judges. The motion today is: “Is the Olympics still relevant?” I stand AGAINST. My answer is no. When we say an institution is “relevant,” we don’t just mean it still exists, or that people still watch the opening ceremony. We mean it delivers real, net-positive value to the world, and that it can adapt to the world it claims to serve. The Olympics fail that test. My case is simple. First, the Olympics are economically and socially unsustainable. Host cities spend billions—often two to four times their original budgets—on stadiums, infrastructure, and security. Tokyo 2020 cost over $13 billion, mostly public money. Paris 2024 cost over €8 billion. And what do cities get? White-elephant stadiums, debt, displacement of local communities, and environmental damage. That’s why cities like Boston, Hamburg, Rome, and Calgary have withdrawn their bids after public backlash. When the very communities asked to host the Games keep saying no, that’s not relevance. That’s rejection. Second, the Olympics are morally compromised. Doping scandals, corruption, and political manipulation have destroyed their credibility. The Russian state-sponsored doping scheme, IOC corruption scandals, and the endless fights over who gets to compete under what flag have turned the Games into a stage for politics and cheating, not fair sport. If the integrity of the competition is constantly in question, its relevance is constantly in question. Third, the world has moved on. Athletes now have alternative platforms—world championships, professional leagues, social media—to build a following and make a living. Fans have alternative events. And the climate crisis makes the Olympics’ model of global travel and mega-construction indefensible. We don’t need a single, bloated, every-four-years spectacle to celebrate sport. So I’ll be arguing that the Olympics are not a relevant force for good anymore. They are a costly relic that the world is increasingly refusing to pay for. Thank you.

My opponent is trying to rebrand the Olympics as a climate champion. But let's look at the data, not the marketing. First, that "carbon budget" is a moving goalpost. You cite the 1.58 million tonne target, but what you didn't mention is that organizers quietly dropped the hard cap on those emissions. The experts at Lausanne University noted that "without a quantified goal, there is no verifiable obligation." In fact, Paris 2024 could emit up to 1.95 million tonnes and still claim success—an increase of over 20% from their original, highly-publicized target. That's not climate leadership. That's goalpost-moving. Second, the "green" Games are still built on greenwashing. Jules Boykoff's analysis in Capitalism Nature Socialism found that "although these Games adopted some significant environmental policies and practices, they fell far short of staging a sustainable event." The IOC itself has been criticized for a "significant gap between the IOC's rhetoric and the reality on the ground," leading to "credible charges of greenwashing." A policy review in Frontiers concluded that the IOC's sustainability agenda has a "tendency toward ambiguity and contradiction that engenders the likelihood of unintended consequences including greenwashing." Third, carbon offsets don't make the Games sustainable. The main tool they're using to claim "positive climate impact" is the purchase of carbon credits. But as Carbon Market Watch points out, these credits should "never be used to 'compensate for emissions.'" The NGO's verdict is clear: the Games' climate strategy is "incomplete and falls short of achieving transparency," with "no detailed methodologies" provided. The carbon footprint "remains too high to be sustainable." Fourth, and most importantly, the money tells the real story. The Paris Olympics cost the French state €6.6 billion—up from an initial estimate of €5.9 billion. The national audit body found the economic impact was "modest at this stage" and "relatively limited in the short term." So we have billions in public money, a vague carbon budget, and a "green" label based on offsets. That's not relevance. That's a very expensive PR campaign. And the world is noticing. Voters in Hamburg, Munich, and countless other cities have rejected Olympic bids in referendums, citing cost and environmental concerns. When the people who are asked to pay the bill keep saying no, that's not relevance—that's rejection. So let's be clear: the Olympics aren't a climate solution. They're a climate liability with a green logo. A platform that size doesn't need to be saved to fight climate change—it needs to stop pretending it's the vehicle for it.

My opponent just called the Olympics the "biggest forcing function for green urban upgrades we've got." That sounds impressive, but it's a myth. The only thing the Olympics reliably force is broken promises and unpaid bills. First, the "climate requirements" aren't fixing the model—they're being abandoned. They point to the IOC's new rules as proof of progress, but those rules are already being gutted. Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the world's first "climate-positive" Games, legally bound by contract. But in December 2023, the IOC quietly downgraded that commitment, replacing "climate-positive" with weaker terminology. As independent researchers confirmed, "that commitment has quietly been abandoned" and the Games are at risk of "reverting to business as usual". The IOC's own response was simply that it "took the decision to no longer use the term 'climate-positive'". So much for a binding forcing function. Second, Paris's "green" Games dropped the one metric that mattered. They tout the 1.58 million tonne carbon budget. But organizers abandoned that hard cap before the Games even began. As Martin Muller from Lausanne University explained, "the quantified target... has been abandoned... Without a quantified goal, there is no verifiable obligation". Paris 2024 could emit up to 1.95 million tonnes—a 23% increase over the original target—and still claim success. That's not climate leadership. That's moving the goalposts. Third, these "long-lasting upgrades" come with a price tag that host cities are refusing to pay. The French national audit body found the Paris Olympics cost the state €6.6 billion, up from an initial €5.9 billion estimate, with the economic impact "modest at this stage" and "relatively limited in the short term". And they didn't even forecast a €2 billion security bill. Worse, the permanent venues often become white elephants—abandoned, costly infrastructure. Academic research shows 16.2% of permanent Summer Olympic facilities become white elephants, a figure that only drops to 11.5% for the 21st century. That's not a green legacy. That's a debt trap. And the world sees it. My opponent says the old model failed, but 11 successive cities have voted "no" in referendums on hosting the Games. Hamburg voters rejected a bid where over 75% of the $12.6 billion cost would fall on taxpayers. Calgary voters rejected a $5 billion CAD proposal. When the people who are asked to pay the bill keep saying no, that's not a "forcing function"—that's a rejection. So let's be clear. The Olympics aren't a climate solution. They're a high-cost, high-emission spectacle that makes promises it doesn't keep, builds infrastructure it doesn't need, and leaves taxpayers holding the bill. The "green upgrades" they supposedly force are either abandoned, downgraded, or turned into white elephants. That's not relevance. That's a liability.

My opponent has now conceded that the carbon budget was weak, the offset reliance is greenwashing, and the rules need to be stronger. So let's be clear about what's left of their case: the Olympics are a flawed, greenwashing machine, but we should keep them because they're the only lever we've got. That's not an argument for relevance. That's an argument for Stockholm syndrome. First, the "lever" is already breaking. They say the referendums rejected the old model, not the idea of hosting. But Hamburg's 2026 referendum just failed—54.92% voted no, and the bid was cancelled. Berliners were polled at 67% against hosting. These aren't voters rejecting "build-big" and embracing a green alternative. They're rejecting the Olympics, period. If the leverage were real, cities would be lining up to use it. They're not. They're running away. Second, what does the "lever" actually produce? White elephants and debt. Academic research from the Olympic Studies Centre finds that 16.2% of permanent Summer Olympic facilities become white elephants—costly infrastructure abandoned after the event. That drops to 11.5% for the 21st century, but it's still a one-in-nine failure rate on permanent venues. And the Paris Games—their showcase—cost the French state €6.6 billion, up from an initial €5.9 billion estimate, with a security bill they failed to forecast and an economic impact the national audit body called "modest at this stage" and "relatively limited in the short term." That's not leverage. That's a bill. Third, the "forcing function" doesn't force anything enforceable. The research is clear: despite the IOC's sustainability initiatives since the 1990s, results have been "limited," with environmental scores declining over time. These policies "remain recommendations rather than obligations," leading to "accusations of greenwashing and unmet commitments." Brisbane 2032—their supposed proof of progress—had its legally binding "climate-positive" commitment quietly abandoned before a single venue was built. A lever that isn't binding isn't a lever. It's a suggestion. Fourth, and most importantly, we don't need the Olympics to force green urban upgrades. The world already has the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, the Global Covenant of Mayors, the Urban Transitions Mission, and NetZeroCities—networks specifically designed to coordinate and accelerate sustainable urban infrastructure across hundreds of cities. These platforms don't require a two-week sporting spectacle to function. They don't cost billions in public money. And they don't leave white elephants behind. The choice isn't between the Olympics and nothing. It's between a bloated, failing mega-event and actual, efficient mechanisms that already exist. So here's the bottom line. My opponent has conceded the greenwashing. They've conceded the weak rules. All they have left is the claim that we can't do better. But we can. We already are. The Olympics aren't the biggest lever for green upgrades. They're a costly, corrupt, and increasingly rejected relic that's trying to rebrand itself as a climate solution. That's not relevance. That's desperation.

My opponent's entire case now rests on one claim: the Olympics are the "biggest lever" for green urban upgrades. Let's test that lever. First, the lever isn't binding. The IOC's sustainability policies "remain recommendations rather than obligations," and research shows environmental scores have been "declining over time." A policy review in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living found the IOC's agenda has "a tendency toward ambiguity and contradiction that engenders the likelihood of unintended consequences including greenwashing," and needs "more explicit commitment and accountability." A lever that isn't enforceable isn't a lever. It's a suggestion. Second, the lever is being rejected by the very cities it's supposed to help. Hamburg voters rejected the Olympics for the second time in a decade—55% voted no in the latest referendum, following a 51.4% rejection in 2015. The bid was withdrawn. Berlin didn't even hold a vote. If the Olympics were the "biggest lever" for urban upgrades, cities would be fighting to use it. They're not. They're running away. Third, the "leverage" produces white elephants, not green infrastructure. Academic research from the Olympic Studies Centre finds that 16.2% of permanent Summer Olympic facilities become "costly infrastructures that are abandoned after the event." That drops to 11.5% for the 21st century, but it's still a one-in-nine failure rate. A lever that leaves behind abandoned stadiums isn't leverage. It's a liability. Fourth, the world already has better levers. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the Global Covenant of Mayors now coordinate over 14,000 cities across 150 countries, representing 1.3 billion people. They don't require a two-week sporting spectacle to function. They don't cost billions in public money. And they don't leave white elephants behind. The C40-GCoM partnership is specifically designed to "facilitate collaboration between cities and businesses" to "achieve more emission reductions and growth in the green economy than either sector could accomplish alone." That's a real forcing function—not a non-binding recommendation wrapped in a sporting event. Fifth, the "unaccountable world championships" claim is a strawman. My opponent warns that scrapping the Olympics would scatter mega-events into "unaccountable world championships and private tours with zero climate conditions." That's false. World Athletics has published a sustainability plan for the Tokyo 2025 World Championships, with targets for "Climate Change and Carbon" and "certified renewable" electricity. Other events are developing standards too. The choice isn't between the Olympics and nothing. It's between a bloated, failing, greenwashing mega-event and a range of events and networks that are already doing the work—without the white elephants and the broken promises. So here's the bottom line. My opponent has conceded the greenwashing. They've conceded the weak rules. All they have left is the claim that we can't do better. But we can. We already are. The Olympics aren't the biggest lever for green upgrades. They're a costly, corrupt, and increasingly rejected relic that's trying to rebrand itself as a climate solution. That's not relevance. That's desperation.

My opponent has now staked everything on one word: leverage. They say the Olympics are the "biggest lever" for green urban upgrades. Let's test that lever. First, viewership is not leverage. They cite 5 billion people engaging with Paris 2024. But watching is not forcing. A viewer in Manila doesn't build a transit line in Paris. The C40 network connects 97 of the world's largest cities—representing 920 million people and 23% of the global economy. The Global Covenant of Mayors adds 7,100+ cities and 600 million people. These networks don't just get watched—they commit to binding climate action plans, report progress, and are held to performance standards. Three-quarters of C40 cities are cutting emissions faster than their national governments. They've delivered 1,200+ transformative climate policies and cut per capita emissions by 7.5% (2015–2024). That's actual leverage. The Olympics give you a global audience for two weeks. The C40 network gives you measurable, year-round, enforceable action across hundreds of cities. Second, the "forcing function" doesn't force anything. My opponent admitted Brisbane's climate-positive pledge was "watered down." But it wasn't just watered down—it was quietly abandoned. Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the first Games contractually required to be climate-positive. That commitment has been "downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration," and a new stadium was announced in "direct violation of the host contract." Research confirms the IOC's sustainability policies "remain recommendations rather than obligations," with environmental scores declining over time. A lever that isn't binding isn't a lever. It's a suggestion. And suggestions don't build transit lines. Third, Paris's 95% existing venues wasn't an IOC mandate—it was Paris's choice. My opponent credits the IOC's tightened requirements for Paris's low-construction model. But Los Angeles 2028 is doing the same thing—without building a single new permanent venue—and nobody credits a new IOC rule. Cities are choosing reuse because it's cheaper and smarter, not because the IOC forced them. The "leverage" is a post-hoc rationalization. Fourth, the real trade isn't "Olympics vs. nothing." My opponent warns that scrapping the Games would scatter mega-events into "unaccountable world championships." That's a strawman. World Athletics has published a sustainability plan for Tokyo 2025. The choice isn't between the Olympics and chaos. It's between a bloated, greenwashing mega-event and a range of existing networks, events, and city coalitions that already do the work—without the white elephants and the broken promises. So here's the bottom line. You've conceded the greenwashing. You've conceded the non-binding rules. You've conceded Brisbane's failure. All you have left is a word: leverage. But leverage isn't a slogan. It's enforceable commitments, accountable institutions, and measurable outcomes. The Olympics don't have those. The C40 network does. And that's why the Olympics aren't relevant anymore. They're a spectacle that occasionally does some good, at enormous cost, with no guarantee that the good will happen. That's not relevance. That's a gamble we can't afford.

My opponent has now staked everything on one word: leverage. They say the Olympics are the "biggest lever" for green urban upgrades—the only hard deadline that forces a transit line out of committee. Let's test that lever one final time. First, the lever is broken. They cite Paris's 95% existing venues as proof the model works. But Paris 2024's climate strategy was rated "incomplete" by Carbon Market Watch, with the NGO concluding the carbon footprint "remains too high to be sustainable." The IOC's sustainability policies "remain recommendations rather than obligations," and research confirms environmental scores have been declining over time. A lever that isn't binding isn't a lever. It's a suggestion. And suggestions don't build transit lines. Second, the lever is being rejected by the very cities it's supposed to help. They say Hamburg's "no" was about the old model. But Hamburg voted 54.9% against the bid in 2026—a clearer rejection than 2015's 51.6%. And it wasn't about stadiums. It was about the money. The referendum failed "an der Geldfrage"—on the question of cost. The opposition cut across all seven districts. This wasn't a vote against "build-big." It was a vote against the Olympics, period. If the Olympics were the "biggest lever" for urban upgrades, cities would be fighting to use it. They're not. They're running away. Third, the lever produces white elephants, not green infrastructure. They dismiss the 16.2% white elephant figure as "the old model." But the data comes from the Olympic Studies Centre's 2022 study—and even for the 21st century, the rate is still 11.5% for Summer Games. That's one in nine permanent venues abandoned after the event. A lever that leaves behind abandoned stadiums isn't leverage. It's a liability. Fourth, the "forcing function" doesn't force anything enforceable. They admitted Brisbane's climate-positive pledge was "watered down." But it wasn't just watered down—it was quietly abandoned. On December 7, 2023, the IOC initiated an addendum to the host contract that "effectively downgraded the games' sustainability obligations." All references to "climate-positive" were replaced with weaker terminology. The move was "not publicly announced." This fits "a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time." A lever that gets abandoned before it's even used isn't a lever. It's a broken promise. Fifth, the world already has better levers. My opponent says C40 and the Covenant of Mayors run on "voluntary pledges." But the C40 network represents 97 cities, 920 million people, and 23% of the global economy. Three-quarters of C40 cities are cutting emissions faster than their national governments. They've delivered 1,200+ transformative climate policies and cut per capita emissions by 7.5% (2015–2024). That's measurable, year-round, enforceable action—not a two-week spectacle with a non-binding carbon budget. Sixth, the "unaccountable world championships" claim is a strawman. World Athletics has published a sustainability plan for Tokyo 2025. The choice isn't between the Olympics and chaos. It's between a bloated, greenwashing mega-event and a range of events, networks, and city coalitions that already do the work—without the white elephants and the broken promises. So here's the bottom line. You've conceded the greenwashing. You've conceded the non-binding rules. You've conceded Brisbane's failure. You've conceded that the old model is broken and the new one isn't fixing it fast enough. All you have left is a word: leverage. But leverage isn't a slogan. It's enforceable commitments, accountable institutions, and measurable outcomes. The Olympics don't have those. The C40 network does. And that's why the Olympics aren't relevant anymore. They're a spectacle that occasionally does some good, at enormous cost, with no guarantee that the good will happen. That's not relevance. That's a gamble we can't afford.