport, culture and events, open to athletes and visitors alike.

For athletes themselves, the Olympic Village offers a rare opportunity to live and interact with competitors from around the world – an environment often described as one of the most distinctive and memorable aspects of the Games: ‘It’s what makes the Olympics special’, said Spanish handball player Jennifer Gutiérrez. ‘The opportunity to be here all together, living, sharing experiences with athletes from other sports and countries – it’s the best part of the Olympics.’ [Ref: Olympics.com]

But critics might argue that behind this ‘feelgood factor’, the general condition of an Olympic city – and the wider country – may be poorer for devoting so many resources to one event. If people can’t afford housing because not enough is being built or they can’t get around because wider infrastructure is disintegrating, the upshot may be a ‘feelbad factor’ that doesn’t attract as much attention because it is more gradual.

Moreover, there is no need to host an Olympic Games – or to be in the stadium – in order to celebrate human or national achievement. The ‘feelgood factor’ can come simply from watching your country’s competitors succeed on television. In this regard, Germany came a disappointing tenth in the Paris 2024 medals table, with far fewer medals (33) than its athletes won at Barcelona 1992 (82), Athens 2004 (49) or Rio de Janeiro 2016 (42). For much less than it would cost to host the Games, Germany could spend more on grassroots and elite sport to boost Team D’s medals tally.

Ultimately, the debate points to a deeper question:

Should societies invest in events like the Olympic Games simply because they bring people together and celebrate sporting performance and human excellence?

ESSENTIAL READING