So the announcement of Egypt’s ambitious bid to stage the summer games in 2036 or 2040 represents not just the country’s aspirations but potentially a watershed moment for the continent.

The bid is backed by African Olympics boss Mustapha Berraf and will hope to build on the momentum of the Youth Olympic Games being hosted by Senegal in 2026.

Egypt’s announcement comes at a time of significant change in the Olympic bidding process.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted a new strategy with its Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2020+5 guidelines. These aim to make bidding and hosting more sustainable, flexible, and accessible to a wider range of countries.

Awarding the games to an African nation would expand the Olympic footprint, pave the way for more diverse hosts in future and mark a historic moment for the continent.

However, a crucial question remains: is hosting the Olympics truly worth it for Egypt or any African nation?

As a scholar of sport mega-events, their bids and their impacts, here I weigh up the pros and cons of an African bid and what factors will shape its success.

Africa’s Olympic bids

Africa’s journey to host the Olympics has been marked by ambitious bids and near misses. Egypt has made three previous attempts – in 1916, 1936 and 2008. The most notable bid came from South Africa, for the 2004 games. Despite making it to the final three candidates, Cape Town ultimately lost to Athens.

This highlighted the challenges facing African nations in the bidding process of the time. African bids have faced hurdles ranging from infrastructure and security concerns to questions about financial capacity and political stability.

The failure of African bids has led to discussions about both the fairness of the selection process and the readiness of African nations.

A regional race

Several Middle Eastern countries are also vying to host. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have all expressed interest.

Turkey, having bid several times, brings experience, government support and a strategic location bridging Europe and Asia. Challenges have related to security and transport infrastructure.

Qatar, fresh from hosting the 2022 men’s football World Cup, has invested heavily in sport infrastructure and has been in dialogue with the IOC for some time.

Saudi Arabia has ambitious mega-event plans with a strong focus on sports. However, the country may face scrutiny for “sportswashing” (using sport to deflect attention from reputation problems) and less experience.

The IOC’s emphasis on universality and sustainability could favour bids in these historically underrepresented regions.

Egypt’s strengths and weaknesses

Egypt brings several strengths to its bid:

• The country has experience in hosting major sporting events, including four editions of the Africa Cup of Nations and various World Championships. It will host the 2027 African Games.

• Its rich cultural heritage and historical significance could provide a unique backdrop that could appeal to the IOC’s desire for culturally diverse hosts.

• Egypt has integrated national development objectives in its Olympic ambition, for example by constructing an International Olympic City complex.

However, challenges remain:

• Egypt, like many African nations, faces economic constraints and infrastructure challenges. It would need to demonstrate its ability to handle the massive financial investment required, estimated at US$10-billion to US$50-billion.

• Concerns about political stability and human rights issues could pose further obstacles.

Benefits of hosting

The decision to host the Olympic Games is a complex one, especially for developing nations like Egypt. There can be benefits:

• The Olympics can serve as a catalyst for economic growth. It can attract tourists, create jobs and spur infrastructure development, stimulating various sectors of the economy with impacts that can last well beyond the event. Global exposure could also attract future investment and tourism.

• The development required for the games often results in improved transport networks, sport facilities and urban infrastructure. These can benefit hosts for decades to come.

• The focus on sport can have long-term benefits for public health and athletic development. It can elevate the country’s sporting prowess and be a vehicle for encouraging sport participation to enable healthier lifestyles.

• A successful event can be a powerful unifying force, boosting national morale and bringing diverse groups together.

Risks of hosting

Potential benefits must be weighed against the challenges and risks:

• Enormous financial risk has led to long-term debt for some host cities. This could be particularly acute for developing economies.

• There is also an opportunity cost: allocating resources to the Olympics may mean diverting funds from critical areas such as healthcare, education and poverty alleviation.

• There is a risk of creating “white elephants”. Previous Olympics have shown instances where costly venues have become financial burdens rather than assets to communities.

• Large-scale construction and an influx of visitors can have significant environmental impacts that need to be carefully mitigated.

Legacy planning

Success would require not just hosting a successful two-week event, but using it as a catalyst for lasting positive change in the lives of citizens. An event legacy framework tracks lasting effects of major sporting events. It encompasses key structural changes: urban development, environmental enhancement, policy and governance changes, intellectual property creation, and social and human development.

Human development involves skills, knowledge and networks acquired as a result of hosting. Skills development ranges from event management and security to hospitality and language proficiency. Knowledge acquisition spans sport management, media operations and cultural understanding. The games also allow for the creation of valuable networks among, for example, sport federations, media, and local governments.

These structural changes, particularly in human development, must be aligned with the host city’s long-term needs to optimise a positive legacy. It emphasises the IOC’s need for legacy planning from the bidding phase onwards.

But social costs must also be considered. For example, large-scale urban development can lead to the displacement of local communities. Event planning might distract from broader social planning.

Close integration with national development requirements can put the games at the service of the national agenda. Cape Town 2040, a think tank exploring the city’s potential to host the Olympics, has taken this approach and Egypt no doubt will too.

A young continent

Finally, for future Olympics, it’s crucial to consider shifting global demographics and their potential impact on the games’ universality. By 2050, the world’s population is expected to reach 9.8-billion, with the fastest growth occurring in Africa and Asia. In contrast, Europe’s population is projected to shrink.

This demographic shift has significant implications for the IOC. They may need to reconsider the Olympic programme to reflect these changes and maintain the games’ global appeal. This may require a different mix of sports to ensure the games’ universality and could potentially benefit Egypt’s bid.

For countries aspiring to host the games, the key will be to align their bids with the IOC’s new priorities. This means not only demonstrating technical and financial capability but also showcasing how hosting the games can leave a positive, sustainable legacy.

Written by Kamilla Swart, Associate professor, Hamad Bin Khalifa University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.