The Olympic Charter is the binding document that rules the Olympic Movement which, among other things, has the role of managing the organization of the biggest and most complex sporting event in the world - the Olympic games. The multi-disciplinary nature of this event implies the involvement of diverse stakeholders, including hosts and respective communities that, besides having different interests, rely on each other to fulfil them. As the owner of the event, the International Olympic Committee has the role of managing these interests through the update and modification of the Olympic Charter. This paper explores the evolution of this document, taking special consideration of the influence that occurrences related with stakeholder’s governance and urban strategies of hosts had on its rules. A cross-referenced review between the historical events within these two fields of study is compared to a systematic review of the Charter’s evolution. The results include a timeline with eight periods identifying the progress of those relationships, showing that the Olympic Charter has had a more reactive than pro-active character: it was highly influenced by hosts and other internal and external governance issues that, together, were responsible for the addition of new rules.

Mega-events such as the Olympic Games are powerful tools for city-branding and urban development, carrying the ability to create lasting physical, political, social, and economic legacies. Waterfront redevelopment has become a primary mechanism for revitalizing urban spaces, especially through brownfield requalification, and the Olympics have not been indifferent to this trend. Several recent editions have engaged in the rehabilitation of urban waterfronts. To analyze common mistakes that may impair the quality of these interventions, we apply a revised version of a binary evaluation tool to nine such Olympic Waterfronts, starting with Barcelona 1992, assessing their contexts, budgets, programs, plans, and environmental integration. The results show that the Olympic Waterfront can drastically change the image of the city, greatly contributing to the perceived success of the event’s legacy and creating new urban centralities. However, the inadequate management in the planning, delivery and, especially, legacy stages of the event can compromise this “Olympic Effect”. The test application of the evaluation tool proved successful in the context of mega-event planning and post-event transformation. It could potentially be useful in informing present and future decision-making regarding waterfront regeneration projects by highlighting pressure-points that, if not addressed, may hinder the future success of the interventions.

Due to public opposition against the unsustainability of hosting the Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee adopted Olympic Agenda 2020 to adjust the event requirements to address modern society’s sustainability concerns. Since its implementation, the Agenda has driven important changes regarding the planning and organization of the Olympics, including the possibility of regions being hosts. This allows the sprawl of Olympic venues over larger territories, theoretically facilitating the alignment of event requirements with the needs of the intensively growing contemporary urban areas. However, the larger the host territory, the more complex becomes its mobility planning, as transport requirements for participants still have to be fulfilled, and the host populations still expect to inherit benefits from any investments made. The objective of this paper is to identify and discuss new challenges that such modifications bring for mega-event mobility planning. First, based on the academic literature of case studies of previous Olympic cities, a theoretical framework to systematize the mobility problem at the Olympic Games is proposed for further validation, identifying the dimensions of the related knowledge frames. Second, the mobility planning for the case study of the first ever Olympic region—the Milan–Cortina 2026 Winter Games—is described. Using this case study, the proposed framework is then extrapolated for cases of Olympic regions in order to identify any shifts in the paradigm of mobility planning when increasing the spatial scale of Olympic hosts. Conclusions indicate that, if properly addressed, unsustainability might be mitigated in Olympic regions, but mega-event planners will have to consider new issues affecting host communities and event stakeholders.

Protests over sustainability concerns attached to hosting the Olympic Games have resulted in several bid withdrawals and a low number of candidate cities willing to host the most recent editions. Worried about the future, the International Olympic Committee adopted the Olympic Agenda 2020, promising to adapt the event to contemporary sustainability paradigms. Some of its urban-related reforms have already impacted recently hosted Games and are impacting the planning for those to come. The IOC claims that Paris 2024 will be the first Games to be fully aligned with the Agenda. This article addresses the urban preparations for Paris 2024 and assesses their alignment with the new reforms. The objective is to identify difficulties in the implementation of the Agenda and to outline future research that can, potentially, enhance its efficiency. Results reveal Paris 2024 is innovative but certain features are difficult to implement, leaving room to improve the Agenda.

Strategic planning was incorporated into urban planning processes towards the end of the twentieth century. It was propelled by the ‘Barcelona model’, intrinsically related with the hosting of the 1992 Summer Olympics. Since then, the Olympic Games have been increasingly seen as powerful tools to catalyse development. They are perceived as provoking an Olympic Effect that has been characterized in literature as an intensified impact of development policies when implemented in the context of the event. Furthermore, the catalytic character of the Games and its associated city-branding potential are often seen as the primary reasons why cities bid for hosting it. This paper argues that the definition of Olympic Effect shall be established in strategic planning practices before both the catalytic effect on development projects and the augmented impact in territories and communities. For that, candidatures of cities bidding to host the Games are qualitatively analysed. The results contribute to the recognition of the increased presence of a strategic vision in Olympic candidatures, the characterization of strategic planning in the context of the Olympic Games, the identification of its role in the city’s overall strategic planning processes, and the definition of the Olympic Effect as a resource for urban strategic planning.