Could hosting the Olympic Games become a catalyst for Africa’s sporting development and urban transformation, or would the financial burden outweigh the benefits? South Africa’s decision to select Durban as its preferred city to bid for the 2036 or 2040 Olympic Games has opened a debate that extends beyond sporting ambition. If successful, the bid would bring the Olympics to Africa for the first time. Yet its prospects will depend not only on the International Olympic Committee (IOC), but also on whether South African taxpayers and residents believe the promised benefits justify the costs and risks.
SASCOC Acting President Lwandile Simelane confirmed that South Africa would pursue either the 2036 or 2040 Games, with Durban as its primary host city. The national government has backed the initiative following Cabinet approval of the exploratory phase, with Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie endorsing the process. SASCOC is scheduled to deliver virtual presentations to the IOC’s Future Host Commission in November 2026, followed by feasibility reviews concluding in March 2027. The final host election is expected in 2029.
READ ALSO: Dakar 2026: Youth Olympic Games Position Senegal as a West African Sports Hub
The proposal envisages a multi-city hosting model involving Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg, drawing on infrastructure developed for previous international events, particularly the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Durban’s Moses Mabhida Stadium is expected to serve as the Olympic Stadium. While using existing facilities could reduce construction costs, the model would require careful coordination of transport, event logistics and public investment across three major urban centres.
The financial implications, however, remain a central concern. Economist Dawie Roodt has warned that hosting the Games could cost as much as R500 billion, largely funded by taxpayers, and advised: “Don’t bid for the Olympics; it wouldn’t be a smart move.” Political analyst Rene Oosthuizen has also questioned whether South Africa could justify spending billions on Olympic prestige when many citizens continue to struggle with access to basic services.
The R500 billion estimate is a warning rather than an officially verified Olympic budget. Nevertheless, it highlights the need for transparent, independently assessed cost projections before the country makes irreversible financial commitments.
International experience reinforces these concerns. A University of Oxford study found that all 23 Olympic host cities examined exceeded their budgets, with Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo recording cost overruns of 352 per cent and 128 per cent, respectively. Thirteen cities experienced overruns exceeding 100 per cent of their original budgets. London 2012 cost approximately $14.6 billion, while Beijing 2008 cost roughly $42 billion. These figures illustrate a recurring challenge: Olympic costs can escalate substantially, while projected economic benefits do not always translate into equivalent financial returns.
Durban’s Olympic ambition is also shaped by its recent hosting history. The city was awarded the 2022 Commonwealth Games in 2015 but lost its hosting rights in 2017 after the Commonwealth Games Federation identified a “significant departure” from its bid commitments. Concerns included governance, venues, funding and risk management. South Africa’s then-Sports Minister, Fikile Mbalula, acknowledged the financial limitations, stating: “We gave it our best shot, but we can’t go beyond. If the country says we don’t have this money, we can’t.”
The Olympic proposal must therefore demonstrate what has changed in South Africa’s planning capacity, governance structures and financial oversight since the Commonwealth Games setback.
The country’s experience hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup offers both encouragement and caution. The tournament cost approximately $3.7 billion, significantly exceeding initial estimates as low as $295 million. While Roodt acknowledged that the event boosted national morale and long-term tourism, he also highlighted the challenge of maintaining facilities after major sporting events.
“There are so many stadiums standing empty, and we borrowed money for them,” he said.
Roodt argued that the Olympics are “much larger and cost significantly more,” adding that South Africa’s declining public confidence in government could make it difficult to recreate the cooperation and enthusiasm that accompanied the 2010 World Cup.
South Africa also faces competition from six other interested parties in the IOC’s Continuous Dialogue for the 2036 Games: Germany, Hungary, India, Qatar, the Republic of Korea and Türkiye. Following the October 31, 2026 deadline, no additional parties will be considered for the 2036 edition. The IOC is expected to shortlist candidates for Strategic Dialogue in March 2027, invite preferred hosts into Targeted Dialogue in December 2028 and elect the host in mid-2029. South Africa’s participation is significant, but selection remains far from guaranteed.
For Durban, the strongest legacy case would centre on infrastructure that addresses existing public needs. Reliable urban transport, improved public spaces, accessible sporting facilities and better-connected venues could deliver lasting value beyond the Games. Residents need transport systems that reduce commuting times, safer public spaces and community sports facilities that remain accessible after the international spotlight moves elsewhere.
These benefits must be measurable. Which transport routes will be developed? How many residents will benefit? Who will finance and maintain the infrastructure after the Games? Without clear answers, Olympic investment risks becoming a temporary spectacle rather than a meaningful development intervention.
An African Olympics could also accelerate investment in coaching, youth programmes, sports facilities and high-performance infrastructure. Yet hosting a successful event does not automatically create stronger sporting systems. South Africa would need a comprehensive plan to keep venues operational, make them affordable for schools and clubs, train coaches and technical personnel, and support competitions across the continent.
The greatest sporting legacy would be a stronger foundation for everyday participation and athlete development, rather than specialised facilities used intensively for a few weeks.
Durban’s selection as South Africa’s candidate presents Africa with an opportunity to pursue a historic first. An Olympic Games on the continent could raise Africa’s global profile and attract investment into infrastructure and sport. However, symbolism cannot replace a sound public-interest case. The bid should proceed only if independent assessments demonstrate affordability, alignment with public needs and transparent management of financial risks.
Ultimately, the measure of success will not be the scale of the opening ceremony. It will be whether residents gain useful infrastructure, lasting sporting opportunities and accountable use of public money, regardless of whether the Games ultimately come to Durban.
As Roodt asked: “The past 15 years have been a disaster. What are the chances that the next 15 will be any better?”
