By Sunday evening, Munich will decide whether to support a bid to host future Olympic Games — a decision that has divided residents and politicians for months.
Supporters argue that only an Olympic bid could unlock large-scale investment in housing, transport and urban development, while opponents question why the city would need a sporting event to fund basic infrastructure.
Among the projects cited by proponents are a new residential district near Daglfing, the extension of U-Bahn line U4, and the long-discussed northern S-Bahn ring connection — all part of Munich’s broader development vision.
Citizens question the logic: “Do we really need the Olympics for a bike path?”
The debate has played out vividly on social media and in comment sections. On BR24, one user under the name “elvisfan” asked: “Do we really need the Olympics to build a bike path or a park? Ours was built without one.”
Another user, “Chrissy_t_c”, raised a sharper question: “If these projects depend on the Olympics, does that mean there are special subsidies that wouldn’t exist otherwise? And if so, why?”
City officials acknowledge that most of these projects are already part of Munich’s urban development plan, but note that the Games could accelerate implementation thanks to additional state and federal funding.
“Without the Olympics, some measures might be delayed — or never realised at all,” said Andreas Haas, spokesperson for Munich’s Department of Education and Sports.
Officials: Olympic funding could fast-track stalled projects
Haas cited the northern S-Bahn ring as a key example. The project has been discussed for decades but repeatedly postponed in favour of other transport priorities.
“With additional funds from the federal and Bavarian governments, we could finally push it forward if Munich becomes a host city,” Haas explained.
According to Klaus Wohlrabe, head of surveys at the ifo Institute, Olympic funding can open doors to resources otherwise unavailable: “The Games offer access to subsidies that wouldn’t exist without them. It allows cities to invest money they otherwise wouldn’t have.”
A recent ifo study on the economic effects of major sporting events supports this view, finding that host cities often benefit from accelerated infrastructure timelines and long-term urban improvements.
Echoes of 1972: A legacy that still benefits Munich
Daniel Gromotka, from Munich’s Department of Urban Development and Statistics, sees clear parallels with the 1972 Olympics, which transformed the city’s infrastructure.
“Many of the projects back then — the U-Bahn system, the Olympic Park — were already planned,” he said. “But after Munich won the bid, everything was built quickly and at high quality.”
Today, Munich still benefits from the facilities and green spaces created in that era. Supporters argue that a new edition of the Games could repeat that success, leaving behind modernised public transport and sustainable housing.
“The buses, trains and metro lines improved for the Games would remain in service long after,” said Wohlrabe.
Critics: “The housing would come anyway – and faster without the Olympics”
Opponents, however, reject the argument that hosting the Games is a prerequisite for progress. Tobias Ruff, city councillor and head of the ÖDP/Munich List, doubts that major construction projects could even be completed on time.
“The U-Bahn expansions can’t realistically be finished within the Olympic timeframe,” he said.
He also pointed out that the proposed Olympic Village site is already earmarked for residential development.
“Those housing projects would happen anyway — and faster without the Games,” Ruff argued.
His reasoning: after the event, the athlete accommodations would need to be converted into standard apartments, delaying actual move-in for families by several years.
City of Munich: “We won’t overextend ourselves”
City officials insist Munich could host the Games without financial risk.
“We expect a large share of operating costs to be refinanced — as seen in Paris — through ticket sales, local sponsors, and a contribution from the IOC,” said Haas, noting that Paris 2024 covered 95 % of its costs through similar means, including €1.23 billion from the IOC.
Infrastructure investments, however, would remain part of the city’s long-term assets, co-financed by federal and state subsidies and possibly private partnerships.
Munich would distribute its remaining financial contribution over a ten-year preparation period, Haas added, minimising budget pressure.
Beyond the Games: a test of political will
Whether or not Munich proceeds with the bid, the referendum highlights a deeper issue — the city’s ability to invest in itself.
If projects like new housing and transport expansions are only feasible under the banner of the Olympics, critics warn that Germany’s public funding system may be structurally flawed.
For now, both sides agree on one thing: the outcome of Sunday’s vote will shape Munich’s urban future for decades to come.
