Japan is known for world-class events - but the Asian Games were chaotic

The Asian Games are a major multi-sport competition involving countries and territories across Asia. Japan was responsible for staging this edition in Nagoya and the wider Aichi Prefecture. That meant making the event work for athletes, officials, delegations, volunteers, venues, transport systems, and ceremonies. The responsibility mattered because Japan has a strong reputation for hosting major international events.

Organizers had to house more than 17,000 delegation members, move athletes between venues, and run medal ceremonies correctly. They also had to manage national symbols carefully. Problems included buses taking athletes to wrong venues, the wrong anthem being played, and a flag not being raised properly.

The Games exposed weaknesses in handling an event of this scale. Professor Kozo Tomiyama warned that damage to international confidence could affect Japan's ability to attract future competitions. Takaaki Omi said organizers listened to feedback and made improvements during the Games.

These Asian Games were exceptionally large by participant count. The article states that the event was bigger than the Paris Olympics in terms of participants. Organizers had initially planned accommodation for up to 15,000 delegation members, but the final number grew by 2,000 to more than 17,000.

That increase created practical pressure across Nagoya. Hotels and container-style units were used instead of one traditional athletes' village, yet they still could not absorb the late arrivals easily. An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 cabins was brought in to help fill the accommodation gap. Transport and event operations also faced strain.

The scale helps explain why small failures had wide effects. Athletes were sent to incorrect venues, ceremonies mishandled national symbols, and volunteers received uncertain ticket information. Takaaki Omi called hosting and managing an event of this scale a major challenge, while saying feedback led to improvements.

The Games suffered problems across both daily operations and public ceremonies. Before competition, participants complained about too few rooms and poor-quality accommodation. During the event, buses took athletes to wrong venues. These failures mattered because they could disrupt competition and weaken confidence in the host's ability to manage basic logistics.

National symbols were also mishandled. The North Korean anthem was played for South Korea's men's hockey team. The South Korean flag was not raised properly during the men's football gold medal ceremony. Taiwan's sports minister was temporarily barred from a flag-raising event. Volunteers were also invited to the closing ceremony for free before an organizer said the plan remained under review.

The incidents produced strong online criticism, including calls for a full investigation. Takaaki Omi acknowledged significant inconvenience for some delegations. He said organizers responded to athlete feedback with improvements, but Professor Tomiyama warned that international confidence could still suffer.

The accommodation plan was designed to reduce spending. Instead of building a traditional athletes' village, organizers placed participants in hotels and container-style units across Nagoya. This approach used existing or alternative accommodation rather than creating one purpose-built complex. It also made the event dependent on the city's available rooms and transport network.

The plan became difficult when more sports were added and the number of delegation members increased. Tall athletes in the containers reportedly struggled to stretch their legs on the beds. With too little capacity remaining, an Italian cruise ship with 1,500 cabins was used to fill the gap. Organizers initially said there was nowhere to house the late influx.

They later reversed course and promised Games-appropriate accommodation for all 17,000-plus guests. The episode showed how a cost-saving design could become a serious logistical problem when the event's final size exceeded the original plan.

Organizers had arranged accommodation for up to 15,000 delegation members under the host city contract. The number later rose by 2,000, reaching 17,000, after other sports were added. That change overwhelmed the original accommodation plan and exposed how little spare capacity was available in Nagoya.

At first, organizers said there was simply nowhere to put the additional participants. They told the late influx to make its own arrangements. The response created further uncertainty, because delegations needed suitable rooms close enough to support competition and daily operations. An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 cabins was then used to help fill the shortfall.

Organizers later backpedalled and issued a joint statement with the Olympic Council of Asia. It promised that all 17,000-plus guests would receive Games-appropriate accommodation. The episode showed that late changes in participation can quickly turn a budget and planning assumption into a public crisis.

GL Events' Japanese subsidiary was responsible for managing venue operations. It won a 63bn yen contract over Dentsu Group, which had a long record of running sporting events in Japan but had been sidelined after a criminal bid-rigging conviction. A source told Kyodo that GL Events was overwhelmingly cheaper than alternatives.

Local reporting alleged that the company cut corners when hiring. The Tokyo Shimbun said this produced too few experienced staff and that recruited personnel were not properly trained. Those weaknesses could help explain difficulties handling transport, venues, and other unexpected problems. GL Events did not respond to repeated BBC requests for comment.

Omi defended the company by pointing to its experience, including the Paris Olympics. Professor Tomiyama rejected a simple conclusion that it lacked experience. Instead, he questioned the extremely broad responsibility assigned to GL Events, the assessment criteria, and how organizers supervised the contractor after awarding the contract.

A competitive tender asks multiple qualified companies to submit offers against published requirements. A negotiated contract is arranged through direct discussions with a selected provider, rather than a full open competition. Both methods can produce a contract, but they create different ways to compare price, experience, staffing, and delivery plans.

The choice matters especially for a major public event. A low price may save money, but organizers must also test whether the company has enough trained people and can manage a broad workload. Competitive bidding can make comparisons clearer. Negotiation may be quicker or more flexible, but it places greater importance on the selection criteria and the buyer's scrutiny.

The article says GL Events received a negotiated contract and was overwhelmingly cheaper than alternatives. Professor Tomiyama therefore called for examination of how capabilities were assessed and how the contractor was supervised after appointment. Those checks could affect future public-event confidence.