RESEARCH REVIEW
The Benefits
of Hosting Major Sports Events
Sheffield Hallam University’s Chris Gratton analyses Deloitte’s report ‘A lasting legacy: How major sporting events can drive positive change for host communities and economies’
T
he economic benefits of hosting major sports events has become an increasingly controversial part of event literature. A new report
from Deloitte, ‘A lasting legacy: How major sporting events can drive positive change for host communities and econo- mies’ by Greg Pellegrino and Heather Hancock, in my opinion, takes a remark- ably positive view of the benefits of hosting major sports events. Many governments around the world
have adopted national sports policies which specify that hosting large sports events is a major objective. A broad range of benefits has been suggested for both the country and the host city from staging major sports events including economic impact, urban regeneration legacy benefits, sporting legacy benefits, tourism and image benefits, social and cultural benefits. It is well known that cities and countries compete fiercely to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games or the FIFA World Cup.
Maximising benefits
Given the ongoing debate in academic literature over the costs and benefits of hosting major sports events, it’s surpris- ing that this report has clearly taken the very positive view that: ‘These events can be a significant catalyst for change, elevating the host’s global stature and turbocharging its economic, political ϖand social development’. The report acts as a guidebook on
how to maximise the benefits of hosting a major sports event right through from the initial bid to the legacy. The two
pivotal chapters are ‘Types of change’ and ‘How to create a lasting legacy’. In the ‘Types of change’ chapter the
authors look at what host cities hope to achieve by hosting an event. The list includes: • Improved stature in the global business market • Increased appeal as a tourist destination • Improved infrastructure • Long-term economic development • Increased local pride and self-image • More sustainable behaviour changes Examples are given from recent Olym-
pic and Paralympic Games or FIFA World Cups. For instance, under tourism, the authors use the case of Germany’s hosting of the World Cup in 2006 to show how the image of Germans abroad changed as a result of adopting the motto ‘time to make friends’ and the TV pictures of German fans dancing in the fanfest sites. The festival atmosphere generated during the tournament con- trasted sharply with Germany’s global reputation for no-nonsense efficiency and mechanical precision. The authors do not mention, however,
that there were less foreign tourists in Sydney during the Olympic and Para- lympic Games in 2000, in Athens in 2004 and in Beijing in 2008 than in the same period the year before each event. Hosting major sports events may have a long-term effect on tourism appeal, but for cities which already have an established tourist market, the event can have a detrimental effect on that market during the time
38 Read Sports Management online
sportsmanagement.co.uk/digital
it takes place – not least because of substantial rises in hotel prices.
Legacy potential
In the chapter ‘How to create a lasting legacy’, the authors concentrate on what cities must do in order to gener- ate a real legacy. Their suggestions have been well discussed in previous academic literature but include: • Focus on the postevent legacy, not just the event • Don’t assume the desired legacy will happen automatically • Promote the legacy vision, but be realistic • Build a broad base of support • Reach across political boundaries • Get an early start on planning the city’s infrastructure • Create a broad economic footprint • Partner with the private sector on major infrastructure projects • Expect the unexpected These messages are quite bland and
the legacy chapter is perhaps the most disappointing of the document, not least because no concrete examples are given of the legacy benefits generated by major sports events. This is not entire- ly surprising. The problem is that it takes
Issue 2 2010 © cybertrek 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84