Hosting the Olympic Games

Uncertainty, Debates and Controversy

Marie Delaplace, Pierre-Olaf Schut, Marie Delaplace, Pierre-Olaf Schut

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367223960
• eBook ISBN: 9781000546774
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

Hosting the Olympic Games: Uncertainty, Debates and Controversy provides a broad and comprehensive analysis of past Olympic and Paralympic events, shedding critical light on the future of the Games with a specific look at the upcoming Paris 2024 Olympics. It draws attention to the debates and paradox that hosting the Games presents for the contemporary city.

Employing a range of interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological approaches, individual chapters highlight the various controversies of the Games throughout the bidding process, the event itself and its aftermath. Social Science-based chapters place strong emphasis on the vital importance of sustainable strategy for contemporary host cities. Along with environmental concerns whether atmospheric, microbiological or otherwise, many other requirements, costs and risks involving security and public expenditure among others are explored throughout the book.

Including a variety of international and comparative case studies from a range of contributing academics, this will be essential reading for students and researchers in the field of Event studies as well as various disciplines including Tourism, Heritage studies and Urban and Environmental studies.

Part I

Some debates concerning hosting Olympic Games

1 Why do cities withdraw from hosting the Olympic Games?

Nathalie Fabry and Sylvain Zeghni

Introduction

The Olympic Games are events planned with long lead times, which belong to the category of occasional mega-events (Getz and Page, 2015) with high international visibility and high expectations about value creation. According to Persson (2002, p. 27) the Olympic Games are big business.

Academic literature is paying increasing attention to the Olympic Games because they are the subject of considerable social issues and tensions in the metropolises that organize and host them. Indeed, the political, economic and financial interests of both public authorities and private investors often strongly oppose those of local communities.

The authorities, keen to promote urban renewal projects, stress the positive repercussions rather than the considerable pressure on resources (workforce, land, infrastructure) that these mega-events can generate. Until recently, they decided and acted without prior consultation with residents.

The Olympic Games illustrate in an exemplary and empirical way the theory of Right to the City, developed by authors such as David Harvey (2008) or Manuel Castells (1983). According to these authors, the old industrial districts of most of the metropolis have undergone significant post-Fordist and post-modern transformations based on projects and events that are highly publicized, spectacular and ephemeral. These allow capital surpluses to rearrange urban environments by operating large amounts of expropriations and displacements of local populations. From Budapest to Rome, via Hamburg, Boston, Innsbruck, Oslo, and Munich, we have recently observed the rise of opposition movements against the Olympics, mostly because the Games are expected to confiscate space.

Because the official arguments in favour of the Olympic Games have received significant media coverage and very often the support of the citizens, anti-Olympic mobilizations have remained, until recently, unknown. This raises some interesting questions about the shaping of these mobilizations, the degree of the challenge, the actors involved, and the actions at stake.

The literature on the urban and geostrategic issues of the Olympic Games as a competitive mega-event reveals a lot of important controversies. Indeed, behind the apparent nobility of high-level sporting performance, which can pacify people and inspire the young, a considerable number of interests crystallize around the Olympic Games; thus, academic attention focuses on the dynamics of collaboration/protestation at various scales. The host city strengthens its image of a world city able to capture new global flows and, consequently, its territorial attractiveness in the context of exacerbated global competition.

Moreover, its ability to generate international consensus is fundamental. Also, some of the literature has focused on the political boycott of the Games and the Games’ impact on diplomatic relations (Feizabadi et al., 2015; Monnin and Maillard, 2015). Others have shown how corruption and over-sponsoring by multinationals, using the Games to assert their commercial interests, might distort the Olympic ideal. One simply has to remember the famous Salt Lake City scandal in 1998 when the local organizing committee bribed the International Olympic Committee, and Atlanta, where the 1996 Olympics were nicknamed the Coca-Cola Games (Magdalinski et al., 2005) to be convinced that such a distortion is possible.

In other studies, authors stress the local aspect and, in particular, sub-urban relations. For example, Gursoy and Kendall (2006) have pointed out how consultation and prior buy-in of communities affect the success of the application. With regard to this same local dimension, other more critical views have emerged on the issues of social justice and the right to the city by showing that urban renewal projects, such as the Olympic Games, are essentially vehicles of property speculation and dispossession (Harvey, 2008; Soja, 1989). Local people may experience transgression of their most basic rights such as housing, or they can be subject to the exploitation and alienation of local labour.

In recent decades, some big cities have experienced rising and various urban social protests defending local population rights and making precise claims as a reaction against the processes of rehabilitation and gentrification of former industrial districts. David Harvey (2008) uses the concept of militant particularisms to refer to campaigns and struggles emanating from a particular urban area and likely to be expanded to other places, which ultimately gives them a much more global reach.

From a governance point of view, the primary challenge for the government is to defuse criticism of and resistance to the merits of this global sports event. Thus, the notion of legacy occupies a preponderant place in the construction of the discourse related to the Olympic imperative. It is not only a matter of the renovation of socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods, but also a matter of the sustainability of the facilities to generate economic benefits in the medium or long term. This ‘sustainable regeneration’ is a relatively traditional perspective of legitimation based on local economic development.

The omnipresence of the concept of legacy should be emphasized in the debates, because the stakeholders are far from reaching a consensus on the idea. For example, a report from the London Assembly (2007) on the Olympic legacies of Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney, and Athens points out that actual costs and benefits are out of step with ex ante calculations. In terms of impact on employment in particular, the unemployed living near the Olympic Parks in the four cities studied did not experience an improvement in their situation after the Games.

Boston, Budapest, Hamburg, Rome, Innsbruck, Oslo, Munich, Krakow, Davos, and Calgary cancelled their Olympic bids recently for financial reasons, but also because of local protests and referenda. Politicians, inhabitants and, more generally, local stakeholders fear an increase in costs and doubt the benefits of hosting the mega-event. This raises interesting research questions: why do Olympic boosters not work and why is there no positive feedback relating to general claims about return on investment (ROI), impacts, and effects of mega-events in public opinion?

To answer this question, we first need to focus on the relevance of mega-events on local economic development. To understand the link between city and mega-events and to avoid simple balance accountancy, we will adopt a stakeholder’s point of view and consider the place hosting a mega-event to be an ecosystem. Secondly, we will analyse some of the cities that withdrew from Olympic bids and analyse their motivations to do so. As history tells us, cities hosting Olympic Games never make money, because this event represents a significant financial risk. Among the reasons why these cities abandoned their Olympic commitments, we observed increased local protest, a deficit of a legacy of the Olympic Games; the demands of local stakeholders for more transparency; and a lack of involvement by local stakeholders. We will use extensive literature surveys and a media corpus (interviews, blogs, etc.) to deepen our understanding of the cities’ withdrawals from the Olympics.

Olympic Games as a booster for the host city

First, we will focus on the way mega-events impact a host city. We will present, from a location point of view, the expected local benefits of hosting a mega-event. In a second point, we will adopt a stakeholder’s point of view and consider the place hosting to be an ecosystem.

The expected local benefits of hosting mega-events

As Porter and Fletcher (2008) have noted, there is a gap between ex ante predictions of the economic impacts of the Olympic Games and the ex post reality. According to the OECD Local Employment and Economic Development Programme (OECD–LEED, 2010), the local benefits of hosting global events that ‘might reasonably be expected but, of course, are not guaranteed’ (OECD–LEED, 2010, p. 12), can be split into primary (short-term) and secondary (long-term) benefits.

The primary benefits of hosting global events

ALIGNMENT OF THE EVENT WITH SECTOR AND BUSINESS GROWTH STRATEGIES IN THE CITY OR NATION

The requirements of the event can be used to catalyse existing development and growth strategies, either at sector, business or city level. Effective management of the event in this manner yields significant benefits for cities looking to prioritize and accelerate their development goals.

PRIVATE–PUBLIC INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS

Increased co-operation, in the form of partnerships, between the private and public sector are increasingly seen as a key means by which to achieve development goals. The costs and benefits often associated with global events present ideal opportunities for public–private investment partnerships that can serve wider urban development goals.

IMAGE AND IDENTITY IMPACTS ATTRACTING INCREASED POPULATION, INVESTMENT, OR TRADE

The media exposure associated with a global event provides an ideal opportunity for the promotion of a city brand or identity. In an increasingly urban world, the need to differentiate is ever-greater and opportunities to embed a city’s unique assets in the ‘International imagination’ are valuable.

STRUCTURAL EXPANSION OF VISITOR ECONOMY AND SUPPLY CHAIN DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION

Visitors coming to the city for the event will contribute to a more buoyant visitor economy with money they spend causing a multiplier effect on incomes throughout related supply chains. Well-managed events can attempt to focus this multiplier effect on local businesses and supply chains can therefore develop and expand to take advantage of increased business.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, BOTH IN BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

Both the built and the natural environment can greatly benefit from the investment and strategic planning involved in hosting a global event. With global attention turning on a city with the arrival of the event, city authorities can justify using funds to carry out much-needed, but perhaps not previously top-priority work on the built environment to give it a good facelift. Increasingly, ensuring the event is managed in an environmentally conscious manner is becoming a higher priority in terms of city branding as well. Not only can this reduce the environmental impact of the event itself, but it can have wider benefits in changing business and social practices throughout the city and its region which last far beyond the event itself.

The secondary benefits of hosting global events

POST-EVENT USAGES OF IMPROVED LAND AND BUILDINGS

Events may require land and buildings for specific purposes, but their use after the event is only restricted by practicalities and the imagination of the designers and planners. New buildings or land reclamations that subsequently serve local communities and contribute to urban development strategies can transform cityscapes.

CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE LEGACIES

Transport links and other infrastructures constructed for the event are one of the most visible lasting legacies for a host city and can have real impacts on social inclusion if targeted at previously excluded groups.

LABOUR MARKET IMPACTS AND SOCIAL/ECONOMIC INCLUSION

Hosting a global event stimulates significant temporary employment to prepare for such a large undertaking, but can also generate long-term employment if the event is used to expand business sectors and implement structural change in the local economy. Specific efforts can be made to use the temporary employment created to provide qualifications for low-skilled workers who can then go on to find better employment, thus contributing to social and economic inclusion through processes of cyclical uplift.

SECONDARY IMPACT IN THE PROPERTY MARKET

Property prices are very likely to be affected in parts of a city where construction is focussed for a particular event. While this can lead to the gentrification of a district, attracting further investment and leading to the development of an area, it can also force existing, lower-income communities out. A strategic balance must be sought to optimize the local benefits.

GLOBAL POSITIONING, EVENT STRATEGY GOING FORWARD, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

Hosting, or even bidding for an event dramatically increases the capabilities of the city authorities to manage similar projects in the future and makes vital steps towards furthering an events strategy and achieving development goals. Improvements in collaborative governance and co-ordination are fundamental elements of this process. A city with experience of hosting events is naturally held in higher esteem if there are any doubts about a competing candidate city. In an increasingly competitive urban world, having such experience can make all the difference.

Source: OECD–LEED (2010, pp. 12–13)

An Olympic bid may be a catalyst for urban ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Foreword: building the Olympic legacy for Paris 2024
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Lessons from the past to understand the future of the Games
• PART I: Some debates concerning hosting Olympic Games
• PART II: Olympic Games as a tool for urban and territorial development?
• PART III: Risk, uncertainty and environmental issues
• Index