Dr. Sven Daniel Wolfe
Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Fellow, ETH Zurich. He researches the (geo)politics and (un)sustainability of mega-events, and is the author of More Than Sport: Soft Power and Potemkinism and editor of the The Hard Edge of Soft Power.
Email: swolfe@ethz.ch
Website: sdwolfe.com
Sustainability has become a fundamental element of the Olympics, enshrined in the Charter, put into practice through organizational reform, and ultimately reshaping the planning and delivery of the Games. Paris 2024 is the first Olympics to be wholly planned under the auspices of the Agenda 2020 / New Norm reforms, with organizers framing ‘sustainability and legacy’ as key priorities. This has taken shape in a number of innovations designed to soften the deleterious impacts of hosting, notably by aligning the hosting of the Games with the longer-term development agenda of the city. These are important steps that should be supported and continued.
Yet, despite this progress towards more sustainable Games, problems and oversights persist – particularly for the most vulnerable in the host city. Writing from the epicenter of Olympic Paris, three things are immediately clear: First, there is a powerful atmosphere of celebration, unity, and social lightness that should not be discounted. Second, this atmosphere is exclusive and not available to all. And third, this spectacular celebration has the potential to mask or even exacerbate serious problems in French political and social life.
Despite longstanding debates in academic, policymaking, and business circles, there is little consensus about what sustainability actually means. The term is often employed as a floating signifier, conveying a variety of meanings to various audiences. For its part, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has moved away from a strictly environmental definition, and now also considers social and economic dimensions of the term. This fits with the policy directions of the United Nations and the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, despite this progress, our study found a steady decrease in Olympic sustainability from 1992–2020, measuring ecological, social, and economic dimensions. The IOC criticized our model, arguing for the inclusion of indicators that would show different–and presumably more favorable–results. This is fair criticism, not just of our work but of science in general. Our model is transparent and reproducible, but it is only a model; different models can of course show different results. Moreover, the criticism brings up questions both practical and philosophical: is this reliance on sustainability indicators good, and is it actually feasible to measure sustainability at all? In this light, perhaps it is worthwhile to move away from metrics and models, and instead explore qualitatively what has happened on the ground in Olympic Paris.
First, logistically and artistically, Paris 2024 is a triumph. The Games are spectacular in all senses of the word, for athletes and spectators alike. In ways that many critics perhaps do not want to hear, the Olympics are indeed extraordinary and special, and they touch many people very deeply. I do not think any estimation of the sustainability of the Games can be complete without taking this social value into account, even if it is ephemeral and difficult or impossible to measure.
At the same time, this is not the full story. A closer look reveals that this spectacular party is reserved for those with means. Tickets are prohibitively expensive for locals and in my month of (admittedly non-representative) asking, I have met very few Parisians who have bought tickets to an event. There are many who want to go–even some among activist communities–but none can afford it. The entire event is segregated and regulated according to hierarchies of wealth and privilege, in the city as well as the venues and fan zones. Moreover, there are significant disruptions to the conduct of daily life, especially just before the Opening Ceremonies but also continuing throughout the Games. While clearly the city must be secured, the overwhelming police and military presence continues to cause both anxiety and disruption for many, to say nothing of the arrests of activists. Here, as in Rio 2016, Pauschinger’s questions remain relevant: how much of this securitization is theater or camouflage? What practices and infrastructures will be left after the event? And most importantly, what is being secured here, and for whom?
Finally, it is vital to remember the wider context beyond the Games. These are temporary events embedded within existing socio-political and economic realities, and it is a mistake to analyze the Olympics without this context. France is currently suffering from the democratic deficits of President Macron, from the rise of the extreme right, and from deep racial and economic inequalities. The northern department of Seine-Saint-Denis, playing host to many Olympic events, is also home to some of the most marginalized populations in France. Organizers and supporters avow that investments tied to the Games will improve quality of life for many here. Yet those who spoke to me expressed their lack of faith in government at any level to provide anything better, and many are alienated not only from the event but also from participation in making their city and their lives. For them, these Olympics are a party that is taking place around them, and they do not trust matters to improve once this spectacular event has moved on.
By any reasonable definition, and despite the joy experienced by so many in the stadiums and the streets, this cannot be called sustainable.
