Full article

The Michelin Bubble: Prestige Without Sustainability

Across the world, Michelin-starred restaurant closures have multiplied in recent years. This phenomenon reveals a contradiction: the highest gastronomic distinction does not always ensure economic viability. The star dazzles in the press and on social media, but it does not guarantee financial stability. The so-called “Michelin bubble” relies more on reputation than on sustainability. In reality, it is an experience rather than a habit.

Signature restaurants present themselves as spaces of radical innovation: dishes conceived as works of art, experimental pairings, and avant-garde staging. For many diners, the visit becomes a ritual—one goes once, lives the experience, photographs it, and shares it. However, it is rarely repeated, partly because, with few exceptions, the food itself is underwhelming.

The absence of repeat customers erodes the business foundation. Restaurants depend more on gastronomic tourism and media attention than on local loyalty. Moreover, maintaining a star requires disproportionate investments: large teams (often composed of poorly paid interns), luxury products such as truffle or caviar to justify inflated prices, constant supplies, and theatrical spaces.

Fixed costs are enormous while customer flow remains unstable. The result is a fragile economic model, dependent on awards and press coverage, but difficult to sustain over time.

In the media, the narrative is one of success; the reality is very different. In the United States, for example, academic studies show that more than 40% of Michelin-starred restaurants in New York between 2000 and 2019 had closed by 2020. Restaurants are often rewarded for so-called innovation—praised by conditioned critics—while classic, local, and international cuisine, the kind people actually return to, thrives with repeat customers and steady profits.

The list of closures is long and global, though rarely reported prominently. Some examples:

• Euphoria (Singapore, 1 star): closed in August 2025.
• Alma by Juan Amador (Singapore, 1 star): also closed that same month.
• Lord Stanley (San Francisco, 1 star): closed in May 2025 after failed reopenings.
• Luce (San Francisco): held a star for more than a decade, but closed permanently in 2025.
• Lyle’s (London, 1 star): closed in 2025 after eleven years in business.
• Frilu (Markham, Canada, 1 star): closed in 2024.
• Manzke (Los Angeles, 1 star): closed in 2024 citing operating costs.
• Maude (Beverly Hills, 1 star): closed in 2024, the chef choosing to shift his model.
• Dani García Restaurante (Marbella, 3 stars): closed in 2019, just a year after earning its third star, to move toward a more accessible model.
• Sant Pau by Carme Ruscalleda (Catalonia, 3 stars): closed in 2018, at the height of its prestige.
• Ultraviolet by Paul Pairet (Shanghai, 3 stars): closed in March 2025.
• Several Singapore restaurants (Art di Daniele Sperindio, Chef Kang’s, Matera, Oshino, Poise, Shinji at Carlton, Sommer, Sushi Kimura): all with one star, closed or ceased operations in 2025.

Even high-profile chefs have failed under this model. A striking example is Dabiz Muñoz: his ambitious London project StreetXO—an impressive investment—closed in 2020 with heavy losses.

These cases, among many others, illustrate a constant: recognition does not shield against closure.

The Contrast: The Classics

In contrast to Michelin fragility, classic restaurants—without stars, but with steady menus and loyal customers—are the true foundation of global hospitality. Their success rests on repeat visits, product consistency, and predictable pricing. They do not need headlines or flamboyant creativity; their strength is reliability.

A Legal and Business Perspective

From a legal-business standpoint, Michelin-starred restaurants exemplify the risks of projects heavily dependent on capital and reputation:

• Financial risk: investments without guaranteed returns.
• Labor risk: large and costly staff structures.
• Contractual risk: investor agreements built on prestige expectations rather than sustainable accounts.

Corporate law, investment contracts, and labor regulations are all strained by models that prioritize visibility over viability.

Conclusion

The closure of so many Michelin-starred restaurants is not an isolated accident but proof that gastronomic prestige does not guarantee sustainability. In the global restaurant industry, true success is not always reflected in the guides; it lies in establishments that earn their customers’ loyalty day after day.