Thinking out of the (Olympic) box: is it time to reconsider permanent hosting for sustainable Olympics? A conceptual review

Final Revised AbstractThe modern Olympic Games confront a sustainability crisis that a half-century of incremental reforms has failed to resolve. This conceptual paper questions the entrenched “business-as-usual” logic of rotational Olympic hosting—a model established over a century ago under vastly different economic and environmental realities—and invites academic and policy communities to reconsider structural alternatives. Drawing on Rittel and Webber’s (1973) framework, we characterize Olympic sustainability as a “wicked problem” whose complexity, stakeholder pluralism, and structural contradictions resist incremental solutions. Empirical evidence reveals systematic patterns: every Olympic Games since 1968 has exceeded its original budget, sustainability performance has declined rather than improved over recent decades, and the rapid post-Games dissolution of organizing committees creates governance gaps that systematically undermine legacy delivery. We argue these persistent failures stem from a “construction imperative” inherent to rotation: cyclical mega-infrastructure development generates predictable economic dysfunction, environmental degradation, and “white elephant” venues regardless of host city competence or reform initiatives. This conceptual review explores permanent or semi-permanent hosting as a transformative structural alternative that could eliminate redundant construction, redirect resources toward global athlete development, and transform venues into year-round high-performance hubs accessible to all nations. By examining historical precedents—including Greece’s 1980 Karamanlis Plan for an extraterritorial Olympic territory—and engaging counter-arguments regarding equity and feasibility, we demonstrate that reconsidering the rotational model is not a radical departure from tradition. Instead, this analysis serves as a timely catalyst for the global sports community to “think out of the box” and evaluate alternative structural configurations that might better safeguard the Olympic ideal for future generations.