The bleak economic prospects explain why interest in hosting the Games has waned in recent years. Numerous referenda have shown that when populations are given a say in whether their city should take on an Olympics, the answer is almost always an emphatic no. But the economic challenge of hosting the games also explains another recurring issue: the weaponization of the Olympics by repressive states. After all, unlike democracies, authoritarian regimes don’t need to worry about referenda. And although the cost of running an Olympics is high, the Games grant their host country the ability to showcase its might and launder its reputation on the world stage.

Although the IOC has attracted criticism for its record of partnering with authoritarian regimes, that hasn’t been enough to compel the governing body to change tack. Part of the reason is that, in some instances, authoritarian states have been the only bidders left standing. Such was the case in the bid for the 2022 Winter Games, after Oslo, the favorite, withdrew over cost issues, leaving just two contenders: Beijing, which hosted the 2008 Summer Games, and Almaty, in Kazakhstan. Beijing won.

But perhaps the primary reason the IOC hasn’t excluded autocracies from the Games is because it’s simply not in the committee’s interest to do so. According to a 2017 report by Thomas Könecke and Michiel de Nooij, “keeping good working relations with authoritarian governments helps the IOC to secure the future of its main revenue driver, the Olympic Games, thus providing for its own future.” Put simply, partnering with autocracies pays. “Given the diverse participation in the Olympic Games, the IOC must remain neutral on all global political issues,” an IOC spokesperson told The Atlantic, adding that the choice of host “does not mean that the IOC takes a position with regard to the political structure, social circumstances, or human rights standard in it country.”