Frequently Asked Questions


Is it possible to still cancel the LA 2028 Olympics?

Yes. There are multiple paths to cancellation, and they’re all still on the table. A lot can happen in the next few years as the Olympics grow in unpopularity both locally and around the world.


Can’t we just reform the Olympics and make the LA28 games more “sustainaible” or “low impact”? 

No. Many people around the world have tried to ‘reform’ the Olympics’ over the past century across a variety of axes. Reform has consistently failed because the Olympics are impervious to reform. The IOC must be abolished.


What about a permanent/rotating set of host cities?

Again, no. As long as the IOC is in charge, the same type of exploitation and harm will be replicated. Communities in Greece aren’t asking to be permanent hosts, for example. They’re still reeling from the last time they were held in Greece and are fighting climate disaster.


Won’t the Olympics create more jobs?

No. While the Bid Committee’s economic study paints a rosy picture of job growth caused by the games, even they admit these will be temporary gains. With a sharp decline in union construction and a potential influx of migratory, temporary labor, local workers will be thrust into a difficult negotiating position. Due to the introduction of these temporary workers, labor protections will be weakened and the likelihood of exploitation for all workers will increase.


Wasn’t there a study showing that Los Angeles’ economy will see an increased output of between $10.62 billion to $11.18 billion from a 2024 Olympics?

First, we don’t believe that any increased economic output justifies putting anyone at risk of displacement, exploitation, or criminalization. Also, while the Olympics can bring in a certain amount of economic activity, it mainly benefits people who already have plenty of resources. For example, real estate speculators and developers purchasing property near a newly rehabbed Olympic site would count as an economic boon for the city – but the only people who would actually profit are the property owners and the city, while the residents would become displaced or homeless. That kind of impact never makes it into these economic analyses, which are primarily concerned with measuring tax revenue and property values rather than the effect on people’s lives and overall well being.


Didn’t LA make money from the last Olympics?

No. No “profits” from the 1984 Olympics went into public funds. The surplus was given to a private, unaccountable body called the ’84 Foundation, which is not “LA” or “the city.” Who actually saw the profit from the ‘84 Games, and was any of that money used to better the community? Read more about the LA 84 Foundation’s interest in real estate behemoths like Blackstone here and other conflicts of interest here and here.

Without demonstrable connection to improving the quality of life and equality in our city, we cannot assume that the Games truly benefited the city and the people who live here. It certainly didn’t happen in 1984.


Isn’t this a “No Build” and therefore “No risk” Olympics? Won’t the city save money from building less?

First off, this isn’t a “No Build” or “Low Build” Olympics; Olympic development isn’t limited to stadiums and arenas. Much of the development around an Olympics comes in the forms of luxury hotel, luxury housing, and other projects directly tied to Olympic bids. In LA, we’ve seen direct Olympic displacement happening as early as 2017 with low income housing being razed to satisfy a “hotel shortage” for LA28 and this sort of displacement has only intensified since then. This is inevitable social cost of a “low build” Olympics, where risk for poor communities is extraordinary.

And regarding athletic infrastructure, while Los Angeles may not have to foot the bill for many new entire stadiums from scratch, there will still be massive amounts of construction and renovation on existing structures and thus a considerable amount of risk for these projects to go over budget. 20% of the Olympic building plan is still poured concrete. If there are any weather or ecological issues in the lead up to the games, we can almost certainly count on massive overages. No global mega-event is risk free. The Olympic Games are no exception, with average cost overruns of 156%. Every Olympic bid is high risk from all angles, despite whatever new spin boosters try to pass off.


Can’t we spend some of the Olympic “profits” on housing to combat homelessness?

No, we legally cannot. The Host City Contract, as written by the International Olympic Committee, stipulates where any profits would go. 20% goes to Olympic organizing bodies, and the part that LA gets to keep can ONLY be used for youth sports initiatives—not affordable housing, homelessness, or a variety of other places where we feel these potential (but unlikely) surplus revenues could go. As written in the contract, there is no mechanism for the mayor, City Council, Bid Committee, or most importantly the people of Los Angeles to weigh in on where any profits should go.

We also think that attempting to address the homelessness crisis through a process of bidding and planning and hosting over a period of 8-12 years is a roundabout and time-consuming way to raise money for a problem that is so urgent right now. And since the primary cause of homelessness in Los Angeles is the lack of affordable housing, the Olympics will likely create a huge spike in displacement and homelessness by accelerating gentrification and real estate speculation.


Won’t the Olympics improve public transit?

The historic record shows that transit expansion centered around the Olympic Games will only satisfy the needs of the Games, and not the communities most in need. LA’s current transit expansion is no different. For instance, the badly needed Vermont Corridor Bus Rapid Transit line won’t break ground until 2024, while the Purple Line expansion servicing the planned Olympic Village has taken priority. Transit projects in recent Games have also led to accelerated gentrification and displacement of existing residents, particularly low-income and immigrant residents.


Won’t the Olympics bring our country together in a time of national divide?

Unfortunately the Olympic Games have historically provided a platform for intense and destructive forms of nationalism, jingoism, and xenophobia, particularly for politicians and parties looking to consolidate or validate power. For example, Adolf Hitler used the 1936 Olympics in Berlin to promote his agenda of racial supremacy and domination and to highlight the supposed genetic superiority of the Aryans.

We also anticipate that hosting the 2028 Games in Los Angeles will have a particularly destructive effect on communities at all levels, due to the National Special Security Event (NSSE) designation that the mayor and bid committee are using to offload the security costs from the city to the federal government. This will put our local law enforcement under the control of federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, which have already shown a tendency to treat members of marginalized communities like criminals. All people within the NSSE zone — possibly all of LA County and Long Beach — could lose a host of constitutional rights, including the right to protest on public land and the right to not be searched or questioned. Read all about the NSSE in our guide here.


Why do you all hate sports?

We don’t hate sports. In fact, we think exercise and general health are great things. Also, sports are all about teamwork and camaraderie, which are near and dear to our hearts! But when money and sports get too intertwined, rampant exploitation ruins the idea of “the love of the game.” We love athletics and athletes, but the Olympic games exploits their talents for its own profits. Athlete and youth abuse is prevalent in the Olympic system. This abuse thrives because these institutions are not accountable to the communities they operate within.


Didn’t the bid committee have a few dozen community meetings over the last couple years?

No. Over the past 7 years of this Olympic bid’s history, there has been no meaningful outreach from bid boosters to the communities at highest risk for being negatively impacted.


How could City Council approve the 2028 bid without a budget?

We have no idea. But then again, the entire 2024/2028 bidding process has been an exercise in rich and powerful figures making up the rules as they go along. We’re equally baffled that State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon guaranteed unequivocal support for the 2028 bid without a budget or full proposal, given his notorious hesitations about adopting a bill that proposed creating a single-payer healthcare system in California because it was “woefully incomplete.” For reference, the single-payer bill (SB562) was 12 pages long (the same length as CA’s cap and trade bill) and had been the subject of several extensive financial studies. The proposal and budget for LA2028 that Anthony Rendon reviewed was zero pages (i.e. non-existent) and had never been the subject of an independent financial review.

Update: in 2019, the 2028 budget was finally released to the tune of $6.9B. Obviously there are many other costs which are not represented in this (local law enforcement, NSSE, and other resources from city, county, and state agencies).


Don’t most Angelenos support the idea of the Olympics?

No. A 2016 poll conducted by researchers at LMU/StudyLA claimed there was an 88% approval rating for the 2024 bid. In 2019 we investigated Fernando Guerra, director of StudyLA and programmer of this Olympic poll. We found he was a registered lobbyist with a developer (Sandstone Properties) who had multiple LA 2028-related contracts in play in 2017. Read all about these egregious ethical violations here. The LMU poll is bullshit. So no, no one can claim in good faith that Angelenos support the Olympics.

We conducted our own research in 2018, and we found that only 9% of respondents strongly supported bringing the Olympics to Los Angeles. You can read the full results, methodology and analysis here.


Didn’t the 2028 bid committee negotiate a good deal?

No. Zev Yaroslavsky said in 2021 that he showed the host city contract to three lawyers and they would never allow their clients to sign it. It’s an AWFUL DEAL. The 2028 deal is similar to the contract signed for Tokyo 2020. The Bid Committee and mayor have oversold numerous aspects of the “deal” they got for 2028, including the $1.5B in contributions to the Organizing Committee (which is a typical figure) and the $160M for youth sports (which is an advance, not extra funds, and which LA would have to pay back if they couldn’t host the Games according to the Host City Contract).

Keep in mind that these contracts are written by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a notoriously undemocratic and unaccountable group, with the primary purpose of protecting and indemnifying the IOC. No IOC contract has ever favored the host city’s government or residents, and we don’t believe that the LA 2028 contract is any exception. LA will pay for all overages (except for $270M which is on CA).


Won’t 2028 give LA more time to get its ducks in a row?

While it’s possible that we could “make a dent” in our housing and policing crises by 2028 (to quote our City Council), eleven years also exposes LA to untold numbers of new variables which no one seems to be able to account for. City Council has not considered the implications of events like a major earthquake or economic downturn (such as the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic).

Now that the Host City Contract has been signed by Mayor Garcetti, there is no accountability mechanism which forces our local officials to further consult their constituents in the event that our city becomes even less equipped to host the Games for any reason. And to be clear, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is not flexible about changing the terms of these contracts, regardless of how effectively the host city can demonstrate need. For example, when the 2016 Olympics host city Rio de Janeiro requested help from the IOC in 2017 regarding the city’s $40M debt from the Games (which, for context, has exacerbated a recession that has crippled the country and left many without jobs or homes), the IOC refused to release them from their Host City Contract or renegotiate the terms.


Who will be here to implement the 2028 plan?

No one knows, but due to term limits, it definitely won’t be Eric Garcetti or any of the key boosters on City Council. Who is going to be trusted to make sure that the Olympics’ disruption of our delicate urban ecosystem won’t be catastrophic? Literally no one knows. The LA 2028 Organizing Committee is responsible for the planning and direct implementation of the Games, and to date LA 2028 has not revealed a complete list of who is even on this committee. Residents of the city do not elect either group or have input on who gets to be in those key roles, and there are no mechanisms for accountability or recalls.


What is the difference between the 2024 and 2028 Los Angeles Olympic bids?

Literally nothing. Los Angeles initially bid to be the host of the 2024 Olympic Games, and for the majority of the bidding process the 2024 Games were the focus of LA’s bid. When it became clear that Paris was the likely favorite for the 2024 Games, LA ceded the 2024 Games to Paris in return for being awarded the 2028 Games instead. Within a few months, Los Angeles was named as the host for the 2028 Olympics. Therefore all budgets, projections and plans from the majority of the bidding process apply to the nonexistent LA 2024 Olympics, and not to the actual LA 2028 Olympics.


Who makes up the LA Olympic Bid Committee and LA28 Board?

Billionaires and multi-millionaires. Developers. Media moguls. People like and including Jeffrey Katzenberg. The Bid Committee, tasked with making the case for Los Angeles to host the Olympics, consists of politicians (including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti), business executives, and prominent athletes. Not a single grassroots community organization is represented, or has been consulted, by the bid committee to date, in at least seven (7) years of this bid’s existence.