中國在近五年內三度拒絕國際奧委會提出的「承辦夏季奧運會」邀請。拒絕的原因並非出於不願爭取國際形象，而是出於財政與實際運營的考量。舉辦奧運會固然能夠在短期內提升國家知名度與城市形象，但其後續的維護與營運成本，往往成為沉重的負擔，許多過往的例子早已證明這一點。

以北京為例，2008年奧運會後，象徵性的「鳥巢」體育館每年的維護費就高達七千萬人民幣，而這還只是單一場館的支出。緊鄰鳥巢的「水立方」，後續為提高利用率，投入約兩億人民幣進行改裝，將其變為大型溫泉度假村。然而，這些資金的來源卻引發爭議，有聲音指出部分經費來自醫保與養老基金，令不少民眾質疑這種大型體育基礎設施投資是否與公共民生優先順序相衝突。

類似的財政壓力並非中國獨有。2024年巴黎奧運會的安保預算就超支23億歐元，而2004年雅典奧運更是成為經典反面教材——奧運結束後，大量場館長期閒置，成為雜草叢生的廢墟。早在1976年，蒙特婁奧運也曾讓加拿大背上沉重債務，當時建設與營運費用大幅超出原定預算，最終花長達30年才清償完債務。1988年的漢城奧運（今首爾）同樣面臨後續場館利用不足、維護成本過高的困境，即使當年賽事本身帶來短期經濟效益，卻在之後成為公共財政的長期負擔。

這些實例使得許多城市對奧運主辦權的態度趨於謹慎。中國社會輿論中，越來越多的民眾傾向於先解決醫療、養老等核心民生問題，再去考慮是否承辦這類巨額投入的國際賽事。新聞中甚至提到，如果國際奧委會希望中國接下奧運會，那麼應該先提供約5000億美元的預算，並且在賽後對場館利用有明確規劃，避免它們淪為閒置或荒廢的「城市負擔」。

總體而言，這反映出奧運會在全球的形象正在轉變：它不再只是「榮耀的象徵」或「國際舞台的亮相機會」，而被越來越多國家視為一個必須精打細算、確保長遠回報的大型投資項目。辦奧運不應再停留在口號與形象工程，而需要一份清楚透明的帳本與可持續的營運策略，否則就可能步上蒙特婁、雅典與其他城市的後塵。

Over the past five years, China has turned down the International Olympic Committee’s invitation to host the Summer Olympic Games three times. The rejection was not due to an unwillingness to enhance its international image, but rather out of financial and practical operational considerations. While hosting the Olympics can indeed boost a country’s visibility and a city’s image in the short term, the subsequent maintenance and operational costs often become a heavy burden, as many past examples have already proven.

Take Beijing as an example. After the 2008 Olympics, the iconic “Bird’s Nest” stadium required annual maintenance costs of up to 70 million RMB, and that was just for a single venue. Nearby, the “Water Cube” underwent a renovation costing about 200 million RMB to transform it into a large-scale hot spring resort in order to increase its utilization rate. However, the source of these funds sparked controversy, with some alleging that part of the budget came from medical insurance and pension funds. This led many citizens to question whether such large-scale sports infrastructure investments were in conflict with the priority of addressing public livelihood needs.

Such financial pressures are not unique to China. The 2024 Paris Olympics’ security budget alone exceeded estimates by 2.3 billion euros, and the 2004 Athens Olympics has become a classic cautionary tale—after the Games ended, many venues were left unused for years, eventually turning into overgrown ruins. As far back as 1976, the Montreal Olympics saddled Canada with massive debt when construction and operational costs far exceeded the original budget, taking 30 years to pay off. Similarly, the 1988 Seoul Olympics faced challenges with underutilized venues and high maintenance costs. Even though the event itself brought short-term economic benefits, it ultimately became a long-term burden on public finances.

These examples have made many cities more cautious about bidding for the Olympics. In Chinese public discourse, more and more people believe that issues such as healthcare and pensions should be addressed before considering whether to host such costly international events. Some news reports have even suggested that if the International Olympic Committee wants China to take on the Games, it should first provide a budget of around USD 500 billion and present a clear post-Games plan for venue utilization to prevent them from becoming idle or abandoned “urban burdens.”

Overall, this reflects a shift in the global perception of the Olympic Games: they are no longer seen solely as “symbols of glory” or “opportunities to shine on the world stage,” but increasingly as large-scale investments that require careful calculation and assurances of long-term returns. Hosting the Olympics should no longer be about slogans and image projects, but should be backed by a clear, transparent budget and a sustainable operational strategy—otherwise, it risks repeating the fate of Montreal, Athens, and other cautionary examples.