Olympics for whom? Winners and losers of mega-events

The Summer Olympic Games is among the most-watched media events in the world. Occurring on a four year cycle, hosting the event usually brings wide-ranging transformations to the urban environment where it takes place. From the construction of new stadia and transport infrastructure to the impacts on public finances and security, these impacts are often claimed as positives by organisers, but criticized as damaging by protestors. So who is right?

This chapter will explore four different examples from four summer Olympics, making the case that benefits from hosting the Olympic Games tend to accrue to the already privileged, whereas damaging impacts tend to fall on the most marginalized. We can understand this phenomenon based on the French social theorist Henri Lefebvre’s concept of the right to the city. Heavily picked up by urban social movements, the right to the city is defined by David Harvey (2008) as “far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city” (p23). In particular, the right to the city emphasizes the role of residents and inhabitants in driving the development of urban space to suit their needs, as opposed to the needs of a transnational capitalist class.