The intention may have been right. The execution left too many questions.
The Aichi–Nagoya Asian Games offered an approach that international sport increasingly needs to consider: use existing facilities, avoid unnecessary construction and contain the cost of hosting. With major sporting events placing growing demands on public finances, expecting every host to build a new village and a collection of expensive venues is neither practical nor responsible.
But savings have to be judged alongside their consequences. In Nagoya, complaints about accommodation, food, transport and scheduling showed how decisions made to simplify an organising budget can complicate an athlete’s day.
Japan’s attempt to reduce costs deserves a fair hearing. The difficulties experienced by athletes deserve an equally serious examination.
Organisers housed participants in hotels, temporary accommodation and a cruise ship instead of building a conventional athletes’ village. Their stated objectives included sustainability and the use of facilities that would not become a burden after the Games. Those are reasonable ambitions.
Yet athletes reported long waits for rooms, cramped accommodation and beds unsuitable for taller competitors. Transport failures disrupted preparation. South Korea’s men’s basketball team missed a practice session before its final when its bus failed to arrive. Further bus allocation problems affected the South Korean and Pakistani volleyball teams on September 28. These were failures in the basic services athletes depended on.
Indian badminton player H.S. Prannoy’s criticism captured another part of the experience. Alongside concerns about accommodation and transport, he questioned a schedule requiring two singles matches in a day. He also spoke about what had been lost without a shared athletes’ village: the opportunity to meet competitors from other sports and feel part of a larger sporting occasion.
For an athlete, accommodation is part of preparation. So are meals, sleep, recovery and the journey to training. A room may meet a booking requirement and still fail to provide the conditions a competitor needs. A bus may eventually arrive, but the lost practice time cannot always be recovered.
The spread of venues added to these difficulties. Using existing infrastructure makes financial sense, but the distances between accommodation, training facilities and competition venues must be central to the planning. Indian shooters reported journeys approaching two hours to reach their range. A Thai delegation official said the medical team had been housed around 90 minutes away, requiring additional transport arrangements.
The strain extended beyond competitors. Support staff responsible for athletes across several venues needed to move efficiently between them. Their availability matters, particularly when a player needs treatment, recovery support or urgent assistance.
From our reporting experience, the dispersed venues also made coverage difficult. With only a limited number of accredited media personnel available, moving between venues restricted how much ground a small reporting team could cover. Travel time meant difficult choices about which events to attend and which stories to leave uncovered. Media access and transport should be considered together when planning an event of this scale.
Organisers did acknowledge failings. They offered explanations for some delays, including incomplete documentation, and apologised for accommodation and transport mistakes. Those responses belong in any fair assessment. Equally, an apology should be followed by a clear account of what failed and how future hosts can avoid it.
It would be too simple to attribute every problem to cost-cutting. Planning, coordination and delivery also come into the picture. Nevertheless, the accumulated complaints suggest that the system was not sufficiently prepared for the demands placed on it. Athletes’ preparation and the conduct of parts of the sporting programme were affected, even if that does not establish that particular results or medals were lost.
Change is necessary. More affordable Games are necessary. But major changes should be introduced gradually where possible, or backed by thorough preparation and realistic testing before thousands of participants arrive. The savings must account for the full operational cost. If national teams have to book replacement hotels and hire their own vehicles, part of the bill has simply moved elsewhere.
Doha, the next Asian Games host in 2030, has an opportunity to learn from this experience. Qatar’s officials were present in Nagoya, and the Qatar Olympic Committee explicitly described participation as an opportunity to exchange expertise ahead of hosting. The hope is that those observations lead to practical improvements in accommodation, catering, transport and access between venues.
The Olympic Council of Asia should lead a detailed review with athletes, national delegations and service providers. Future hosts should be required to demonstrate that their plans work under realistic conditions, including late arrivals, heavy traffic and last-minute schedule changes.
The International Olympic Committee should examine the lessons as well. Los Angeles 2028 is less than two years away and will also make extensive use of existing facilities. The IOC and LA28 organisers should work closely to test the journeys and services athletes will actually depend on, with workable alternatives when something goes wrong.
Japan’s intention to spend more carefully may have been sound. Somewhere between that intention and its delivery, important needs were missed. Future hosts should preserve the ambition to make the Games affordable while protecting the accommodation, food and preparation that allow athletes to do their jobs.
