This immersive simulation places participants in the role of senior decision-makers within the Olympic Games Federation's Host Site Selection Directorate. They must evaluate four shortlisted candidate cities — Barcelona, Doha, Jakarta, and Toronto — and recommend a host for the 2036 Summer Games. The exercise is set against a backdrop of institutional pressure: the IOC is under scrutiny for decades of cost overruns, environmental damage, and governance failures, and urgently needs a decision that signals a credible new direction.
The simulation is built around a Multi-Criteria Decision Model (MCDM) spanning six dimensions: Financial Viability, Reputational Risk, Sustainability, Geopolitical Value, Delivery Certainty, and Public Legitimacy. Each candidate city presents a distinct strategic proposition — from Barcelona's low-risk legacy model to Jakarta's high-upside but execution-heavy emerging-market narrative — forcing participants to confront genuine trade-offs rather than obvious answers.
Scoring rewards participants who demonstrate strategic alignment with the IOC's stated reform agenda and who proactively identify and mitigate reputational and delivery risks. The simulation is designed to surface common decision-making pitfalls, including over-indexing on financial strength, underestimating governance gaps, and ignoring public sentiment.
Facilitators should use the debrief to draw out the tension between short-term opportunity and long-term brand equity, and to connect participants' choices to real-world frameworks for evaluating complex, multi-stakeholder decisions.
Learning objectives
- Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: The simulation demonstrates how MCDM frameworks help decision-makers cut through complexity by standardising evaluation across dimensions that would otherwise be compared subjectively.
- Strategic alignment vs. short-term appeal: A core teaching point is the danger of the "shiny object" — Doha's infrastructure and financial readiness can easily distract from its significant reputational liabilities.
- Execution risk is a strategic variable: Jakarta's geopolitical upside is real, but facilitators should push participants to quantify the governance and infrastructure gap and ask whether the IOC is the right vehicle for absorbing that risk right now.
- Public legitimacy as a non-negotiable: Toronto's strength lies partly in public support and ESG alignment — facilitators should explore why legitimacy matters more at this particular moment in the IOC's history.
- Legacy as risk mitigation: Barcelona's infrastructure-reuse model offers a discussion point on sustainability and financial prudence that connects well to broader ESG strategy conversations.
- Discussion hook: Ask participants — "If you were a global sponsor threatening to pull funding, which city would make you most nervous, and why?" This surfaces stakeholder management thinking organically.
About the authors
This case study was developed as part of the LiveCase AI immersive simulation library.
Who is this for?
This simulation is designed for mid-to-senior professionals, MBA students, and executive education participants who are developing skills in strategic decision-making, stakeholder management, and ESG-integrated governance. It is particularly relevant for those working in or studying international organisations, public policy, sports management, urban development, or corporate strategy roles where complex trade-offs between growth, risk, and institutional reputation are routine.
FAQ
LiveCase is an educational and training simulation tool that immerses participants into a situation.
Please feel free to reach out to us for a demo.
Simply contact us and we'll be happy to give you a demo.
Yes! For all cases authored by LiveCase we can provide extensive Teaching Notes.
We can't make them public to avoid participants getting a hold of them, but you can simply reach out to us.
You get to choose in the next step. If you "Host" (Instruct) the case, you can pick during the setup if you want to pay for the participants or they pay by themselves.
We offer several options for payment depending on the situations
If you are Hosting
- If the participants pay for the case, they will be requested to pay before joining the case.
- If the host pays, we ask you to purchase your expected number of seats, if you need more, you can purchase more later, if you bought too many, please contact us to arrange a reimbursement.
- Get pre-approved: You can get pre-approved for Invoice billing at a later date. If interested, please reach out to us.
The purchase of the seat has no time limit for the exception that the case is removed (hasn't happened yet), or if the methodology has changed too much.
In the extremely unlikely scenario, you can simply contact us for a reimbursement.
If there is a problem with the payment, please contact us and we will be happy to help.