Public policies and governance of the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Potential impacts on territorial development in north-east Paris

The expectations of the International Olympic Committee

Historically, there has been competition between the world’s great cities to host the Games, and the IOC’s intention has been to cover the planet by allocating them to every continent (Wilde d‘Estamael, 2020). In recent years, however, the trend has reversed, and the number of cities bidding to host the Summer Olympic Games has declined. The IOC has therefore changed the way it selects host cities. Until 2009 and the award of the 2016 OPG to Río de Janeiro, there were still significant numbers of cities willing to bid to host this mega-event. The decline began in 1997, and since Athens was awarded the Games in 2004 the number of candidate cities has slowly shrunk (Chanavat et al., 2021). In subsequent years, the number of bidders fell until the dual award process for the 2024 and 2028 Games. Several cities withdrew due to domestic opposition (ibid) and ‘generally speaking, the number of candidates for the Olympic Games dwindled from around ten to just a few in the most recent bidding phases’ (Bourbillères and Koebel, 2019: 5). The cities of Budapest, Hamburg, Rome and Boston, which were candidates for the 2024 event, eventually withdrew (Bourbillères and Koebel, 2019; Chappelet, 2016). Budapest pulled out in response to a petition from the student movement based on economic arguments. In Hamburg, there was a referendum in which the ‘no’ side won. In Rome, the withdrawal following the election of a new mayor. And finally, in Boston, there was a lack of popular support (Bourbillères and Koebel, 2019). From the 2012 Olympic Games onwards, anti-Olympic and anti-bid protest movements challenged both the legacy and the legitimacy of the Games, which also explains the fall in the number of cities bidding to host them (Fabry and Zeghni, 2021). This diminishing interest in hosting the event is not new – after the Games in Montreal in 1976, only one or two cities were interested in bidding (Chappelet, 2016). In fact, at the beginning of the 1900s following the creation of the modern Olympic games, there were so few candidates that Coubertin imagined that the Games would have a permanent home in Lausanne (Chappelet, 2016). The 1992 Olympics saw a return to multiple bids, with six cities throwing their hats into the ring (Figure 1). Over the years, the IOC has adapted the way it allocates the Games depending on the number of bids. Since the 2002 Games, the IOC Executive Board has organised shortlists (Chappelet, 2016).OPEN IN VIEWER

Since the arrival of Thomas Bach as its President in 2013, the IOC has sought to improve the dialogue with potential host cities. To this end, it adopted and introduced Olympic Agenda 2020, a roadmap of 40 recommendations for reshaping the objectives of hosting the Games, focussing in particular on sustainability and legacy. ‘In the context of the most recent Olympic developments, the IOC published, in 2014, the Olympic Agenda 2020, a guiding document aimed at driving important changes within the Olympic Games and Movement and strengthen the values of Olympism in accordance with the expectations of modern society’ (Lopez dos Santos et al., 2021). This roadmap has been further specified by the 118 reforms set out in the ‘New Norm’ in 2018.

The aim is to give the host cities greater flexibility in the bidding phase by encouraging bilateral discussions between the cities and the IOC. So, for example, there is no longer a precise and restrictive timetable that interested cities must follow. This is in fact already the case with the Paris Games, for which the Seine-Saint-Denis area as well as other towns and cities in the Île-de-France region and in France (Lille and Marseille in particular) are fully involved. Similarly, the 2026 Winter Games, awarded to Milan-Cortina, will take place in four areas (the Valtellina area, the Cortina d‘Ampezzo area, the Verona area and the Val di Fiemme area). Moreover, bidding is no longer restricted to cities but can come from a region, a country or a whole territory. ‘The door is open to any Interested Party to enter into non-committal continuous dialogue with the IOC’, reads the IOC website. The host city of Paris, with its many temporary and existing venues, is fully in line with the IOC’s new expectations. As shown by Ricordel (2023), the Paris Games are using a circular heritage model. The temporary and existing sites planned for the 2024 Olympic Games are either integrated into prestigious heritage or sports elements: Circular Prestigious Heritage, or integrated into existing sports heritage: Circular Heritage (Ricordel, 2023). The sites to be built will complement these heritage sites.

Role of central government

In France, the government’s Legacy Plan is structured around 170 measures. Several are tourism-related, for example, measures to make life easier for foreign visitors by introducing an integrated ticketing system combining sport, tourism and transport, or measures to present a more diverse image of France with targeted advertising, or to highlight French cuisine, or to create itineraries based around the sporting legacy, which is also a fundamental objective for national stakeholders in the tourist industry. Other measures are also central to this plan, including the development of sporting activities, education and employment. According to Manuel Tunon De Lara (President of France Université), speaking at the ‘Enjeux des Jeux’ conference in Montpellier in December 2022, the Games will act as a lever for public policies, not only for the development of sport but also in the domains of sustainable development, inclusion, gender equality, health, education and employment. The state and the ministries involved in the Olympic Games are all keen to make use of these opportunities.

Under this plan, another government goal is to leverage this mega-event to establish urban projects in deprived areas and to construct or renovate watersports facilities in Seine-Saint-Denis (notably in order to teach more children to swim in this Department where, as local politicians often repeat, half of all children are unable to swim when they leave primary education). In the bid for the Games, all the swimming events were to be held in Saint-Denis. However, following a budget adjustment, some of these events, which were to take place in a temporary pool, were moved to Hauts-de-Seine. However, in order to preserve the legacy promised to the Department in terms of the numbers of pools, the temporary structures will be relocated after the Olympic Games to towns in Seine-Saint-Denis that have put themselves forward as candidates. In addition, the size of the pools will be adjusted to local needs.

The initial focus in the run-up to the games is the construction work initiated by this mega-event. This can be a source of local opposition. Some groups criticise the gentrification caused by these projects as well as their environmental impact. The Olympic and Paralympic Village (OPV) project for the 2024 Games is partly located on brownfield sites. Maxwell Hall, a former electricity plant dating to the early 1900s located within the perimeter of the Village, will be converted into offices. Like the Cité du Cinéma, which dates from the 1930s, this complex is part of the industrial history of Saint-Denis. Nearby is the Tour Pleyel, an office tower that opened in 1973. Abandoned in the 1990s, its conversion has been in the pipeline since the 2000s (Decker, 2022). The project will come to fruition with the Olympic Games, and the tower is to be converted into a luxury hotel with over 700 rooms. As part of this restructuring, two other buildings will be constructed, including a 22-storey tower and a conference centre.

Building on urban wasteland for the Olympic Games is common practice. The OPV for the 2026 Winter Games in Milan is currently being built in a former marshalling yard, with the ultimate aim of turning the site into an eco-neighbourhood. Similarly, for the Tokyo 2020 Games, the OPV was built in the port district of Harumi, a former dockland area until the 1960s, which had subsequently been the target of various projects over the years. In the 1980s, the Tokyo government wanted to turn it into a business district, and work on this programme continued until 1995, though ultimately the business district never got off the ground. The focus then shifted to leisure areas, with a mini-leisure park, shopping centres and parking lots (Scoccimarro, 2015). There was already a plan to put the OPV on this site for the 2016 Games bid (Languillon-Aussel, 2017), and the OPV site was cleaned up before construction began for the 2020 Games. So far, however, the legacy phase of the project has not yet been delivered (interview with Raphaël Languillon-Aussel, 2017). Finally, the OPV for the Athens Games was built on a brownfield site in the Marousi district. After the games, however, though efforts were made to regenerate this urban area, they were unsuccessful and the village was abandoned. The Olympic Games can therefore play a part in generating urban wastelands.

In addition to construction, ‘major international sporting events are catalysts for public action that make it possible to greatly improve transport provision in a short space of time, [however] they are generally accompanied by a high level of gentrification that reduces the intensity of the potential positive impact’, as was the case for the 2012 Games (Bourbillères, 2023).

In France, the role of the state cannot be measured solely in terms of legacy. Other initiatives have been put in place, in particular the creation of the National Sports Agency (ANS), a programme intended to boost the creation or renovation of local sports facilities, with a target of creating 5000 amenities that will benefit local authorities or sports organisations. The Agency was set up 2 years after Paris was chosen as host city, following the realisation that the country’s stock of sports facilities was ageing. The role of the ANS is to support this renovation process and to instigate action on the part of France’s different sports stakeholders. One of the principles of hosting this event is that the Games should be for the whole of France, not just Paris. Through its aspirations and the concrete measures it is putting in place for the regions, the OPGOC is positioning itself as a central player in the public policies surrounding the organisation of the Games in France. The Organising Committee for the French Games is also committed to these aims, with the first Terre de Jeux label created for this Olympiad. To this end, OPGOC has initiated different measures to involve the regions, one of which is presented below.

Measures taken by the Olympic and Paralympic Games Organising Committee

The role of OPGOC is to manage the preparation and running of the event. However, it is also keen to initiate measures that will involve the whole country in the organisation of the Games, an aspiration that coincides with the government’s ambitions. Two schemes seemed to us emblematic of this objective. The Terre de Jeux (Land of Games) and Centre de Préparation aux Jeux (CPJ – Games Preparation Centre) schemes rolled out in the regions (including overseas territories), together with the volunteer scheme. The Terre de Jeux (Land of Games) label is a way ‘to involve areas outside the Paris region in the regional development dynamic generated by the Olympic Games’ (Gignon and Delaplace, 2021a). Its aim is to encourage local authority engagement in the event. The first scheme seeks to bring the regional authorities onside, so that the whole of France becomes part of the OPG and rallies to the flag of the Games. The Terre de Jeux label also gives a regional authority the opportunity to propose one or more of its facilities as a Games Preparation Centre (CPJ) as an incentive to sign up to the scheme. Once awarded the Land of Games label, the local authority can submit its sports facilities for inclusion in the CPJ list. They will be selected or rejected by OPGOC on specific criteria, for example, the location of the sports facility, nearby amenities (e.g. hotel and catering facilities), medical services, safety, accessibility and, last but not least, its qualities as a sporting venue. These criteria are assessed by the international federations of each of the Olympic sports, and if successful the facility is placed on the list of sites able to host delegations. The list is then made available to the international delegations, which may choose sites where their teams can come to train and acclimatise in France before the Games or use as base camps during the event. However, CPJ status alone will not generate direct local impact (Mignon and Aburto, 2022) and if the facility is not actually selected as a host site by a delegation, there will be no benefit to the municipality.

The map shows the competition venues for the Olympic Games, whether already in place, temporary or awaiting construction and the number of Games Preparation Centres shortlisted by the COJOP. There is a high concentration in the Île-de-France and Hauts-de-France regions, a legacy of the London 2012 Games. Indeed, ‘at London 2012, the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region was positioned as a rear base for the Games because of its proximity to London and its accommodation capacity’ (Gignon, Delaplace, 2021a).

The City of Paris: A fundamental role in the organisation of the Games

Although Paris has not hosted the OPG since 1924 and will therefore celebrate the centenary of the summer Games on national territory in 2024, the city is no novice when it comes to organising mega-events. Indeed, the City of Paris has long pursued a policy of hosting Big International Sports Events (GESI). Since the UEFA Euro soccer tournament in 2016, a big event has been held there every year, with the exception of the pandemic years. More broadly, this is an ambition that is national in scale, with ‘a policy of hosting major international sporting events, starting with the February 2009 bid to organise the Euro 2016 football tournament and culminating in Paris’s bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games’ (Lettailleur and Massardier, 2022). Hosting this event is therefore the pinnacle of the city’s record in the staging of GESI. Of all the major international sporting and cultural events, the Games are the most significant, with unequalled power to generate impact (Chanavat et al., 2021).

However, Paris is not the only region hosting the event. Seine-Saint-Denis and Plaine Commune are also involved in the bid, and while these geographically separate players are united on certain points, they nonetheless possess their own independent aspirations. While Paris has no need to boost its image or to attract tourists, Seine-Saint-Denis does. Still, the Games are an opportunity for the City of Paris to move towards more inclusive and sustainable tourism. From the moment they are awarded, through preparation, and up to and beyond the event itself, the Games constitute an effective instrument of communication (Gignon and Delaplace, 2021b), drawing the world’s attention to the host region (Augustin, 2009). This communicative aspect of big events can be exploited to bring about changes in image, particularly through media coverage (Essex and Chalkley, 1998).

Governance of the OPG

The interactions between the stakeholders involved in the Games are complex. We set out to understand how these players work together to organise a mega-event.

The figure represents the stakeholders in the organisation of the 2024 OPG. Three types of actors are identified: Olympics actors, institutional public actors and actors in the sectors of tourism and urban development. The links between each of them are represented on the diagram.

The trio involved in the award of the Games is shown in the top right, with the IOC, National Olympic Committee and the City of Paris linked by the host city contract. This leads to the creation of the OPGOC under the supervision of CNOSF (the French Olympic Committee). The organising committee must meet the requirements of the IOC and is partly funded by sponsors. Its main role is to make the Games happen. It also heads SOLIDEO, the organisation tasked with delivering the infrastructures for this event. The government is responsible for fulfilling the undertakings made to the IOC under Olympic law and plays an advisory role via the Interministerial Delegation to the Olympic and Paralympic games (DIJOP). The final actors essential to this event are the territorial players, such as the Île-de-France Region, Métropole du Grand Paris (MGP), the Departments, the EPT (Territorial Public Establishments) and the municipalities, which fund the legacy infrastructures. There are multiple stakeholders in the OPG, and preparations for the event arise out of the interactions between these institutions.

It is important to note here that a broad range of actors is involved in preparing for an international mega-event. In addition to the event’s ‘regular’ actors, territorial stakeholders are also engaged in the organisation process. Exploring governance in this context means examining the cooperation and partnerships between the different actors. The semi-structured interviews with OPG stakeholders cast light on the positions of the various players, the links they maintain with each other and the convergences and divergences between them.

Initiatives and expectation of the City of Paris

Plans relating to the OPG are consistent with plans that were already in place, but organising this event is undeniably helping to accelerate their implementation. A survey was undertaken using direct and participatory observation alongside semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders. This article draws on a sample of 18 interviews out of over 90 conducted with local stakeholders on the subject of the Olympic Games, tourism and legacy. For these interviews, we chose to contact institutional actors working on Olympic Games in Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis, as well as elected representatives from these areas. The interviews lasted between 30 min and 1 h. The results of the interviews were analysed independently and then put together to see the links between the actors interviewed.

We also draw on immersive observation in the City of Paris’s Partnerships and Tourism Department, where the Industrial Training and Research Agreement (CIFRE) is located. These interviews were supplemented by observations of meetings between actors. We therefore hope to have an overall (albeit not comprehensive) picture of the tourism stakeholders involved in the event.

For a number of the people interviewed, the need to adapt existing public policies to the timeframes of the event and to adjust those timeframes is a major challenge. The internal role of the General Delegation for the Olympic and Public Games and Big Events (DGJOP) in the organisation is fundamental for the City of Paris. The DGJOP, which was created following Paris’s selection as the host city, reports directly to the General Secretariat. It plays a crosscutting role, responsible for follow-up and management around the OPG. It delegates tasks to the City’s other departments and to the Tourism and Conferences Office. The lifespan of the structures mentioned above (OPGOC, DIJOP and DGJOP) is limited, since they will cease to exist once the Games are over. So, if an organisational legacy is created by the formation of these structures and/or services, it must be passed on to the stakeholders who remain active in the regions.

According to one official at the DGJOP (for reasons of confidentiality, gender is not specified in these interviews in order to protect the anonymity of the interviewees), the OPG perform a real turbocharging role in accelerating public policies. ‘The delegation monitors the Department’s commitments to the Games, both in terms of the legacy of infrastructure and facilities, and in terms of everything that can be done in the context of public policy initiatives in connection with the Games. We have roadmaps and legacy plans, like all public players’ (interview, February 2022). It is therefore the DGJOP that is responsible for monitoring the Department’s various actions and ensuring that the public policies mentioned in the Department’s documents and roadmaps are implemented. One example is the establishment of schemes such as Toutes championnes, tous champions (everyone a champion) or Tous en jeux (games for all). The goal of the first scheme, backed by the City of Paris and the Plaine Commune EPT, is to offer young people in difficulties access to training for employment in the sports sector. This helps to give a boost to the area hosting the mega-event. The objective is to support young people into work by piggybacking on public employment policies. The integration of particular demographic groups emerges as a priority for the legacy of this mega-event in the Seine-Saint-Denis Department.

The Paris Tous en jeux scheme in certain respects resembles the first programme described above. However, this time it is backed solely by the City of Paris and applies to a wider variety of sectors. The aim is to promote access to employment for Parisians in fields relating to the OPG, for example, construction, hospitality, catering or sport. The training courses in this scheme also involve territorial actors, particularly in the so-called City Policy Districts, districts where levels of deprivation are high. So this too is a way to create actor networks.

These same goals are to be found in the City of Paris Olympic Transformations plan adopted (Ville de Paris, 2019) in June 2019. The target of creating ‘a fluid visiting experience for tourists and inhabitants’ connects directly with tourism policies but can also be associated indirectly with other aims, in particular the plan to reduce the boundaries between Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis by upgrading the banks of Saint-Denis canal as well as creating metropolitan sports trails and Olympic loops. Saying goodbye to single-use plastic is also a key objective of the City. Awareness raising campaigns on this issue are targeted at hotels, but the City’s administration also wants to set an example in stopping the use of throwaway plastic.

The elected official responsible for tourism and nightlife in the City of Paris explains that the OPG will have a positive impact on the city, provided that all the actors are included (interview, February 2023). The Cabinet adviser on the OPG for the City of Paris also argues that the objective of the Games is to reinforce day-to-day cooperation between Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis, not just through the schemes cited above but also through informal interchanges (interview, February 2023). While the representatives from the different areas claim that there are no conflicts between them, or any major differences in aims, all of them nevertheless refer to ‘sometimes divergent interests’ (interview, official in the Seine-Saint-Denis DJOP, February 2023) and differences in timeframes among the various actors (interview, OPG cabinet adviser at the City of Paris, February 2023). The City’s Olympic Transformation plan brings together the various public policies relevant to the challenges of the Olympic Games that need to be implemented in the course of these preparations. In the case of swimming in the Seine, the aim is to create public swimming sites, but this measure is also perceived by the public as an opportunity to affirm a symbolic regional link by serving as a connector between the various sites planned for the Paris Games, from Bercy to Saint-Denis (Moutiez, 2021). This project enables ‘very different structures to work together around common dates and a common objective, and is linked to wider issues and actions already underway to improve water quality’ (ibid). Both the interviewees associated with the City of Paris and those from Seine-Saint-Denis see the Games as an accelerator of public policies. However, for the latter, the focus is more on enhancing the image of their region and boosting its development. The goals of the stakeholders in this region are presented in the next section.

The stakeholders in Seine-Saint-Denis: Central actors in the project

In what follows, we focus on the territorial actors in Seine-Saint-Denis. This Department is at the heart of the OPG project, since it plays host to several Olympic competition sites and also to major infrastructures associated with the event such as the OPV, the media village and the Olympic Aquatic Centre (OAC). As a Department that is youthful, with 42.6% of its population under 30 (INSEE, 2019), disadvantaged (63 Urban Policy Area) and has high unemployment (17.9%, according to INSEE, 2019), it is regularly singled out in the media. In a previous survey of residents of the Île-de-France region, we found that more than 48% of respondents rated the image of Seine-Saint-Denis as negative and very negative (Gignon and Delaplace, 2021c, Congress AsTRES-ORME). The challenges of image are therefore important for this area, which despite its difficulties has a wealth of resources. With the Olympic Games, the city’s image can be used as a territorial marketing tool. However, changes in image do not always occur or are not necessarily positive (Gignon et al., 2022).

The equivalent entity to the DGJOPGE in Seine-Saint-Denis is perhaps the Department’s Délégation aux JOP (DJOP – OPG Delegation), which is responsible for managing and overseeing the Department’s actions relating to the OPG and maintaining links between the different stakeholders. With a mission that started in the bidding phase, this entity is preparing for the Games at the same pace as the City of Paris. For the head of the Department’s sports and leisure unit, ‘Sport is one of the territory’s sources of leverage for elected officials (whose term of office covers the Olympics, which has shone the spotlight on sport and the deficiency and poor condition of sports facilities). The stock has been totally renovated. The Games have given a boost to the area’s sports policy’ (Interview, December 2022). Just as in Paris, therefore, the OPG have acted as a policy accelerator across the area.

Another objective is to make the area’s sports policy as visible as possible (interview, head of the Department’s sports and leisure unit, December 2022). The elected official responsible for tourism in the municipality of Saint-Denis states that ‘the guiding thread of public policies in Saint-Denis is the desire to change how the area is perceived’ (interview, October 2022). So here again, image issues are the dominant factor for the stakeholders in the area’s tourism sector. One manager at the Seine-Saint-Denis Tourism agency told us that the OPG (but it would be equally true for another mega-event) will ‘mean that we will speed up this process of developing measures to showcase all the good things we have to offer’ (interview, May 2021). Moreover, according to the same person, the area’s heritage identity is beginning to come to the fore, with a desire to erase its image as a peripheral zone and to make it part of the destination Paris. The director of the same agency reports that ‘it’s not so much that we want to project a new image, we just want to be seen differently’ (interview, May 2021). Another stakeholder in the area’s tourist scene agrees, arguing that Seine-Saint-Denis needs to be construed as a complement to Paris, while still highlighting its industrial history (interview, director of the Plaine Commune tourist office, June 2021). This Department can therefore see its image enhanced by the event. According to the director of the Seine-Saint-Denis CAUE (Council for Architecture, Urbanism and the Environment), ‘the OPG shine a spotlight on the Department, in better terms than those usually employed’ (interview, February 2023). Moreover, for these stakeholders, the event is an opportunity to focus on the development of tourism. Etablissements Publics Territoriaux (EPT) and tourist offices in Seine-Saint-Denis have been trying to encourage new forms of tourism for a number of years (Gignon and Delaplace, 2021b).

The image of an area can evolve, either positively or negatively. One of the reasons why an area’s image changes is the implementation of local policies to increase its attractiveness (Gallarza et al., 2002; Papadimitriou et al., 2018). This can entail hosting events, acquiring a prestigious label, being the subject of a news feature. According to a cabinet director at Saint-Denis municipality responsible for the OPG (among other issues), the region needs to ‘use these international events as an instrument of territorial development, in other words realise how they can bring about lasting change for the town, the area of Plaine Commune. How they enable us to improve the day-to-day lives of our citizens and also to attract a variety of different partners to support and assist with plans for the implementation of public policies. So international events act as instruments of positive change for the town’ (Interview, February 2023). In other words, an area can exploit an event to adapt and improve its public policies. According to this same interviewee, all public policies are affected by the OPG.

Urban development: What do the different actors expect from public policies?

With the OPG, new neighbourhoods are springing up in Seine-Saint-Denis, notably with the construction of the Olympic village in Saint-Ouen, Saint-Denis and Île-Saint-Denis. An official at the Seine-Saint-Denis prefecture responsible for the OPG commented: ‘new neighbourhoods are being created and infrastructures developed, for example with the FUP. That can lead to gentrification, which can be both an opportunity and a threat. We avoid creating isolated neighbourhoods, with the Games we are trying to link them together’ (Interview, November 2022). The FUP referred to here is the Pleyel Urban Crossing which will span the railway and link together the districts of Plaine Saint-Denis and Saint-Denis Pleyel, maintaining continuity between the Metro lines at the future Pleyel station and the RER D regional express line. Moreover, the director of the Seine-Saint-Denis CAUE told us that what is happening here is the ‘integration of buildings into the urban fabric, so neighbourhoods are not being created totally from scratch’ (Interview, February 2023). The new neighbourhoods are designed to develop as an integral part of the city.

In general terms, the director of the Seine-Saint-Denis DJOP stated that ‘the Games make it possible to support development projects that might have taken ten years longer to emerge in the area, so the Games are really an accelerator, and the Games also help to bring all the public actors together around the table’ (Interview, November 2021). What’s more, all the buildings connected with the Games competitions are located in the north-east of Paris, so it is mainly this area that will benefit from the material legacy of the event.

The physical urban legacy is an important factor for those involved in developing the area and making it more accessible, but this cannot be achieved without the intangible legacy. The economic dimension, with job creation, territorial marketing, image issues and tourism development are just as important as urban projects.

Legacy: How are the different actors using this event?

The stakeholders have high hopes for the legacy of the Games. For example, the director of the Seine-Saint-Denis DJOP wants to ‘take advantage of the Games in every sphere’, that is to say ‘we’re going to be working as much on employment and economic spin-offs as on the development of sporting activities, the physical legacy and the urban development of the region. Our role is to maximise the positive impact of the Games on the territory’. For example, as far as employment is concerned, the DJOP is coordinating a large number of actors ‘to ensure that the spin-offs benefit the region’ (Interview, November 2021). So, the aspirations around the Olympic Games are broad and the stakeholders would like the event to benefit as many areas as possible. This explains the variety of measures and actions being implemented. It also means that preparing for the Games is not the sole responsibility of the dedicated department, but that every department in the administration may have to work on the event at one time or another. Everyone’s skills are called upon. And the involvement of so many departments underlines the importance of coordination and delegation of tasks by a lead department (in this case, the Olympic Games department). An official at the Interministerial Delegation for the OPG (DIJOP) also explained his own view of the priorities around the Games legacy. He thinks that they encompass all public policies that can contribute to growth in the practice of sport (e.g. employment and antidiscrimination measures). They are about making France a showcase for know-how and attractiveness (interview, November 2022). The elected official responsible for tourism in Saint-Denis stated that the area ‘is anticipating a dual legacy: material and nonmaterial’ for Saint-Denis and Plaine Commune (interview, October 2022). He also emphasised the desire to create links not only between local actors but also with actors in the City of Paris. He argued that, as the event draws closer, links are being established ever more rapidly. For the Department, the purpose of hosting this event is that local people should benefit from the facilities and that urban transformation should lead to the emergence of a Department that is less isolated and greener (interview, head of the Department’s Sports and Leisure Unit, December 2022).

Governance around the Games is complex, given the number of stakeholders involved. However, the organisation of such an event is based on shared interests between the various stakeholders. The actors agree on a common vision to carry out actions on a large scale and have a greater impact. Coordination between them is fundamental in the preparation of the games. Links between Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis are proliferating as 2024 approaches (and have been since Paris was selected as host city in 2017), but will this continue after the event? On the Seine-Saint-Denis side, the people concerned hope so, so that the area can become part of destination Paris. On the Paris side, there is also goodwill, notably with respect to the distribution of flows across the Paris region. However, what organisational legacy will remain in these areas once the Games are over?

In addition, our interviews revealed difficulties in understanding between the OPGOC and Seine-Saint-Denis, with actors from the latter expressing the view that the OPGOC is out of touch with the realities of the region. However, even if there are coordination difficulties between the local actors in Seine-Saint-Denis and Paris 2024, it is nevertheless north-eastern Paris, with the construction of the Olympic village, the media village, the aquatic centre and the Porte de La Chapelle Arena, that will constitute the main material legacy of these Games.

All the different actors, whether in calibration or not, are seeking to implement public policies. According to the institutional actors, therefore, the areas impacted by the Games will benefit from the event’s effect as an accelerator of development, whether this is territorial, social or touristic.

The schematic representation shows the relationship of influence between OPGOC and local players. OPGOC’s central position indicates the power that this structure, though temporary, can exercise over local actors. The actors are caught up in a system of relationships that differs from the usual pattern. However, there are also players who provide structure and establish strong links with this temporary entity. These also include actors with disparate resources (Crozier and Frideberg, 1997), actors that are independent and actors that are influenced.

The French government has put in place a Legacy Plan comprising 170 measures, some of which are designed to promote tourism by making it easier for foreign visitors to stay and by conveying a more diverse image of the country. The plan also aims to develop urban projects and the construction and/or renovation of aquatic facilities in Seine-Saint-Denis. However, the construction of these facilities may generate opposition because of the gentrification they cause and their environmental impact. These impacts are important for the region and are anticipated by local politicians. However, public opinion is not always positive.

By hosting the Olympic Games in 2024, Paris is demonstrating its ability to organise major international sporting events, after having hosted other events such as the Euro Soccer Championship in 2016. The engagement of the City of Paris and the surrounding areas, such as Seine-Saint-Denis and Plaine Commune, underlines their shared ambition while preserving their own specificities and aspirations. The Olympic Games are a powerful communication tool for promoting more inclusive and sustainable tourism and enhancing the regions image through international media coverage.

The organisation of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games will accelerate the fulfilment of existing public policy objectives by adapting existing systems. The coordination role in the City of Paris is performed by the DGJOP, and the actors involved recognise the positive impact of the Games on territorial, social and touristic development. Despite sometimes divergent interests, strengthening cooperation between Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis is a priority. The Olympic Transformations plan guides public policies in a direction consonant with the Games, promoting a global vision and collaboration between stakeholders. The purpose of the complex governance between these actors is to respond to public policies. It is based on cooperation between local stakeholders.

The stakeholders involved in the Paris 2024 OPGs have high expectations for the legacy of this event. They want to use this opportunity to influence a wide range of outcomes. This broad ambition explains the diversity of the systems and measures put in place, as well as the need for the coordination and delegation of tasks between the different structures. Potential downstream benefits of this legacy include the development of sporting activities, the creation of a showcase for French know-how and the enhancement of the country’s attractiveness. Local stakeholders also have specific aspirations, such as tangible and intangible benefits for their territories, the creation of links between the different stakeholders and urban transformation. Ultimately, the stakeholders want to implement public policies and see the Olympic Games as a catalyst for the territorial, social and touristic development of their local spaces.