The Commonwealth Games: Signs of the End?
In two days one of the minor-major Global sporting events will take place - The 2026 Commonwealth games in Glascow, Scotland. If you are outside the commonwealth nations and you haven't heard of this event, it comes as no surprise. This speaks to the exclusivity and uniqueness of a games that once rivaled the Olympic games in terms of pride.
For context, the Commonwealth games is held every four years by 'Commonwealth' Nations - these are countries that were once ruled by the former British empire and have somehow retained or at the very least acknowledged this common heritage.
For some (or many?) countries, Colonization probably won't be discussed as a thing of pride. A lot of Countries do share some level of resentment to their Colonial masters, at the very least culturally. However, there have been some advantages of being a member nation, however subdued.
None of course is as Glamorous as the Commonwealth games. It is a series of sporting events where athletes compete with one another representing their countries. I think what makes the games pretty unique is the vast array of sports (able bodied and Para sports) that are usually on display.
This years games though is very subdued. It features just 10 Sporting events and leaves out a lot of major sports you'd expect to see at such an event like wrestling, hockey, badminton, shooting, and table tennis.
I guess we should be grateful. For a brief moment it was uncertain whether the games would even have a host. The Original Hosts, Victoria, Australia pulled out from hosting citing rising costs of hosting the games. It is so bad that they were willing to pay the a withdrawal fee of almost $400 Million just to not host the games.
Glasgow, Scotland, who stepped in are hosting an extremely budget friendly games, with spending estimated less that $150 Million. Ideally they should be lauded, but should a sporting event of this magnitude be searching for a home?
The record spending for hosting the games is $11 Billion by Delhi, India in 2010. Now Host cities are weary about committing even half a billion. Waning interest in hosting, especially by developed member nations perhaps signal to something more significant in the future.
We watch and see
Hey, good call.
Perplexity did a bit of summing up for me.
Global Mega-Event Hosts, 2000–2034: Olympics, Commonwealth Games & FIFA World Cup
Years 2000–2034 with at least one event
Countries with ≥2 events, with event types
Is there a tendency that "authoritarian" countries are more willing to host these major events?
Yes, this is a well-documented trend, and your own host list actually illustrates it.
The pattern in your data
Looking at your table, authoritarian or semi-authoritarian countries appear repeatedly: Russia (2014 World Cup, 2014 Winter Olympics), China (2008 Summer Olympics, 2022 Winter Olympics), and Qatar (2022 World Cup, an absolute monarchy), plus the upcoming Saudi Arabia (2034 World Cup). Meanwhile, several western democracies have recently withdrawn or declined to bid.
Why this is happening — key reasons
1. Democracies are opting out due to cost and public opposition
Citizens in democracies can vote against hosting, and increasingly do. Sports economist Victor Matheson notes that when the 2022 Winter Olympics bidding dropped from seven cities to two, "all five of the cities that decided not to bid were in western democracies with a thriving free press and vocal populaces". Calgary voters rejected a 2026 Winter Olympics bid in 2018 for similar reasons. Your own data reflects this: Victoria, Australia withdrew from hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games over costs, and Glasgow stepped in with a far cheaper alternative. magazine.holycross
2. Authoritarian states use hosting as a soft-power/legitimacy tool
Unlike democracies, autocratic governments don't face voter backlash over cost overruns, so they can commit huge budgets regardless of public opinion. Researchers argue dictatorships treat hosting as "a unique opportunity to generate positive publicity and repair their regimes' potentially tarnished image on the world stage," projecting stability and competence. This is often called "sportswashing." inkstickmedia
3. Governing bodies (FIFA, IOC) have been criticized for favoring these bids
A former FIFA secretary general infamously said "less democracy is sometimes better for organising a World Cup," reflecting how autocracies can bulldoze through logistical/legal obstacles (land seizure, labor regulation, security lockdowns) that democracies can't as easily override. Political scientist Alexander Cooley notes the last two World Cups before 2026 (Russia 2018, Qatar 2022) went to authoritarian states amid corruption allegations in the bidding process. sportsgazette.co
4. Emerging/rising powers use events to assert global stature
Beyond authoritarian control specifically, rising economies (BRICS-type states) use these events to demonstrate geopolitical arrival — a motive shared by both autocracies and democratizing states like Brazil, India, and South Africa. theconversation