The Mega-Event Syndrome: Why So Much Goes Wrong in Mega-Event Planning and What to Do About It

TLDR

Mega‑events such as the Olympic Games and the Football World Cup have become complex, transformative undertakings costing over USD $10 billion and are currently planned in ways that harm cities, regions, and residents. This study defines a mega‑event syndrome comprising overpromising benefits, underestimating costs, re‑prioritizing urban planning for the event, misusing public resources for private gain, and suspending the rule of law. The authors describe each symptom with empirical examples from 11 countries and 51 interviews, analyze underlying causes, and propose radical and incremental policy solutions. Key recommendations include decoupling mega‑events from large‑scale urban development, negotiating better conditions with governing bodies, capping public contributions, seeking independent cost‑benefit advice, and reducing event size and requirements.

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Mega-events such as the Olympic Games and the Football World Cup have become complex and transformative undertakings over the last 30 years, with costs often exceeding USD $10 billion. These events are currently planned and governed in ways that produce adverse effects for cities, regions, and residents. This study identifies a mega-event syndrome, a group of symptoms that occur together and afflict mega-event planning, including overpromising benefits, underestimating costs, rewriting urban planning priorities to fit the event, using public resources for private interest, and suspending the regular rule of law. I describe each of these symptoms, providing empirical examples from different countries and mega-events, examining the underlying causes. The research is based on material from field visits to mega-event sites in 11 countries as well as 51 interviews with planners, managers, politicians, and consultants involved in mega-event planning.Takeaway for practice: To curb the mega-event syndrome, I propose both radical and incremental policy suggestions. The most crucial radical change that an event host could make is to not tie mega-events to large-scale urban development, avoiding higher risks that create cost overruns, substandard construction quality, and oversized infrastructure not suitable for post-event demands. Further, event hosts should bargain with event-governing bodies for better conditions, earmark and cap public sector contributions, and seek independent advice on the costs and benefits of mega-events. Event-governing bodies, for their part, should reduce the size and requirements of the events.