Major Sporting Events: Why are we so keen to host them and do they bring the benefits we’re led to believe? Part 2

Posted: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:59

Major Sporting Events: Why are we so keen to host them and do they bring the benefits we’re led to believe? Part 2

A recent Commonwealth Games evaluation report produced by the Scottish government found that preparation for the games has boosted Scotland's economy by £52m each year and that £257m worth of contracts relating to the Games have been won by Scottish companies. Encouraging figures, but are they significant numbers when considering the wider and longer-term economic impact of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games? Recalling the words of Georgios Kavetsos and Stefan Szymanski, it's worth remembering that the vast majority of major sporting events have created little in the way of enduring economic profit, however, politicians are aware of how hosting these events is likely to boost their political appeal (see the quote from Part 1). In this case a government keen that the mood created by the Games synchs well with the build-up to a referendum on independence, perhaps? Or in the case of the recent Sochi Winter Olympics a President looking to show the world he has restored Russian pride and wealth.

Ellen Bray, writing for the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS, 2011) echoes the academic consensus that major sporting events are not the economy-boosters that we are led to believe. She describes how we're told by politicians that major sporting events bring great prestige and publicity, increased tourism, justification for infrastructure spending, but in reality profits are small and employment and tourism boosts prove temporary. She argues that profits look particularly unlikely for the Brazil 2014 and Russia 2018 football World Cups. For developed countries mega-events like these can mean a profit, because it is that much more likely that these nations will save money through having the foundations of transport infrastructure and sports venues in place already. The Barcelona Olympics in 1992 is an economic success story, in no small part because the city employed the use of pre-existing facilities;

Hosting an international sporting event can sometimes be a useful development tool, but economic gains come only from meticulous financial management and planning, use of existing stadiums and sports facilities, and investment focused on essential internal infrastructure. (SAIS, 2011).

The sport for development legacy is a complex issue. Framing her research on the 2010 football World Cup, Scarlett Cornelissen of StellenboschUniversity in South Africa argues that there is little evidence to support the claim that sport has intrinsic social benefits. Governments incorporate event bids and plans into their economic strategy but it is unclear as to whether a major sporting event is an appropriate development tool. The sport for development industry and the academic mechanisms and research that assess event-impacts are currently too disparate, she argues. 'Sport for development legacy' needs a clearer definition and means of evaluation. For the World Cup in 2010, South Africa spent $85.7 billion over four years on stadiums and infrastructure and only $54 million on volunteer, social community and sport development projects. Projects delivery after the event has been persistently slow. Several months after the tournament, only four of the twenty 'Centres for Hope' had been set up as part of FIFA's Win in Africa project, as progress dragged and FIFA struggled to get the full co-operation of local community development partners.

The indications are that prospects differ significantly for developed and developing countries when examining the legacies of major sporting events. Major events can increase participation, as in the case of the 2003 Rugby World Cup; and can bring economic benefits, as in the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, when money is prudently spent and the most is made of pre-existing facilities and infrastructure. Lessons from these events must be learned and plans and strategies must be systematically implemented before events in order to ensure their legacies. Worrying about it after the event is simply not enough to guarantee benefits in participation, social cohesion and inclusivity.

This sentiment was echoed recently by the Head of Engagement and Legacy for Glasgow 2014, Paul Zealey, and Professor Mike Weed of CanterburyChristchurchUniversity. Speaking at the Scottish Physical Activity and Health Alliance Conference they both referred to the failings of London 2012 in ensuring a legacy of physical activity; by assuming that the event itself would act as a catalyst to get people more active, and by investing in coaches and facilities at the expense of campaigns to fuel demand and mobilize the population.

So is it time to ditch bidding for major sporting events and resist the pressure to host big competitions? No, but it is time to recognize that they must be planned for meticulously, ensuring that long before the event there are blueprints in place for economic, social and participation legacy with clear, specific goals and measurement for their achievement.

Luke Regan is Researcher for The Sports Think Tank

Tags: Legacy, London 2012, Olympic legacy, Olympics, Sport, Sport for development

Comments

No comments yet, why not be the first?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.