Big global events like the Olympics can pull attention away from markets, shift participation, and thin out volume in pockets. 

When that happens, liquidity can appear lighter, spreads can be less consistent, and short-term price action can become noisier, even if broader index-level volatility does not change materially.

So instead of asking “Do the Olympics create volatility?”, a more practical lens is to ask “What volatility events could show up during the Games?”

‍

Quick facts

• Evidence is generally weak that the Olympics themselves are a consistent, direct driver of market volatility.
• Volatility spikes that occur during Olympic windows have often coincided with bigger forces already in motion, including macro stress, policy surprises, and geopolitics.
• The more repeatable Olympics-linked impact tends to be around execution conditions, not a new fundamental market regime.

‍

Olympic “volatility bingo”, how it works

Think of it as a checklist of common volatility triggers that can land while the world is watching.

Some “volatility bingo” squares are timeless, like central banks and geopolitics. Others are more modern, such as cyber disruption risk, climate activism, and social flashpoints surrounding host-city logistics.

‍

Macro and policy

Central bank shock

When policy expectations shift, markets can move regardless of the calendar.

London 2012 is a reminder that the story was not sport. It was the Eurozone. In late July 2012, ECB President Mario Draghi delivered his “whatever it takes” remarks in London, at a time when sovereign stress was a dominant volatility theme.

Macro stress already underway

Beijing 2008 took place in a year defined by the global financial crisis, with volatility tied to credit stress and repricing risk appetite, not to the event itself. The Games ran from 8 August 2008 to 24 August 2008.

‍

Geopolitics and security

Regional conflict timing

During Beijing 2008, the Russia-Georgia conflict escalated in early August 2008, overlapping with the Olympic period. The market lesson is that geopolitical repricing does not pause for major broadcasts.

“After the closing ceremony” risk

Beijing 2022 ended on 20 February 2022. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February 2022, only days later.

This is a classic “bingo square” because it reinforces the same principle. A geopolitical escalation can land near a global event window without necessarily being caused by it.

Security incident headline shock

The Olympics have also been directly impacted by security events, even if those events are not “market drivers” on their own.

Two historic examples that shaped the broader security backdrop around major events are:

• The Munich massacre during the 1972 Summer Games.
• The 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing in Centennial Olympic Park.

‍

Modern host-city climate

Environmental and anti-Olympics protests

Host city activism is not new, but the themes have become more climate and infrastructure-focused.

Paris 2024 saw organised protests and “counter-opening” events. Reporting around Paris also referenced environmental protest attempts by climate groups.

The current 2026 Winter Olympics opened amid anti-Olympics protests in Milan, with reporting that included alleged railway sabotage and demonstrations focused in part on the environmental impacts of Olympic infrastructure.

These types of headlines can matter for markets indirectly, through risk sentiment, transport disruption, policy response, and broader “instability” framing.

Cyber disruption risk

The cyber “bingo square” has become more prominent in modern Games.

France’s national cybersecurity agency ANSSI reported 548 cybersecurity events affecting Olympics-related entities that were reported to ANSSI between 8 May 2024 and 8 September 2024.

Even when events are contained, cyber incidents can still add noise to headlines and confidence.

Logistics and “can the event run” controversy

Sometimes the volatility link is not the Games, but the controversy around delivery.

Paris 2024 had high-profile scrutiny around the Seine and event readiness, alongside significant public spending to clean the river and ongoing debate about water quality risks.

‍

Health and disruption narratives

Public health concerns

Rio 2016 is a reminder that health risk narratives can become part of the Olympic backdrop, even when the market impact is indirect.

Zika concerns were widely discussed ahead of the Games, including debate about global transmission risk and travel-related spread.

The “postponement era” memory

Tokyo 2020 was postponed to 2021 due to COVID-19, which underlined that global shock events can dominate everything else, including major sporting calendars.

‍

Practical takeaways for traders

The most repeatable Olympics-era shift is often not “more volatility”, but different execution conditions.

During major global events, some traders choose to watch spreads and depth for signs of thinning liquidity, trade less when conditions look choppy, and stay aware that geopolitical, cyber, and protest headlines can hit at any time.

In global markets of enormous scale, sport is usually not the catalyst. The bingo squares are.

The Olympic and Winter Olympic Games capture global attention for weeks, drawing millions of viewers and dominating headlines. For traders, this attention often feels like a catalyst, yet the real market drivers remain the same: macroeconomics, policy, and global risk sentiment, not the sporting calendar.

So why do some traders say results feel weaker during major sporting events?  

Often it comes down to a failure to adapt to conditions that can shift at the margin, particularly liquidity and participation.

1. Expecting “event volatility”

A major global event can create an assumption that markets should move more. Some traders position for breakouts or increase risk in anticipation of bigger swings, even when conditions don’t support it.

Key drivers

• In some markets and sessions, reduced participation can weaken trend follow-through

• Sentiment can inflate expectations beyond what price action delivers

Example: A trader expects a breakout during the Olympic opening ceremony period, but low regional participation limits price movement, leading to false starts.

2. Forcing trades in quiet sessions

When price action is slower and ranges compress, some traders feel pressure to stay active and take lower-quality entries.

Key drivers

• Narrow intraday ranges can increase false signals

• Lower conviction can favour consolidation over trend, raising false-break risk

• “Staying engaged” can reduce selectivity

Takeaway: Use quieter sessions to refine setups or review data rather than forcing marginal trades.

‍

3. Ignoring thinner liquidity

Participation can ease slightly during major global events, and the impact is often more pronounced on shorter timeframes. Daily charts may look normal, while intraday price action becomes choppier with more wicks.

Key drivers

• In lower-depth conditions, price can jump more easily, and wick size can increase

• In some instruments and sessions, thinner liquidity can coincide with wider spreads and more variable execution (varies by market, venue and broker conditions)

Timeframe sensitivity to thinner conditions

The above table is illustrative only (varies by market): Daily charts may look normal. Five-minute charts can feel more erratic.

Low volume big wicks example

4. Using normal size in abnormal conditions

Even if overall volatility looks stable, execution risk can rise when liquidity thins, especially for short-term or scalping-style approaches.

Key drivers

• Slippage can increase, and stops may “overshoot”

• Thin conditions can trigger stops more easily in noise

• Wider spreads can shift entry/exit outcomes versus normal conditions

Adjustment: Maintaining fixed sizing may distort effective risk. Some traders review transaction costs, including spreads, and execution conditions when setting risk parameters such as stops/limits, particularly in thinner sessions.

5. Trading breakouts with low follow-through

Trend-following tactics can falter when participation declines. Momentum may dissipate quickly, and false breaks become more common.

Key drivers

• Reduced flow can limit sustained directional moves

• Some low-liquidity regimes may favour mean reversion over momentum

Example: A classic range breakout appears valid intraday but fades rapidly as follow-through volume fails to materialise.

Failed breakout example

6. Overlooking timing and distraction risk

There is no reliable evidence that the Olympic calendar predictably drives geopolitical events. But when tensions are already elevated, major global events can sometimes coincide with attention being spread elsewhere, somewhat similar to holidays, elections or major summits.

Traders should identify when conditions are slower or thinner and adjust accordingly, aligning tactics with reduced follow-through risk and calibrating position sizes to execution reality. Most importantly, avoid forcing trades when edge is limited during these periods.

Upcming economic events

The decision to scale (increase the traded lot size of a specific EA) should be based on statistical evidence that indicates your EA has the potential to perform to certain expectations. 

Equal weight should be given to the decision to scale, as to the initial decision to deploy an EA. This guide provides an indicative approach on how to put together and action your scaling plan.

Before You Start Your Scaling Plan

Important: this should be an individual plan that is consistent with your personal trading objectives, your EA portfolio, and your personal financial situation (including account size).

We are going to use a starting lot of 0.10 per trade in the examples in this document —you want to adjust this based on your own risk tolerance.

Whatever your chosen lot size start point, EA scaling should be a pre-planned incremental approach, scaling stepwise based on performance metrics you are seeing in your live trading account.

You should also have assessed the current margin usage of your EA portfolio exposure to ensure that any scaling and related increased margin requirements are appropriate to the size of your account. 

Suggested Scaling Baseline Requirements

Scaling should only be performed when your EA is performing to what you deem to be a good standard. To make this judgment, you need to set some minimum performance standards.

The past performance of your EA is not a guarantee of future performance. If market conditions change, you must remain vigilant and continue to measure performance on an ongoing basis for every live EA you have.

You need to define the key metrics that are important to you. 

Two important metrics to include are:

• The number of trades: to provide some evidence of reliability 
• The period of time: to have had exposure to at least some variation in market conditions

Example of how you may lay your metrics out in a table:

Some may choose to include proximity to original expectations of other metrics, such as minimum win rate, average profit in winning trades, and average loss in those that go against you. 

It should only be after your metrics are met that lot scaling begins on any specific EA.

Lot Size Scaling Ladder

Below is an example of a performance-based scaling plan assuming a 0.10-lot baseline.

Again, this is indicative. It provides a framework with clear review dates and an approach that illustrates incremental scaling. You must still define a regime that is right for your specific trading objectives. 

Risk Guardrails

It is vital to keep an eye on your general account risks and have limits in place that guide your EA use.

Such limits must be constant across all stages of scaling and referenced beyond the risk of a single EA, but to your portfolio as a whole.:

Per-Trade Risk (Nominal)

Trade risk for any one trade should be seen in the context of account size and the dollar risk based on the risk parameters you have set for your EA. 

Specify a maximum percentage of the account balance — a $200 loss is more impactful on a $1000 account compared to a $10,000 account. 

Stick to what is right for you in terms of your tolerable risk level based on your trading objectives and financial situation. A common suggestion is a 1-2% risk of account equity per trade. 

Total Open Exposure

Specifying maximum exposure in the number of EAs open at any time and those that use the same asset class is important for overall portfolio risk management. 

There are tools you can use to monitor exposure risk generally, as well as those that can be used to indicate single asset exposure.

Margin Usage

It is always desirable that your set exit approaches and parameter levels are what your exits are based on. It should not be because your margin usage has meant you have moved into a margin call situation. 

Specify a minimum level to adhere to and make sure that your account is sufficiently funded. If volatility or slippage rises (e.g., news events or illiquid sessions), reduce lot size temporarily.

Scaling Psychology – Managing “Big Numbers”

As lot sizes rise, your emotions may respond accordingly when you see the larger dollar amounts that your EA is generating. 

If you are used to seeing an average profit of $100 and average loss of $50, and suddenly you are seeing significantly bigger numbers, it creates an emotional challenge where you may be tempted to do a “discretionary override”. 

Although there are situations, such as major market events, overexposure in a specific asset, or VPS or account system problems, where such intervention may be considered, generally this would distort the actual performance evaluation of your EA and is not encouraged (unless it is pre-planned).

The table below presents some of the generally accepted challenges and offers suggestions on how to manage them. 

Your Plan Into Action…

In practical terms, your scaling plan should have two components:

1. The key parameters for action on your chosen key metrics
2. Specified periodic review times to make your next scaling decision

This is not a race. Having systems in place facilitates creating the opportunity that scaling brings while still mitigating the risks.