Olympic host locations are chosen by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) through a structured, multi-year process that balances sports needs, politics, money, and long‑term legacy for the region.

How it works in a nutshell

  • Cities (through their national Olympic committees) first express interest in hosting a future Games.
  • The IOC then works with them in staged “dialogues” to test ideas, budgets, venues, and public support.
  • After detailed evaluation, IOC members vote to choose the host from one or more shortlisted “preferred” candidates.

Old system vs new system

The traditional bidding era (roughly pre‑2019)

Historically, cities ran big competitive bids for a specific year (for example “2024 Olympics”), often spending heavily on campaigns and new infrastructure.

Typical steps:

  1. National nomination
    • A city is backed by its National Olympic Committee (NOC) and submits an application to the IOC.
  1. Applicant / candidate city phase
    • The IOC checked basics: venues, transport, security, accommodation, and finances.
 * If the city passed, it became a “Candidate City” and paid a fee (about 150,000 USD) to go into deeper evaluation.
  1. Evaluation and inspections
    • IOC Evaluation Commissions visited the city, inspected venues and plans, and scored them on many criteria (infrastructure, safety, media capacity, athlete experience, environment, etc.).
  1. Final presentation and vote
    • Candidate cities presented to the IOC Session, and IOC members then voted; the winner was normally announced about seven years before the Games.

This system produced impressive Games but also led to escalating costs and several cities dropping out due to public opposition and financial fears.

The reformed “dialogue” model (current approach)

To make the Games more sustainable and less risky for cities, the IOC redesigned the selection model into a more flexible, partnership‑based process.

There are now two main phases:

  1. Continuous Dialogue (informal, non‑binding)
    • Any city, region, or even multi‑country project can talk with the IOC’s Future Hosts Commission without tying itself to a specific year.
 * They explore:
   * How the Games could fit existing development plans.
   * Which venues already exist, what could be temporary, and what (if anything) truly needs to be built.

 * At this stage they’re called an “Interested Party.”
  1. Targeted Dialogue (formal, focused on one or more “preferred hosts”)
    • When the IOC sees strong potential, its Executive Board can invite one or more projects into Targeted Dialogue as “Preferred Hosts.”
 * The project answers a detailed Future Host Questionnaire and provides guarantees on:
   * Venues and competition infrastructure.
   * Accommodation capacity.
   * Transport, security, and public services.
   * Budget and risk management.

 * Independent reports assess venue costs, public opinion, and environmental impact, and international sports federations are consulted.

At the end of this second phase, the IOC Members vote to elect the host city/region.

What the IOC looks for

Today, the IOC explicitly prioritizes flexibility, sustainability, and cost‑effectiveness rather than massive new construction.

Key evaluation factors include:

  • Use of existing and temporary venues
    • Hosts are required to use a maximum of existing or temporary sites, building new venues only when there’s a clear long‑term legacy need.
  • Fit with regional and national plans
    • The Games must align with the host’s existing urban, transport, and development strategies, not be a standalone mega‑project.
* The guiding idea is often summarized as: the Games adapt to the region, not the other way around.
  • Infrastructure and logistics
    • Adequate accommodation for athletes, media, and fans; robust transport to avoid delays; and strong security capabilities.
  • Public and political support
    • Surveys and political commitments help show whether citizens and governments actually want the Games and will back them.
  • Environmental and social impact
    • Climate, sustainability plans, and potential environmental damage are reviewed; environmental impact reports are commissioned.
  • Financial realism and risk control
    • Detailed budgets, guarantees, and risk‑sharing arrangements are scrutinized to avoid runaway costs and white‑elephant venues.

Importantly, events can now be spread across multiple cities, regions, or even countries if that reduces cost and improves legacy.

Why it’s a trending discussion now

Olympic hosting has become a big talking point in recent years because:

  • Several democratic cities have withdrawn bids after public backlash about cost and displacement.
  • The IOC’s reforms aim to rebuild trust by cutting bidding costs and insisting on stronger legacy and sustainability conditions.
  • Emerging hosts (for example, countries openly exploring a first‑time bid for a future Summer Games) are using this more flexible framework to test ideas before committing.

You’ll often see forum debates split between people who see hosting as a huge opportunity for infrastructure and tourism, and others who worry about debt and underused venues once the party is over.

Quick HTML table: key elements in selection

html

<table>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Stage / Criterion</th>
      <th>What it means</th>
      <th>Why it matters</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Continuous Dialogue</td>
      <td>Informal talks between IOC and potential hosts without a fixed year.[web:5][web:9]</td>
      <td>Lowers pressure and lets cities explore options before committing.[web:5][web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Targeted Dialogue</td>
      <td>Detailed work with one or more “Preferred Hosts,” including questionnaires and guarantees.[web:1][web:9]</td>
      <td>Allows deep evaluation on venues, finance, and public support.[web:1][web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Existing / Temporary Venues</td>
      <td>Priority on using what already exists or temporary builds.[web:5]</td>
      <td>Reduces cost and risk of unused “white‑elephant” stadiums.[web:5]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Development Plan Fit</td>
      <td>Games must align with city/region development strategies.[web:5][web:9]</td>
      <td>Increases long‑term legacy and prevents wasteful projects.[web:5][web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Public Opinion & Politics</td>
      <td>Surveys and political backing are reviewed.[web:9]</td>
      <td>Helps avoid last‑minute withdrawals and social tension.[web:9]</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IOC Member Vote</td>
      <td>Final decision made in a vote of all IOC Members.[web:1][web:5]</td>
      <td>Formalizes the choice after years of evaluation.[web:1][web:5]</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

TL;DR

Olympic locations are selected through a multi‑year partnership between potential hosts and the IOC, moving from open‑ended “Continuous Dialogue” to focused “Targeted Dialogue,” and ending in a vote by IOC members. The modern system emphasizes using existing venues, fitting into local development plans, and managing cost and environmental impact, rather than building everything from scratch.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.