Abstract:Every potential Olympic Games organiser assumers that the games they organise will be special, that they will help to set new, high standards both in the organisation of sports events themselves, as well as in the planning and carrying out of projects accompanying the games. Since the document entitled Agenda 21 was approved by the UN at the Earth Summit in 1992, environmental protection has become the mainstay of the discussion among the Olympic family, and the problem of sustainable planning has become one of the main features of published reports. The conclusion of the conference coincided with the Lillehammer Winter Olympics of 1994, which were praised as the first green games to be held, under the motto “White Green Games”. Four years prior, in Nagano, its organisers advertised the games with the slogan “Coexistence with nature”. London 2012, with its motto “Inspire a Generation”, highlighted the educational aspect of the events and the words “environment” and “sustainability” were on the lips of everyone everywhere in the context of every activity the organisers were undertaking. During Rio 2016, the motto was “Green Games for Blue Planet”. The goal of the article is to investigate whether these mottoes have been actually reflected in the measures taken by authorities and encompassing the period between proclaiming them as Games organisers, during the sports event itself, and during the post-Games period. The author focused on the two most recent Games (Rio 2016 and PyeongChang 2018) in order to verify whether the ambitious assumptions that filled all manners of reports have been made a reality. The diagnosis presented in the article indicates that the pursuit of satisfying the ambitions of authorities and organisers is often at odds with the precepts and concept of sustainable development. The results of the study are an essential starting point for the discussion on developing a new formula—that of the European Games, whose third edition is to be organised in Krakow in 2023, and whose respective subject matter is identical to the problems that an Olympic Games organiser must face in terms of infrastructure planning.

The preparation of the Tokyo 2020 Games: Completing the Waterfront Subcenter Plan

Constructing legacy: walking audits of the leisure time physical activity potential of Tokyo Olympic venues and their urban milieu

Towards a Holistic Framework for the Olympic-Led Sustainable Urban Planning Process

Geopolitical analysis of the new scenario in the bidding process for the host cities of the olympic games

Design for reuse : post occupancy of Olympicstadiums; Post occupancy of Olympic stadiums

Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change

Building a better host city? Reforming and contesting the Olympics in Paris 2024

How to Bid Better for the Olympics: A Participatory Mega-Event Planning Strategy for Local Legacies

Mapping the Influence of Olympic Games' Urban Planning on the Land Surface Temperatures: An Estimation Using Landsat Series and Google Earth Engine

Mega sport events and spatial management: zoning space across Rio’s 2016 Olympic city

Olympic Infrastructure—Global Problems of Local Communities on the Example of Rio 2016, PyeongChang 2018, and Krakow 2023

The plans for Tokyo Bay: the challenge of urban policy, 1950s–1990s

How do Olympic cities strategically leverage New Urban Tourism? Evidence from Tokyo

The Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games: impacts of COVID-19 and digital transformation

Ahead of the Games. Paris 2024 and the genesis of a sport-event hosting policy

The Olympics Legacy, debt crisis and exceptional strategic planning: the case of Athens

Mechanisms of policy failure: Boston’s 2024 Olympic bid

How We Decide the Future of the Olympics ?

Does the Olympic Agenda 2020 Have the Power to Create a New Olympic Heritage? An Analysis for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games Bid

Sustainable Olympic Development: A Proposed Benchmark for Managing Economic Outcomes