Specific Legacy of Co-Hosted Sport Events – Learnings for the Olympic Games

Introduction: Staging mega sport events like the Olympics Games is a challenge in many perspectives. More recently some NOCs have withdrawn their bids for hosting the Olympic Games due to the lack of support by the inhabitants of the bidding cities. Accelerating costs, security concerns, lack of credibility regarding the IOC and concerns regarding the verifiable benefits of the events are mentioned as main reasons (Coates & Wicker, 2015; Könecke, Schubert & Preuss, 2016; Langer, Maennig & Richter, 2017). With introducing the Olympic Agenda 2020 the IOC aims to secure a sustainable development of the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games. Creating a long lasting legacy of the Games is in the center of these 40 recommendations. The body of knowledge regarding sport event legacy has been enhanced over the last decade. Different theoretical frameworks were developed and some of them empirically tested (Chalip & Heere, 2014; Chappelett, 2012; Preuss, 2007, 2016). However, the sport event legacy research mainly focuses on economic legacy. Recently the social legacy research came more centre staged (Heere et al., 2013; Misener & Mason, 2009; Misener & Schulenkorf, 2016) but is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, taking Coubertin’s motives for revitalizing the ancient Olympic Games into account social issues had a strong influence on his original idea of the modern Olympics in the year 1880.Literature review: Heere et al. (2012), Horne and Manzenreiter (2004), and Kristiansen, Strittmatter and Skirstad (2016) were the first ones who analyzed the management and impacts of a co-hosted sports events, so sporting competitions which are hosted by more than one nation. Kristiansen et al. (2016) looked at the stakeholder management of the co-hosted European Youth Olympic Festival in 2015 by Austria and Lichtenstein. In terms of social impacts of the event they identified reinforced cross-border relationships and closer and stronger ties between the people in this region. Heere et al. (2012) as well as Horne and Manzenreiter (2004) indicate in their studies that co-hosted sport events can have large positive societal consequences for the bilateral relationships of the hosting nations, for the national and cross-national identity. The research in regards to social impacts and legacy of sports events and particular of co-hosted sport events is very limited. Sports events can act like an agent for social change with a greater social legacy when co-hosted. However, the management of social legacy in terms of the variety of social impacts, influencing factors etc. through co-hosted events is a research area which has not been a subject of intensive research yet. Therefore, the following two explorative research questions will be answered in this study: (1) What are the chances and risks of co-hosting major sport events? (2) In regards to the study of Heere et al. (2012), which potentials do co-hosted events offer for social legacy of sport events?Method: Due to the explorative nature of this research, data was collected through semi-structured interviews with key people (mostly managing directors, general secretaries or board members) of the involved sport organizations of co-hosted sport events. We looked at three sport events in the past (European Football Championships 2008 in Austria/Switzerland and 2012 in Poland/Ukraine, and Volleyball European Championships 2013 in Denmark/Poland) and furthermore selected three sport events in the near future (Handball World-Championships 2019 in Denmark/Germany, Ice Hockey World Championships in France/Germany, and EuroBasket 2017 in Finland/Israel/Romania/Turkey) which have not been staged at the time of the interviews. The interviews were analyzed deductively for motives, chances, risks as well as social impacts and legacy of the respective co-hosted event.Findings: The results show that mainly economic motives lead to decision of co-hosting the event. The chances for social change through the co-hosted event were neither carefully considered for the bidding process nor for the implementation of the event. So a strategic approach for social change is non-existing for this specific type of sport event. Furthermore, different management approaches could be identified for the successful implementation of the co-hosted event. Whereby most of the national organizing committees prefer an inclusive management approach in order to stage the event, very few planned and implemented the sport event almost completely independent of the other hosting nation. A very important side effect of the inclusive management approach was an increase of social capital.Conclusion: This study is the first one which looks at the potentials co-hosting sport events can have with the focus on the management of social legacy. The possibility for co-hosting Olympic and Paralympic Games and the potential for a positive social legacy is an idea which should be carefully considered by the IOC as well as by the nations who are interested in hosting this prestigious event.ReferencesChalip, L., & Heere, B. (2014). Leveraging Sport Events: Fundamentals and application to bids. In I. P. Henry (Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport policy (pp. 183–193). London: Routledge.Chappelet, J.-L. (2012). Mega Sporting Event Legacies: A Multifaceted Concept. Papeles de Europa, 25, 76–86.Coates, D. & Wicker, P. (2015). Why Were Voters Against the 2022 Munich Winter Olympics in a Referendum? International Journal of Sport Finance, 10(3), 267-283.Heere, B., Walker, M., Gibson, H., Thapa, B., Geldenhuys, S. & Coetzee, W. (2013). The power of sport to unite a nation: The social value of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(4), 450-471.Heere, B., Kim, C. Y., Yoshida, M., Ogura, T., Chung, K. S., Lim, S. Y. & Nakamura, H. (2012). The impact of World Cup 2002 on the bilateral relationship between South Korea and Japan. Journal of Sport Management, 26(2), 127-142.Horne, J. D. & Manzenreiter, W. (2004). Accounting for Mega-Events: Forecast and Actual Impacts of the 2002 Football World Cup Finals on the Host Countries Japan/Korea. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(2), 187-203.Könecke, T., Schubert, M. & Preuss, H. (2016). (N)Olympia in Germany? – An Analysis of the Referendum against Munich 2022. Sportwissenschaft, 46(1), 15-24.Kristiansen, E., Strittmatter, A.-M. & Skirstad, B. (2016). Stakeholders, Challenges and Issues at a Co-Hosted Youth Olympic Event: lessons Learned from the European Youth Olympic Festival in 2015. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 33(10), 1152-1168.Langer, V. C. E., Maennig, W. & Richter, F. (2017). The Olympic Games as a News Shock: Macroeconomic Implications. Journal of Sports Economics. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1527002517690788.Misener, L., & Mason, D. S. (2009). Fostering community development through sporting events strategies: An examination of urban regime perceptions. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 770–794.Misener, L. & Schulenkorf, N. (2016). Rethinking the Social Value of Sport Events Through an Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) Perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 30(3), 329-340.Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Event Legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 207-228.Preuss, H. (2016). A Theory of Mega Sport Event Legacies. In G. B. Cunningham, J. S. Fink & A. Doherty (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Theory in Sport Management (pp. 69-81). London: Routledge.