Typology of eventsEvents are generally assessed in terms of their economic impact rather than as part of a broader process (Hiller, 1998).Events can be branched into 4 sorts.
These are the number of names that can illustrate the degree of an event, most commonly used are Mega-Events, Trademark Occasions, Major events and Nearby Occasions (Baum et al, 2009).1. Mega Events: According to Roche (2000), mega-events are known as ‘large-scale social (counting commercial and sporting) occasions, which have a high demand, powerful character, and universal significance’ For Example: Football World Cup, Olympics.2. Hallmark Events: Hall (1989) states that, Hallmark events consist of fairs, expositions, cultural and sporting events of universal status which are held on either a regular or a one-off basis. With the main objective being to secure a colossal importance in the tourism market place of the host country. For example: The Edinburgh Celebration. 3.
Major Events: Major sport event is world regional or national in reach, and occur on a regular basis (Bowdin et al, 2006). Such as the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover and the 2012 ITU World Triathlon Series Grand Final.4. Local Events: Consists of local crowd and participants with minimum international media coverage and benefits just the city. Like the Upper Hutt Summer Carnival, Hastings Blossom Parade. Economic:Mega-event characterizes ‘events that take place for a worldwide media and/or that have noteworthy, long-term impacts on economies and societies'(Bladen et al 2012). The monstrous measure and worldwide appeal identify mega-events from others, such as the World Cup and Olympic Games. In contrast, Getz (2007) stated that on the off chance that the term ‘mega’ was exclusively related with events such as the Olympic games, it secludes events smaller in estimate, but still features a mega affect on the host community in terms of tourism, sociocultural, and financial benefits or disturbances.
The labelling of ‘mega events’ should depend on the media coverage, economic impact and tourism that it attracts (Getz,2007). For Beijing 2008, European broadcast rights were sold for $443 million, and accounted for 53% of the total income for the Olympic Games (Bladen et al, 2012). Social:Mega events tend to have a huge impact on the host country, bringing citizens together as they join forces to provide the international audience with an unforgettable experience, tradition and culture, resulting in the growth of social, economic and environmental impacts (Malfas et al 2004). Media:Bramwell (1996) highlighted the impact of the media in the 1991 World Student Games in Sheffield, centring on the reality that media attention promoted a positive image of Sheffield and was the reason of the city’s recovery. Both Bramwell and Bladen agree that the media and public consumption of these events on a global scale isolates these events from the production of other events.Job-Creation:Mega events create opportunity for employment, an example being the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, Georgia which created 580 000 new jobs between 1991 and 1997 (Malfas et al 2004). This ‘provides opportunities for wealth redistribution through facilitating the entry of disadvantage individuals into the market economy’ (Jago et al, 2010:225), resulting in better quality of life and more capable workforce.
The event planning process As per (Masterman,2004), victorious planning of events involves the execution of tactics that will guarantee that the short term objectives of an event are met. Long term benefits greatly depend on the success and achievements of the short term objectives and goals. The drawing power of new stadiums will be dependent on how effective the event was.
Firstly, the organisers would be able to estimate the degree of the advantages of their events and, spending plan by incorporating a cost-advantage forecast at the feasibility phase.Secondly, execution procedures for the utilization of any new facilities as well as recovery ventures should be worked in to guarantee their long term fates.Thirdly, it requires a long term evaluation and assessment of 10 years and sometimes even more, of impact of such an event, taking into consideration the sustainability, durability and success of the recovery and legacies that were made due to the staging of the event.Fourthly, for the goal to be met there is a case for the incorporation of components in the process that will permit constant arrangement with short-, medium-and long term plans.Planning a new event process that envelops both short term requirements for the execution of the event and long term goals that become legacies of the event, (Masterman, 2003a,b; 2004).The case of World Athletic Championships 2005 2005 World Athletic Championships for the UK faced a loss due to the poor planning done in 2001. A London venue was promised by the government in its offer with the Picketts Lock, intended as a long term legacy for the sport.
However, after finding out that the expenses would be too high, the government attempted to provide an alternative location far away from London, which resulted in the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) choosing to put the event out to bid once more (Hubbard, 2002).The bidding process: The bidding process is the most important part for a country in order to qualify as a candidate. Therefore, the planning, preparation and execution process is absolutely crucial in order to be eligible to bid for a host of a sports event. For the attainability of such a bid, it is important to have specialist expertise and project management, for instance, it is absolutely necessary to assess and survey the feasibility of such an event, before submitting a big. A bid is established on at least a pre-feasibility analysis in which the fundamental figures are assigned for the costs and benefits (Getz, 1997).
1- Pre- applicants:In this stage, the interested candidates contact their individual NOC and partake in selection methods so that they could be shortlisted and chosen for nomination to the IOC (Masterman, 2004).2- Candidature acceptance procedure:NOC- the nominated candidates are required to answer a questionnaire in writing. The questionnaire aims to provide the IOC with an outline of the proposed event concept, utilizing the seven following themes:1. Motivation, concept and public opinion2. Required. Political support3. Finance.
4. Venues5. Accommodation.6.
Transport infrastructure7. General conditions, logistics and experience3- Candidature:Candidates that were approved are required to submit a candidature file to the IOC and these are then evaluated by a commission which consists of members of the international federations, NOCs, IOC members.4- Election:According to Masterman, (2004) a presentation of the bid is required by each host candidate. Once all the presentations have been acquired, various rounds of voting by IOC members take place.Additionally there are various key factors that are critical in the triumphant of bids. They include attaining the stakeholder support, political risk analysis, knowledge of the bidding and evaluation process, the recruitment of key management, communications and a thorough bid book.Barcelona Summer Olympics bidding processCandidate Cities:The city of Barcelona (Spain) was granted the privilege to host the Games of XXV Olympiad on October 17th 1986, at the 91st IOC session in Lausanne (Switzerland).
Defeating (Netherlands), Belgrade (Yugoslavia), Birmingham (Great Britain), Brisbane (Australia) and Paris (France).Amsterdam and Birmingham were defeated in the first and second rounds and Barcelona was elected in the third round with 47 votes over, 23 for Paris, 10 for Brisbane and 5 for Belgrade.Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG):On March 12th 1987, an Organising Committee for the Games XXV Olympiad was formed.
Named “Barcelona’92 Olympic Organising Committee” (COOB’92), with headquarters in Barcelona. Barcelona Mayor Pasqual Maragall was the president of the Organising Committee.The OCOG was liquidated on September the 15th 1992, but a chance was given to the liquidator to create an establishment to propagate the memory of the 1992 Barcelona Games, following the February 9th 1993 resolution of the General Assembly of Shareholders of COOB’92. Fundació Barcelona Olímpica was established on April 1st 1993. The purpose of the foundation was to advance, maintain and establish an exhibition and research centre for the general public, offering an overview of the Olympic Games in Barcelona.Presentation of the content: For the most part, the fonds focuses on the IOC’s exercises connected to the readiness, association and running of the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, but most importantly relations kept up with the OCOG.
The subjects tended to are diverse and varied, and the correspondence gives data on the accreditation framework, official film, the media, functions and the Olympic Village. The OCOG and the Olympic family relations are all around spoke to in the fonds for the Games of the XXV Olympiad. The fonds demonstrate these relations with the NOCs and the International Federations (IFs) specifically. The correspondence between the NOC and IOC deals with a variety of concerns, for example, accommodation, qualification criteria, financing, distribution of tickets and a guarantee of accommodating the delegations in the Olympic Village. Such a guarantee was granted by IOC to NOC s in financial difficulty.Athens Summer Olympics bidding process: The HOC held a remarkable session on December 13th 1995 and an astounding majority of its members voted for bidding for the 2004 Games.
A signed declaration for Athens bid to organise the 2004 Games formally took on the form by the IOC. The Greek government guaranteed that it would embrace the duty of setting up the fundamental framework extends in order to host the event. The Bid FileThe intervention for Athens bid file for the 2004 Olympic Games was based on long term plans and programmes that were at that point set up in accordance with the execution of supposed Major projects to revitalise Athens. They were generally co-financed by Greece and the European Union basic funds, enabling Athens to function as an Olympic host city.The four fundamental axes for the previously mentioned plan can be characterized as follows:1) The Olympic Village at Lekanes Acharnon to the North.2) The Athens Olympic Sports Centre (OAKA)3) The Historical Centre of Athens4) The Faliro Coastal Zone to the South.On August 1996, the bid file was given to the IOC in Lausanne and was presented to the evaluation commission in Athens in October, in a formulated hall in the Zappeio Megaro. The Election of AthensAthens had been very effective in the voting that had occurred between the IOC Members; especially if one considers the difference of 25 points in the final round with Rome.
The impacts of sport events Introduction:When a country or a city hosts the Olympic Games, it has a hefty impact on the city and its people. Below is a comparison between Barcelona 1992 and Athens 2004 approaches to “legacy” the lasting impact of the games. They are categorized into three major groups: Environmental, legacy and Economic impacts. There are only a handful of cities that can live up to and come close to the standards of long term planning set by Barcelona. Although Athens had some good ideas, their main issue was the lack of agreement between the organizers and the government officials regarding multiple aspects and hence they were unable to leave a positive legacy. However, Athens was able to bring historical meaning to their games due to their rich and vast history. The primary possible long-term impacts of events fall into four categories: strengthen international awareness, increased economic activity, intensify facilities and infrastructure, and expanded social and cultural opportunities (Spilling, 2000)Economic impact:The financial affect of major sports events is of severe significance when it comes to validating the ventures made. In case the impact is negative, it can be an enduring and expensive legacy for local tax-payers but in case of a positive outcome, it can bring vital income to reinforce municipal budgets.
According to (Gratton and Taylor, 2000) but for a few host cities, acquiring income from the operation of a major sports events that surpasses the beginning speculation isn’t as imperative as the long-term financial benefits that will come from tourism and future utilization of the facilities.Hosting the Olympic Games brings many advantages, economic effect being one of the most important advantages as the games not only attract athletes but, an enormous amount of tourists as well, benefiting the economy of the host country as a whole.According to Kasimati and Dawson’s (2009) experiment in which they used a dummy dichotomous variable to estimate what the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would have been, had they not hosted the Games, in comparison to what it was in reality, they discovered that since Athens won the rights to host the Games in 1997 up until 2005 they had an annual percentage growth of GDP of 3.87%. Had the games not been held, they estimated that there still would have been an annual growth of 2.
54%, making it a 1.34% annual difference in the growth of GDP due to the hosting of the Games. Their findings also show that Greece’s largest GDP growth was between the years 2002 and 2005.
However, they found out that their GDP would have been higher until 2001 had they not hosted the games and they believed that this could be due to the governments constant reviewing and changing of the actual plan, that was set by the bid committee. However, according to Potsiou (2005), even though Greece had a slow start, Greece’s annual GDP growth was the second highest in Europe from 1997 to 2004.On the other hand, Spain has not seen a rise in their GDP following the 1992 Games. On the contrary, they had a decrease of 1.
0% of GDP in 1993. Due to many European countries being hit by the economic crisis in early 1990s, Spain’s GDP failed to grow after the hosting of the Games but Barcelona was able to overcome the economic crisis much better than any other city in Spain due to the fact that the Olympic investments had been planned with the city’s needs in mind. Despite the fact that their GDP did not see any growth, Barcelona was better equipped than Athens for the economic change.With such major events, also come major employment opportunities. Barcelona has seen an increase in the employment rate as soon as the City won the right to host the Olympic Games. The employment rate went from 9.6% to 18.4% from October 1986 till July 1992.
In Spain the employment rate boomed from 15.5% to 23.7% within that period.
According to Brunet (1995), the drop in unemployment in Barcelona during the period from 1987 to 1992 due to the Olympics was a whole 88.7% in comparison to Greece where the unemployment rate dropped on the average of 1.9% per year from 1997 to 2005. It was crucial for both cities to keep the unemployment rate down even after the Olympics. In Athens the unemployment rate continued to drop in 2005 after the Games and in Barcelona there were 17,366 fewer jobs in 1993 than in 1992. Overall the Olympics were extremely beneficial for the public as they were able to create more long term and permanent jobs for the citizens of Barcelona as there were 49,523 fewer people unemployed in 1993 than there were in 1986.
Environmental impact:In a world of raising environmental awareness, major sports events can merge operational approaches that can help establish legacies for the host city for the future. David Chernushenko has served on the IOC Sport and Environment Committee since 1988 and keeps up that to create successful legacies out of sports facilities they have to be planned with preservation and environmental protection in mind since it can be of financial advantage as well (Chernushenko,2002).While the Olympic Games will never fully be environmental friendly, most countries try to keep the negative impact on the environment to a minimum.
Some makes prize medals from recycled materials, others divert waste from landfill. Athens however, worked on including the Schinias rowing and canoeing centre in their environmental project in order to protect their natural springs and attractive landscape of the area from neglect and destruction. The area which was originally a wetland was drained in the 1920s, which the environmentalists saw as an ecological habitat, whereas, the organizers saw an opportunity to build amenities. The government came to a decision to remove the area from being used for Natura 2000 status and designated it for a natural park without much use and construction for the games. They did however still allow the organizers to use it for canoeing and rowing events and in return the Olympic Organizers agreed to help restore the wetlands and make an archaeological park.Although Athens had positive environmental interests at heart, they missed out on the earth friendly medal. The World Wildlife Fund issued a report which compares the sustainability of the Athens Games based on the environmental benchmark, where they were assessed on 17 different measures on a scale of 0 to 4 and Athens unfortunately scored a low of 0.77.
Even after scoring so low, the games resulted in 6% increase of protected areas in Athens from 1996 to 2004. Furthermore, they had a decrease in the overall pollution due to improved public transport and renovated roads, but because of many delays in construction and being more focused on finishing on time rather than keeping their promise of more environmentally friendly impacts, neither Barcelona nor Athens met the required results but Athens was far more criticized because of a bidding promise they made. The Games in Barcelona happened before the big push in the Olympic movement occurred and before the Olympic bidders were required to show how this would impact the environment. Nevertheless, Barcelona did manage to reduce their waste management system and control the river pollution, even though it wasn’t promised in their bid. Legacy:In the Olympic Games, legacy and preserving memories are very important.
Cashman (2002) calls this “cultivating memories”. Every Olympic Game wants to leave a legacy behind, whether it is personal or territorial, legacies that are attached to the city where the Games were organized and others who experienced it. For territorial legacies this includes building monuments and reminders of the Games in the host city.Barcelona built an Olympic Museum as a part of their legacy. The museum is equipped with authentic items from 1992 Olympic Games to fun items such as Ronaldinho’s football boots. It also offers pictures, documents and video clips that display the history and greatness of the Olympic Games. They aim to educate children about the importance of sports by offering various educational programs at the museum.
Furthermore, it is also a great way of attracting tourists into the city. In addition to the museum, Barcelona established an Olympics Studies Centre in which many Olympics studies articles have been published. Athens has not done anything as extravagant, but they have cultivated memories by painting Olympic circles on street signs, roads and buildings, to keep the spirit alive and remind old residents as well as new comers of the memorable events that took place in the city. Athens prides itself more on being the birthplace of the Olympics.In conclusion, since the Olympics tradition originated in Ancient Greece, Athens focuses more on heritage and preserving the past, while Barcelona focuses on leaving a legacy in the academic world from their research.
References:Bladen, C. (2012). “Events Management: an introduction”.
Bowdin, Glenn A. J (2006), “Event Management: 2nd Edition”.Bramwell, W, Henry, I, Jackson, G, Prat, A G, Richards, G, and J van der Straiten (1996) Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice Tilburg University Press, Tilburg.Brunet, Ferran (1995) “An Economic Analysis of the Barcelona ’92 Olympic Games: Resources, Financing, and Impacts.” In The Keys of Success: the Social, Sporting, Economic, and Communications Impact, edited by Miguel de Moragas Spà and Miguel Botella. Bellaterra: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1995. http://olympicstudies.uab.
es/pdf/OD006_eng.pdf.Cashman, Richard. (2002) “Olympic Legacy in an Olympic City: Monuments, Museums and Memory.” Global and Cultural Critique: Problematizing the Olympic Games. Fourth International Symposium for Olympic Research (1998): 107-114. http://www.
aafla.org/SportsLibrary/ISOR/ISOR1998m.pdfChernushenko, D. (2002). Sustainable sports facilities. A paper delivered at the IOC-UIA Conference: Architecture and Inter- national Sporting Events, Olympic Museum, Lausanne, IOC. June.
Gratton, C. and Taylor, P. (2000) The Economics of Sport and Recreation. London, Spon, Chapter 10.Hall, C.
M. (1989). “The definition and analysis of Hallmark Tourist Event”. Hubbard, A. (2002). The Interview: Alan Pascoe: A sport stabbed in the back, a nation and its youngsters badly let down. In The Independent on Sunday.
London, The Independent, 6 January.Kasimati, Evangelia, and Peter Dawson (2009) “Assessing the Impact of the 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek Economy: A Small Macroeconometric Model.” Economic Modelling 26, no. 1 (2009): 139-146.
doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2008.06.006.Leo Jago, Larry Dwyer, Geoffrey Lipman, Daneel van Lill, Shaun Vorster, (2010) “Optimising the potential of mega?events: an overview”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol.
1 Issue: 3, pp.220-237, https://doi.org/10.1108/17852951011078023Masterman, G. (2003a). The event planning process.
In Moragas, M., de., Kennett, C.
and Puig, N. (Eds), The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984–2000. Lausanne, IOC.
Masterman, G. (2003b). Major international sports events: plan- ning for long-term benefits. In Ibbetson, A., Watson, B.
and Ferguson, M. (Eds), Sport, Leisure and Social Inclusion. Eastbourne, LSA.Masterman, G.
(2004). Sports events: a new planning process. In McMahon-Beattie, U. and Yeoman, I. (Eds), Sport and Leisure: A Services Operations Approach.
London, Thomson Learning/ Continuum, Chapter 13. (In press) Masterman, G. (2004). Strategic Sports Event Management. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.Malfas, M. Theodoraki, E. and Houlihan, B.
(2004). Impacts of Olympic Games as mega events. Municipal Engineer: Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 157, ME3, 209-220. ISSN 0965 0903.Potsiou, Chryssy A. (2005) “Greece after the Gold Rush: Impact Analysis and Sustainability of the 2004 Olympic Infrastructure.” Paper presented at FIG Working Week, Cairo, Egypt, April 16-22, 2005.
http://www.gsdidocs.org/gsdiconf/GSDI8/ppt/ts_09/ts09_01_potsiou_etal_ppt.pdf.Roche, M. (2000).
“Mega-Events and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Global Culture”.Spilling, O. (2000). Beyond intermezzo? On the long-term indus- trial impacts of mega-events – the case of Lillehammer 1994. In Mossberg, L. (Ed.), Evaluation of Events: Scandinavian Experiences.
New York, Cognizant, Chapter 8.