Purpose This conceptual paper theorizes how narrative power interacts with escalation of commitment across the four phases of Olympic-scale mega-events (prep work, bidding, planning, execution). We explain when narrative control advances a project despite deteriorating risk–return profiles, and when it can be redirected toward adaptive persistence or orderly exit. Design/methodology/approach We conduct a discursive, comparative synthesis of scholarship on escalation of commitment, framing/legitimation, and mega-event governance to build a four-phase conceptual model and testable propositions. The model specifies mechanisms (sunk-cost salience, legitimacy contests, agenda-setting), boundary conditions (watchdog independence, referendum rules, media concentration, reversibility of commitments), and phase-specific tipping points. Findings We argue that phase advancement is most likely when pro-event coalitions centralize narrative control under conditions of perceived reversibility; that identity-congruent narratives amplify sunk-cost pressures in planning; and that pre-committed exit ramps and independent oversight attenuate narrative-driven escalation. Research limitations/implications As a conceptual synthesis, the paper invites empirical studies using observable indicators of narrative control, escalation pressure, and gate decisions across cases and time. Practical implications We translate the model into tools for senior leaders: phase-gate go/no-go criteria, a narrative-risk heat-map, and early-warning indicators to curb harmful escalation while preserving legitimate legacy goals. Originality/value We integrate narrative control with escalation of commitment in a phase-sensitive framework, contributing falsifiable propositions and a practice-oriented playbook for politically contested, high-stakes projects.
Abdourazakou et al. (Wed,) studied this question.