When the Olympic and Paralympic Games take place, the spectacle is visible. The insurance architecture behind them is not. Yet without it, said Eike Doerte Buergel (pictured), global head of the Olympic & Paralympic program at Allianz, neither event could exist.
“We are speaking about the biggest and third-biggest multi-sport event in the world,” she said. “Those events wouldn’t exist without insurance, purely due to the financial risk associated with them.”
The Paralympics do not require a separate insurance model. They require a flexible one.
The structure for both events is anchored in the host city agreement between the International Olympic Committee and the Organizing Committee. That agreement governs insurance requirements across both Games.
“There is no clear differentiation between Olympics and Paralympics,” Buergel said. “We want them to be on eye level, whether on the field of play or in the insurance landscape.”
In practice, that means a programme spanning roughly 17 lines of cover from property and liability to event cancellation and specialty risks.
Where the emphasis shifts is operational. The Paralympics place greater focus on mobility, accessibility, medical assistance and athlete flows. Specialist equipment and venue access sit higher on the planning agenda.
“The scope is slightly different,” she said. “But at the end of the day, it is all covered via a single umbrella programme.”
The distinction is structural rather than philosophical. The programme is not rebuilt for the Paralympics, it is adjusted to reflect operational nuance.
Planning begins five to seven years before each Games. Brokers, insurers, organising committees and the International Paralympic Committee are involved early in shaping the framework.
Specialist input, from accessibility planning to medical infrastructure and large-event operations, feeds into underwriting discussions. Knowledge from previous editions carries forward, reducing uncertainty over time.
“The 17 lines of insurance cover basically remain the same,” Buergel said. “But how the scope and the risk are assessed depends on the variables.”
That structure reflects how large-scale event insurance has evolved more broadly, stable programme architecture paired with increasingly granular operational scrutiny.
Those variables change from Games to Games. Regulatory environments differ across host countries, influencing liability structures and procurement. Geopolitical conditions reshape terrorism and cyber assessments. The scale differential between Summer and Winter editions - roughly 15,000 athletes versus 3,500 - alters aggregation and logistics considerations.
Winter Games, often spread across multiple sites, add further operational complexity. Even ceremony design can transform exposure. An opening ceremony staged along the Seine at the 2024 Summer Olympics presented a materially different risk profile from a contained stadium event.
“The framework stays,” Buergel said. “The variables change.” From regulation and geopolitics to venue design and infrastructure complexity, those variables now shift more frequently than the structure itself.
Allianz’s relationship with the Paralympic movement has evolved alongside the insurance structure. Initially a partner of the International Paralympic Committee rather than the Games themselves, the arrangement began as a patronage-style agreement.
A turning point came with the 2012 Summer Paralympics, which drove broader visibility and commercial recognition. Greater familiarity with para-sport disciplines and accessibility requirements has since narrowed perception gaps in underwriting conversations.
Infrastructure commitments linked to the 2024 Summer Paralympics, including transport accessibility, illustrate how the Paralympics increasingly influence host city planning and long-term risk considerations.
“This is not the first Paralympic Games being bundled with the Olympic Games,” she said. “There is a lot of knowledge among all stakeholders and specialists involved to set this up properly.”
The result is a programme designed to absorb change without structural fragmentation. As infrastructure, exposure and geopolitical considerations continue to evolve, the durability of that framework may prove as important as its flexibility.
