The Milan-Cortina 2026 sequence is officially over. Time to look back on these Games, with a fresh perspective, with Eric Monnin, director of the Centre for University Olympic Studies and Research (CEROU) and ambassador for Marie and Louis Pasteur University. The author of the book A century of Olympism in winter (ed. Désiris) followed these Games closely and drew a number of lessons from them.
There were high expectations given the return of the Games to the heart of Europe. Do you think the Olympic and Paralympic Movement has emerged stronger as a result?
Yes, because the Winter Olympics are primarily European Games. The top eight nations in the rankings are European. Germany wins everything in bobsleigh and luge, the Netherlands wins everything in speed skating, and so on. These Games are essentially European, and bringing them back to Europe ensures broadcasts at ideal times for the public, as well as strong social media engagement. This allows them to have an impact on the population, and especially on young people.
You provided commentary for the ceremonies of these Games on Eurosport. What did you think of them?
We've returned to a more traditional format, but we've noticed several types of innovation. For the first time, we heard about the Games being spread out across multiple clusters. We saw an opening ceremony with parades in different locations and two lightings of the Olympic cauldron. The closing ceremony was also very interesting. It reflected the spirit of unity we saw in 1956 in Melbourne, in the midst of the Cold War. At the time, John Ian Wing proposed a closing ceremony that would highlight the humanist principles of Olympism by bringing together all the athletes, regardless of nationality. Being in the Verona Arena also brought back memories of the 1960 Games: the Ethiopian Abebe Bikila winning by entering the Colosseum barefoot, the events in the Baths of Caracalla, and so on. The venues have a very strong symbolic meaning and echo ancient Greece, the tradition of the Ekecheiria.
These are Games rich in lessons according to comments made by those in charge of Alpes 2030 or even the Swiss bid 2038.
Yes, there were a total of 300 observers, who came to try and learn best practices. These included efforts to limit travel and reduce carbon footprint. The Games shouldn't change a city or a venue, but rather adapt to it. They adapted, and that's the great strength of these Games.
We can see that this model opens up the field of possibilities and fuels reflections, for example on a potential New York-Lake Placid bid.
The goal today is to move towards joint bids. Look at the Alps 2030: the speed skating oval will be in Italy or the Netherlands. That's the principle now. What creates a carbon footprint, more than airplanes, is cement. Building Olympic venues from scratch is the opposite of what we need to do if we want a positive legacy for the nation. We absolutely must reuse what's available and share resources. Today, it's unthinkable to repeat the Sochi Games.
These Games were also marked by a delicate geopolitical context. Is that a blemish on the copy?
On February 4th, a 107th member of the IOC was elected, Iranian Soraya AghaeiThis is a real statement regarding the status of women. The IOC wanted to support Iranian women, and that's the first thing that stands out for me. Then, of course, there's Vladyslav Heraskevych. I believe his efforts were effective. Everyone talked about it, even though he was excluded. The IOC president even went to meet him. All of this highlighted something very important at the Games: there are sanctuaries. The Games shouldn't be political, but we have the right to express ourselves, and there are places for that. I believe Coventry succeeded with its first Games by taking all of this geopolitical context into account.
A truly Ukrainian moment in Munich.
— Munich Security Conference (@MunSecConf) February 14, 2026
Skeleton racer @heraskevych visited the Ukraine House on the sidelines of the # MSC2026. pic.twitter.com/S4lOgEOvr8
Do you think the IOC handled this matter well? Many criticisms have been raised.
The situation is complicated because the IOC claims political neutrality. Where is the line? There could be other ways this freedom of speech could be used for proselytizing. This would open the door to using the Games as a platform to denounce or promote politicians. That's what happened in Berlin.
Does the current geopolitical context pose a threat to major events?
Indeed, many questions can be raised. In Milan-Cortina, just two weeks apart, we see that the IOC and the IPC don't share the same policy. The message is confusing; everyone is doing their own thing, and that's not working. I believe we need to find a way to calm things down, which must come through international agreements at the highest level. We're sending a message of confusion; everyone is doing their own thing, and that's not working. I believe we need to adopt a clear position. In the 1960s, two countries were subjected to apartheid: South Africa and Rhodesia. They were ostracized by the rest of the world with a UN resolution in 1968. Today, everyone says that war is shameful, but there's no resolution. Everyone needs to take responsibility. For the future of these mega-events, international institutions need to make real decisions.
