Daily Mains Question - 7th June 2025

Welcome to your daily Mains Model Answer — designed to bridge the gap between current affairs and conceptual clarity, just the way UPSC tests in GS Papers. Today’s answer focuses on India’s bid to host the 2036 Olympic Games, a topic recently in the news and closely linked to key themes in International Relations, Economy, Infrastructure, and Public Health. With countries like Indonesia and Qatar also exploring Olympic bids, and global conversations around the sustainability of mega-events gaining ground, UPSC is likely to frame questions around their socioeconomic consequences, especially through the lens of India’s aspirations and developmental challenges.

Drawing on recent case studies — from Paris 2024 to London 2012 — this answer offers a critical assessment of whether the Olympics truly deliver long-term benefits, or if they risk becoming high-cost symbolic ventures. Use this to enrich your notes for GS Paper III (Economy and Infrastructure) and GS Paper II (Governance and Social Justice).

Click Here to read the Current Affairs Pointers (CAP) for January 2025- April 2025.

QUESTION

India’s bid to host the 2036 Olympic Games is frequently defended in terms of economic development, tourism, and public health initiatives. Drawing on worldwide experience, critically assess the long-term socioeconomic and health consequences of hosting major athletic events.

(15 Marks, 250 Words) 

Answer: India has expressed its intent to host the 2036 Olympic Games, positioning it as a transformative opportunity for the nation. Proponents argue that the event could catalyse economic development, boost tourism, and foster public health awareness through increased sports participation. While these goals are laudable, a critical analysis of global experiences reveals a complex picture involving high financial risks, uneven benefits, and mixed public health outcomes.

1. Socioeconomic Outcomes of Hosting the Olympics

(a) Economic Opportunities and Challenges

• Hosting the Olympics is often viewed as a means to stimulate infrastructure development, job creation, and foreign investment.

• However, global experiences suggest that the economic returns are often overstated and accompanied by significant cost overruns:

  • Beijing 2008: Estimated cost was $52 billion, a major portion of which went into infrastructure with limited post-event utility.

  • Athens 2004: Overran its budget massively, costing double the initial estimates, and contributing to Greece's later debt crisis.

  • Paris 2024: Estimated cost of $9.5 billion, with emphasis on legacy planning and sustainability.

(b) Risk of Underutilised Infrastructure

• The phenomenon of “white elephants”—expensive venues that fall into disuse post-Games—is common:

  • Rio 2016 and Athens 2004 both witnessed rapid deterioration of stadiums and sports complexes.

• These create long-term fiscal burdens without proportional public utility.

(c) Employment and Local Business Impact

1. While there is a temporary surge in employment during the preparation and conduct of the Games, these jobs are mostly non-permanent and low-wage.

2. Small and local businesses often struggle to compete with large corporations that dominate Olympic contracts.

2. Public Health and Wellbeing: Promise vs. Reality

(a) London 2012 Case Study

• A study in Social Science & Medicine involving over 19,000 citizens from London and Paris revealed that the health behaviour changes following the Olympics were short-lived.

• Although 69% of adults and 81% of children in post-Games surveys believed the event would inspire more physical activity, actual data showed negligible long-term impact.

• The healthcare savings of £4.2 million were overwhelmed by the £40 million spent on promoting grassroots activity — a net loss of £35.8 million.

(b) The Intangible "Feel-Good" Factor

• London 2012 was described by 65% of citizens as “a summer like no other,” reflecting a temporary uplift in national pride and community spirit.

• However, such intangible benefits are difficult to quantify and rarely translate into sustainable health gains.

(c) Health Infrastructure and Urban Design

• Some indirect benefits include improved urban infrastructure, such as better roads, public transport, and accessibility, which may positively impact public health over the long term.

• But these improvements depend heavily on post-Games policy continuity and inclusive urban planning.

While India's ambition to host the 2036 Olympics is rooted in aspirations of global leadership and national development, international evidence suggests that the long-term socioeconomic and health outcomes of hosting such mega-events are mixed at best. The high costs, risks of underutilised infrastructure, and uncertain public health benefits call for a realistic and evidence-based approach.

Any proposal to host the Games must be accompanied by:

• Transparent budgeting and fiscal accountability

• Sustainable infrastructure planning

• Long-term sports and health policy integration

• Community participation and equitable development strategies

Only then can the Olympics be a true catalyst for national transformation rather than a costly symbolic venture.

Previous Daily UPSC Mains Question

• 6th June 2025 – GS 2

Click for Daily Prelims MCQs

Click for Daily Quotes:

Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X.