Mega-Sporting Events and the Right to Housing: From Celebration to Eviction

1. Introduction

Mega-sporting events (MSEs) are normally hailed as catalysts for economic growth, international recognition, and urban transformation. The hosting cities or countries justify their large investments by emphasising the long-term benefits (or legacies); namely, enhancing transportation networks, increasing tourism, and driving urban growth. However, these types of events also have significant social costs. In many cases, preparations for mega-events have led to forced evictions, gentrification processes in working-class areas, and the displacement of low-income communities.

Historically, activists and academics have raised concerns about how these events prioritise commercial and private interests over fundamental human rights and the local population’s well-being. Under the pretext of urban renewal, marginalised populations have had to endure social cleansing policies, contributing to the systemic exclusion of lower-income residents from their own urban environments. Hence, the purpose of this article is to explain how MSEs impact urban spaces and housing rights and assess whether these events systematically violate the human right to housing or not. The article will focus on the consequences of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London and the preparation for the 2014 FIFA Men’s World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil. These MSEs have been selected for two primary reasons. Firstly, the World Cup and the Olympic Games are among the most significant global sporting events, shaping economic, social, and urban landscapes. Secondly, examining these events provides an opportunity to analyse their impacts in both the Global North and the Global South, trying to offer a comparative perspective on their broader consequences. Also, the case of Brazil perfectly exemplifies the consequences of hosting two MSEs in a short period.

Methodologically, this article uses a case study approach, drawing from academic literature, national and international reports, and media coverage of specific cases of displacement and gentrification in host cities. The article is structured to begin with a theoretical framework, in which the legal framework of the right to housing in the case of MSEs is presented, alongside some necessary definitions. Contextually, the article connects MSEs, neoliberalism, and the violation of the right to housing. The third section presents the case studies and examines the consequences of MSEs in London and Brazil before providing a conclusion that summarises this article’s findings.

2. Theoretical Framework

Before addressing the relation and effects of MSEs on the right to housing, it is important to define three key concepts: gentrification, urban displacement, and legacy. The concept of gentrification was first introduced in 1964 by Ruth Glass, who defined it as a process in which all the original working-class occupiers are displaced from their neighbourhood and replaced by people from the middle and upper classes, who change the whole social character of the district (Glass, 1964). This definition has not varied much over the years, and authors have not notably differed from the initial conceptualisation. However, scholars like Hamnett and Whitelegg (2007) argued that, despite gentrification normally involving the replacement or displacement of an existing population, it can take place in a “clean social state”. The authors claim that, due to the increase in demand and property prices, there is no single building in a city that can be profitable that has not been a victim of gentrification, from empty offices to unused hospitals. Anderson (2023) argues that the process of gentrification does not only come from wealthier newcomers, but also from real estate development companies.

Because of these gentrification processes, groups of the original population may be displaced from their homes. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2018) emphasises that urban development projects, including those tied to mega-events, often force lower-income populations to relocate to the outskirts of cities, increasing marginalisation, inequality, and poverty.

Finally, when analysing MSEs, it is notably important to present the concept of legacy. It has been framed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which claims that the planning and administration of the events should focus on creating positive outcomes that last beyond the time of the event (Grix, 2014). Grix (ibid.) explains why the idea of creating a legacy is problematic and is normally undermined by the necessity of hosting the event. Furthermore, he also claims that the event’s organisational team will most likely be dismantled after the event, making it unsustainable over time (Grix, 2014).  Other academics such as Preuss (2007) and Viehoff and Kretschmer (2013) agree that legacy cannot be understood as something planned and positive, but they also consider the unplanned – and sometimes negative – consequences of creating a legacy.

2.1 Adequate standards of living and MSEs

Adequate housing was first acknowledged as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Indeed, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that “everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for the health and well-being of [themselves] and [their] family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services”. In this regard, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) identifies several key elements of adequate housing: 1) security of tenure, 2) availability of services, materials, and infrastructure, 3) affordability, 4) habitability, 5) accessibility, 6) good location, and 7) cultural adequacy (OHCHR, 2025). In 2000, the UN Human Rights Council established the position of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing. 

As a result, it established a relation between adequate housing and MSEs. Raquel Rolnik, a Brazilian architect and urbanist, occupied this position from 2008 to 2014. During her mandate, she submitted a report alongside the Human Rights Council that tackled the issue of MSEs and the right to adequate housing (A/HRC/13/20). In that report, she acknowledged the opportunity MSEs represent to impact the standard of living of the population in the hosting city. Reurbanization, increase in public and private investment, redevelopment of the transport system and public transport networks, and increase of the social and sport activities after the event are some positive legacies considered by Rolnik. However, she also identifies a negative housing legacy in evictions, displacement due to gentrification, reduction in social housing, criminalisation of homeless people and impact on their informal settlements, and marginalisation of socially vulnerable groups. For example, before the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, studies found that approximately 150 families, mainly vulnerable groups, were removed from their houses to construct the Olympic Village (Sánchez et al., 2007). The same authors conclude that the prices of houses for rent and sale increased by over 140% after the Games.

All these actions and relations cannot be understood as intrinsically independent of neoliberalism and the current capitalist economic system. Investing in sport has been used by neoliberal cities to foster urban renewal (Ludvigsen & Byrne, 2024), attempting to make the city more presentable for consumers, tourists, and private investors (Boykoff, 2024). Woods (2015) affirms that the neoliberal economic model transforms public financing into private profit, ultimately benefiting the wealthy élites rather than the local population. In his book “NOlympians: Inside the Fight of Capitalist Mega-Sports in Los Angeles”, Boykoff (2020) perfectly exemplifies the duality of MSEs: while they bring the best to the participating athletes, they also tend to bring the worst to the host city.

3. Case Studies

3.1 London 2012: The Gentrification of East London

The Olympic Games, as the world’s largest sporting event hosted by a single city, have historically driven significant urban transformations. The concentration of such a large-scale event in one location has been used to justify extensive infrastructure projects in a short period. Hosting the Games requires not only the construction and enhancement of sports venues but also substantial upgrades to the city’s broader infrastructure (Rocha & Xiao, 2022). 

The Olympic Park in Stratford, the largest sporting infrastructure for the 2012 Summer Olympics, was built in East London, the poorest part of the city and a historical working-class area. One of the most affected areas was the Clays Lane estate, a housing estate that served as a building cooperative initiative, helping vulnerable single people to create a community. When the construction of the Olympic Park began, approximately 425 residents were displaced (Clarke, 2013). 

Recalling the aforementioned claims by Preuss (2007) and Viehoff and Kretschmer (2013), the Olympic legacy is not always positive despite being continuously framed as a success. After the Games, the area was being developed through various regeneration initiatives. The price of land increased and boosted private investment, yet neoliberal urban practices failed to consider redistributing the benefits to vulnerable communities (Bernstock, 2020). In fact, some academics have questioned whether all the benefits of these events positively impact the lives of the local population (Sadd, 2009).  Specifically, in the case of East London and the Games, the renewed area has attracted gentrifiers – white middle-class incomers – with higher-paying and white-collar jobs that can afford private housing (Corcillo & Watt, 2022). Additionally, the housing company managing the estate failed to guarantee the right to be rehoused (Naughton, 2008). Consequently, all the local working-class people, who could afford the cost of social housing despite their low wages, were forced to invest the majority of their savings in private accommodations.

Further highlighting these socioeconomic impacts, a study by Kavetsos (2012) estimated that properties in the host districts were sold at 2.7% higher than the pre-Games values on average. The investigation also concluded that the properties located five kilometres from the Olympic stadium were being sold at a 5% higher price. The vulnerable community of East London has not only seen its right to adequate housing affected, but also its right to community participation and social support networks, resulting in a loss of self-esteem and an increase in social marginalisation.

3.2 Brazil 2014: killing one bird with two stones

While Brazil was chosen to be the home of the men’s football World Cup in 2014, its capital city — Rio de Janeiro — was appointed as the Olympic host for 2016. With that, the emerging country saw not only an incredible opportunity to play at home and show its renowned sporting skills to the world; the hosting of these two events would prepare the ground for Brazil to show its strength as an emerging economy and regional leader, challenging the idea of Brazil as a violent and unequal country. Similarly to the Olympic Games, the FIFA Men’s World Cup is a short event that has a significant impact on the hosting country, leading to economic and even structural changes (Solberg & Preuss, 2007; Bondarik et al., 2021). The main difference between the events is that the Olympic Games mainly impact one city, while the World Cup affects a whole country. In fact, to host the World Cup, Brazil had to invest to improve public safety, urban mobility, the quality of tourism, and the construction and renovation of football stadiums.

Since Brazil was given the opportunity to host the World Cup, more than 250.000 people in the country were threatened with evictions (ANCOP, 2013). The most meaningful case is represented by the displacements in the favelas, where most people were forced to move to other parts of the country. Their homes were destroyed to build hotels, flats, car parks, and restaurants for all the football fans who were to attend the World Cup (Butler & Aicher, 2015). Without a place to live, most families had to go into debt to pay for the construction of cabins.

One of the most famous eviction cases occurred near the Maracanã Stadium. This building hosted not only the World Cup final but also the inauguration of the Olympic Games, so it was crucial for the successful outcome of the two events. Dozens of families saw their homes destroyed, and more than 500 were evicted to create a car park. However, after all the demolitions and displacements, the authorities changed the car park project to commercial and public leisure spaces (Kommenda, 2016). As a consequence, housing prices in the surrounding neighbourhood rose by approximately 50%, challenging access to adequate housing for the most vulnerable families in the area around Maracanã.

The case of Brazil is no exception to the neoliberal nature of these events. To host the 2014 World Cup, the country had to remodel or construct 12 stadiums throughout the country that would also be used for the Olympic Games in 2016. This was estimated to cost $1.1 billion, but the budget had to be readjusted, and the authorities ended up paying $4.7 billion. However, this enormous public investment does not generate revenue, as most of those stadiums are administered by private companies (Woods, 2015).

4. Conclusions

This article highlights the complex relationship between MSEs and the right to housing, illustrating how these events can undermine living standards instead of improving them. This study shows that the effects of MSEs in the Global North and South are very similar. In the cases of both London and Brazil, the events have led to forced evictions, displacements, and the first signs of gentrification processes in low-income areas. We can conclude that the most affected people will always pertain to the most vulnerable groups, mainly working-class and marginalised communities. The lack of public policies of resettlement and compensation leads to increased housing insecurity and poverty that violates not only international standards of the right to adequate housing, but also national constitutions.

Another important topic covered in the article is the myth of legacy. MSEs can bring positive outcomes to the hosting countries and cities only if the authorities consider the local population, commerce, and culture a priority. The construction of extensive railroads or the renovation of the public transportation system clearly impact the local population’s lives positively. However, if its construction brings long-term economic struggles for the displaced families, an increase in the price of housing, or loss of social networks and community ties (as it happened in Clays Lane or the favelas), the legacy is nothing but negative.

Over the past decades, we have witnessed how sports have associated themselves with neoliberal practices, privatising what should be accessible to the public as something culturally significant for states and societies. The hosts of MSEs have also aligned themselves with these neoliberal policies, using public funds to build private infrastructures and creating profit-driven urban policies. Ultimately, they privatise public space and reduce the state’s responsibility for social welfare. 

Consequently, organisers must find a more inclusive and rights-based approach to mitigate all these negative outcomes. Authorities, organisations, and policymakers must change their priorities and foster real community participation in its planning and further execution.

References

ANCOP (Director). (2013). Copa 2014: Quem ganha com esse jogo? [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAX0zSfrJK4

Bernstock, P. (2020). Evaluating the contribution of planning gain to an inclusive housing legacy: A case study of London 2012. Planning Perspectives, 35(6), 927-953. 

Bondarik, R., Pilatti, L. A., & Horst, D. J. (2021). The 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil: The promised legacy was dribbled past. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 21, 134-147.

Boykoff, J. (2020). NOlympians: Inside the Fight Against Capitalist Mega-Sports in Los Angeles, Tokyo and Beyond. Fernwood Publishing.

Boykoff, J. (2024). Glitterati and Grit: The Perils and Possibilities of Sports Mega-Event Research. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 48(1), 70-87.

Butler, N., & Aicher, T. (2015). Demonstrations and displacement: Social impact and the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events. 

Clarke, F. (2013). Olympic Legacy in East London: Displacement & Gentrification. Rio On Watch. https://rioonwatch.org/?p=6600

Corcillo, P., & Watt, P. (2022). Social mixing or mixophobia in regenerating East London? ‘Affordable housing’, gentrification, stigmatisation and the post-Olympics East Village. People, Place and Policy, Volume 16 (Issue 3). 

Kavetsos, G. (2012). The Impact of the London Olympics Announcement on Property Prices. Urban Studies, 49(7), 1453-1470. 

Kommenda, N. (2016). How evictions have laid bare Rio’s real Olympic legacy. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2016/aug/02/how-evictions-have-laid-bare-rios-real-olympic-legacy

Ludvigsen, J. A. L., & Byrne, S. (2024). In the shadow of sport mega-events: A critical analysis of the nexus between evictions, displacements, securitized gentrification and children’s rights. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 

Naughton, C. (2008). Displaced by London’s Olympics. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/02/olympics2012

Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation of Measurement of Mega Sport Event Legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3), 207-228. 

Rocha, C. M., & Xiao, Z. (2022). Sport Mega-Events and Displacement of Host Community Residents: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3. 

Sadd, D. (2009). What is Event-led Regeneration? Are we Confusing Terminology or Will London 2012 be the First Games to Truly Benefit the Local Existing Population? Event Management, 13(4), 265-275. 

Sánchez, A., Plandiura, R., & Valiño, V. (2007). Barcelona 1992: International Events and Housing Rights: A Focus on the Olympic Games. Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

Solberg, H. A., & Preuss, H. (2007). Major Sport Events and Long-Term Tourism Impacts. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2), 213-234. 

Viehoff, V., & Kretschmer, H. (2013). Olympic Games Munich 1972 and London 2012: Creating urban legacies—Similar concepts in different times? IOC Olympic Studies Center.

Woods, J. J. (2015). The Damage from Mega-Sporting Events in Brazil. Pace Law School Student Publications, 204, 15-18.