A THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC LEGACY 2013;...
-
Upload
simon-callery -
Category
Documents
-
view
93 -
download
0
Transcript of A THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC LEGACY 2013;...
SCHOOL OF SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
A THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC LEGACY 2013;
KEEPING THE FLAME ALIVE.
By: Simon Callery, B.Sc. (Hons) Liverpool John Moores University
Supervised by: Ian Henry
A project submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Sport Management
Word Count 19,997
© Loughborough University
2014
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY
Page | i
Abstract
A Thematic Analysis of the House of Lords Select Committee on Olympic and
Paralympic Legacy 2013; Keeping the Flame Alive.
The anticipated legacy of the Olympic and Paralympic Games has become increasingly
prominent in the dossiers of potential hosts since the 1990s. In 2003, the International
Olympic Committee Charter was amended to include an aspiration to promote a positive
legacy from The Games to the host cities and countries. Consequently, those entering
candidature have had to develop strategies that not only allow them to conform to the
charter changes, justify the use of public funds but also are flexible enough to allow the
effective delivery of such a broad concept across successive Governments.
Legacy has evolved from general benefits to sustainable long term legacies strategically
planned from the time of the bid. Objectives are met through an iterative, process oriented
development construction across a spectrum of constituents broadly considered as; urban
regeneration, sports participation, economic impacts, volunteering and social impacts.
Specifically, for London 2012, The Department for Culture Media and Sports highlighted its
aims and objectives for an Olympic and Paralympic legacy during candidature. The research
discussed in this paper seeks to establish and investigate the stakeholder voices both heard
and unheard, the attitude of evidence given and also how this contributes to the
achievement of legacy objectives.
The research, carried out by using Thematic Analysis on the oral evidence given at The
House of Lords Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic legacy 2013 highlights several
themes. Firstly there is a bias towards the number of stakeholders from certain sectors (i.e.
sporting and host boroughs); who subsequently form an attitude based on their status as a
winner or loser. Secondly legacy delivery lacks cohesion; a stable and predictable
environment to sustain integration through transparent and effective responsibility is
required at a Governmental level. Finally the poorly demarcated concept of legacy leaves
both room for appropriation and causes difficulties in attributing an ‘Olympic effect’.
Page | ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Context ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Olympic Bidding Process ................................................................................... 2
1.3 Aims and Objectives of the London 2012 Legacy .................................................... 3
1.4 Select Committees: Form, Function and Selection .................................................. 4
1.5 Filling the Research Gap: Relevance/Significance ................................................... 5
1.6 Aim ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 5
2. Literature Review ....................................................................................... 7
2.1 Mega Events ............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 The Concept of Legacy ............................................................................................. 8
2.3 Developing a Sustainable Legacy ........................................................................... 11
2.4 Urban Regeneration ............................................................................................... 14
2.5 Sports Participation ................................................................................................ 15
2.5.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 16
2.5.2 No Change ............................................................................................... 16
2.5.3 Negative .................................................................................................. 17
2.6 Economic Impacts .................................................................................................. 17
2.7 Volunteering .......................................................................................................... 18
2.8 Social Impacts ........................................................................................................ 20
3. Methodology ........................................................................................... 22
3.1 Ontology and Epistemology ................................................................................... 22
Page | iii
3.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Thematic Analysis .................................................................................................. 24
3.4 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 26
3.5 Research Quality .................................................................................................... 28
3.6 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................ 29
3.7 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 29
4. Findings ................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Sport ....................................................................................................................... 31
4.1.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 31
4.1.2 Negative .................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Government ........................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 43
4.2.2 Negative .................................................................................................. 50
4.3 London Communities ............................................................................................. 54
4.3.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 54
4.3.2 Negative .................................................................................................. 61
4.4 Internal ................................................................................................................... 64
4.4.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 64
4.5 Nations & Regions .................................................................................................. 69
4.5.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 69
4.5.2 Negative .................................................................................................. 72
4.6 Other ...................................................................................................................... 73
4.6.1 Positive .................................................................................................... 73
4.6.2 Negative .................................................................................................. 77
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 80
References .................................................................................................................... 86
Page | iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Olympic Bidding Process ......................................................................... 2
Figure 2. The Legacy Cube .......................................................................................... 10
Figure 3. A Comparison of Three Legacy Profiles: The Legacy Radar Diagram .......... 11
Figure 4. The Complex Relationship between Stakeholders ...................................... 13
Page | v
List of Tables
Table 1. A Summary of Thematic Analysis Terminology ............................................ 24
Table 2. The Five Elements of a Good Code ............................................................... 25
Table 3. The Phases of Thematic Analysis .................................................................. 27
Page | 1
Chapter 1.
1. Introduction
This chapter will outline the context in which the research question was formed, how
exploring this issue will contribute to the existing body of research and also outline the aim
and objectives of the project.
1.1 Context
“[…] a key element of London's bid was the commitment that the Games would
result in a lasting legacy for the whole of the UK. It was a commitment that was
subsequently reflected in the overall vision for the Games as the Government sought
to use the power of the Games to inspire lasting change – before, during and after.”
The Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS, 2013, p. 1)
The anticipated legacy of the Olympic and Paralympic Games has become increasingly
prominent in the dossiers of potential hosts since the 1990s. In 2003, the International
Olympic Committee (IOC, p. 17) Charter was amended to include an aspiration “To promote
a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries.” Accordingly,
the IOC (2012 p. 69) Olympic Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire included a series of
questions that had the aim of establishing "how this vision for the Olympic Games fits into
the city/region’s long-term planning and what legacy is planned for the city/region after the
Olympic Games."
On 20 May 2013, the House of Lords (2013, 9.23) appointed a Select Committee to “consider
the strategic issues for regeneration and sporting legacy from the Olympic and Paralympic
Games, and to make recommendations”. They collated evidence through 33 oral evidence
sessions for 53 witnesses, and 67 responses to a call for written evidence.
Page | 2
1.2 The Olympic Bidding Process
During the candidature phase of the Olympic Games themes, aims and objectives are
communicated; legacy must be addressed as it can inform strategy and thus influence the
outcome of the bid. For example The House of Lords (2013) stated that the centrality and
credibility of the legacy promised during the London 2012 bid was a significant factor in the
success of the bid. Also the IOC (2005, p. 64) bid evaluation report concluded that “the
Olympic Park would undoubtedly leave a strong sporting and environmental legacy for
London”.
A bid (Figure 1.) is initiated nine years before The Games; the host city elections are
conducted seven years prior. Candidature is governed by the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2013,
Rule 33 and its bye-law) and consists of two phases (approximately one year each):
Phase I: Applicant Phase
Phase II : Candidature Phase
Figure 1. The Olympic Bidding Process, IOC (n.d.)
Page | 3
1.3 Aims and Objectives of the London 2012 Legacy
Legacy promises for London 2012 were developed from an early release in 2005 (something
unprecedented in the Olympic arena) across two separate Governments. The success or
failure of the intended legacy should be considered in the context of these pledges:
London 2012 Ltd (2005, p.17) bid proposed four themes underpinning the vision for the
London 2012 Games:
Delivering the experience of a lifetime for athletes
Leaving a legacy for sport in Britain
Benefiting the community through regeneration
Supporting the IOC and the Olympic Movement
The Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) set out five areas of ambition for a
long-term legacy deriving from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The DCMS
(2008, p. 6 – 7) stated their aspiration to:
Make the UK a world-leading sporting nation
Transform the heart of East London
Inspire a generation of young people
Make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living
Demonstrate that the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit
and for business
In 2009, a sixth element was added incorporating a disability legacy. The DCMS (2010a)
outlined three main areas where London 2012 would be used to inspire change:
Influence the attitudes and perceptions of people to change the way they think
about disabled people
Increase the participation of disabled people in sport and physical activity
Page | 4
Promote and drive improvements in business, transport and employment
opportunities for disabled people
Finally in December 2010 the current coalition Government issued a further plan. The DCMS
(2010b, p.1) set out the legacy plans for London 2012 as:
Harnessing the United Kingdom’s passion for sport to increase grass roots
participation, particularly by young people – and to encourage the whole population
to be more physically active
Exploiting to the full the opportunities for economic growth offered by hosting The
Games
Promoting community engagement and achieving participation across all groups in
society through The Games
Ensuring that the Olympic Park can be developed after The Games as one of the
principal drivers of regeneration in East London
1.4 Select Committees: Form, Function and Selection1
The House of Lords Select Committees examine public policy, proposed laws and
government activity. Committees are small groups of House members (approximately 12 in
total) who meet outside Parliament and are elected by their respective political parties to
consider specific policy areas. Their constitution reflects the current power balance in
Parliament and also a wide range of professions.
Investigations can be both short and focussed in nature, or scrutinise broad long-term
issues. Committees usually publish detailed reports to illustrate their findings and make
recommendations based on their findings to government. The reports are debated in the
House of Lords (the second chamber of the UK Parliament, which is independent from, and
complements the work of the elected House of Commons). Members share the task of
influencing laws and challenging the work of the government, whilst at the same time
1 http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select/
Page | 5
increasing their expertise in a particular policy area. Subsequently the government must
respond in writing to all reports.
1.5 Filling the Research Gap: Relevance/Significance
This study will contribute to the body of legacy research specifically on London 2012 and
more broadly Olympic legacy by examining new data gathered by the House of Lords Select
Committee proceedings. Lessons or recommendations highlighted by this document may be
a useful resource to inform future bids; by examining the nuances of legacy development
through the lenses of different stakeholders.
The Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy provides an opportunity to access
data from otherwise unreachable stakeholders. The views and information presented to the
Committee evaluates the success (or failure) of London 2012 in relation to delivering its
goals and objectives. These were, as stated by The House of Lords (2013) and the IOC
(2005); fundamental to the success of the bid.
1.6 Aim
This project aims to critically evaluate The House of Lords Select Committee document
entitled; ‘Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy’.
1.7 Objectives
1. To investigate if the legacy aims were met in terms of the framework of the Select
Committees call for evidence.
2. To establish both the nature and attitude of the evidence (positive, negative or
mixed) and types of detail included in it.
3. To identify and investigate inductively initiated themes emerging from the data that
highlight any gaps in the legacy concept as defined by The Select Committee.
4. To establish if any stakeholders voices are not heard.
Page | 6
5. To establish any issues concerned with the wider concept of legacy not addressed in
the evidence or through The Select Committees call for evidence.
6. To establish how the evidence contributes to the achievement of the legacy promises
made by government.
Page | 7
Chapter 2.
2. Literature Review
Tranfield, Denyer and Smart (2003) stated that in order to specify a research question which
will further develop the knowledge base it is important to both assess and map the relevant
intellectual territory.
There is literature which examines the legacies (often conflated with; ‘impacts’, ‘effects’ or
‘benefits’) of previous Olympic Games, or more broadly; mega sporting events. This chapter
addresses the constituents of legacy and maps them into relevant and coherent topic areas,
thus demonstrating the existing knowledge base.
It is important to contextualise legacy, considering it in terms of The House of Lords Select
Committee Call for Evidence and also throughout candidature; from the preceding Labour to
the current Coalition Government (outlined in Chapter 1). Central to this notion is the
following statement by the DCMS (2008, p. 11):
“[…] the Games can have a powerful effect as a catalyst to existing, mainstream,
long-term government policies (including those on sport or sustainability) – so we
should not try to create a wholly separate set of Olympic and Paralympic
programmes and policies.”
2.1 Mega events
Mega sporting events can be defined by their impacts and complexity from conception to
delivery and beyond. Roche (2000, p. 1) defines mega-events as:
“[…] large-scale cultural (including commercial and sporting) events, which have a
dramatic character, mass popular appeal and international significance”.
Page | 8
Roche (2000) continues; there are significant consequences for the host, who enjoy
considerable media coverage. Roberts (2004, p. 108) defined mega sports events as; “[…]
discontinuous, out of the ordinary, international and simply big in composition”. They are
perceived as having an impact on the local tourism and economy (Getz, 1998; Roche, 2000)
and have the ability to transmit promotional messages to billions of people via a multitude
of media platforms; therefore these events can shape how countries are perceived
throughout the world.
2.2 The Concept of Legacy
Leopkey & Parent (2012, p. 934) advocated that legacy has evolved; “[…] from general
benefits and impacts of the Games to sustainable long-term legacies, which have been
strategically planned from the time of the bid”. The authors stated this has increased the
importance of ‘legacy’ within Olympic lexicon; it is now a key component of bidding and the
governance of The Games.
There appears to be no clear and universal acceptance of a definition of legacy; which could
make it hard to measure accurately as discussed by (Preuss, 2007). Cashman (2005)
postulated that legacy is often assumed to be self-evident; therefore there is no
requirement to define it precisely. With the increasing significance placed on legacy within
Olympic vocabulary, this supposition may reflect disagreement in what academics,
Government, society and professional consultants deem attributable constituents of its
construction.
Cashman (2005) purported that legacy can be a problematic concept because Organising
Committees associate it with positive results, whilst ignoring negative outcomes. Mangan
(2008) accredited this to three reasons; positive legacy intimates a successful event, justifies
utilising public funds and motivates others to enter the candidature process.
Etymologically the word legacy means “property left by will” (Harper, 2001). However this
does not apply to event legacy. Preuss (2007) suggested that this was because many
Page | 9
impacts of the Olympic Games do not belong to anyone (e.g. increased knowledge) and
secondly not all legacies are planned (e.g. all externalities).
This has synergy with the work of Horne (2007) who philosophised that the ‘unknown
knowns’; things we don’t believe that we know, are the most pernicious element of sport
mega events. Zizek (2005) previously highlighted three ‘knowns’ described by former US
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; ‘known knowns’; things we know that we know.
‘Known unknowns’; things that we know that we don’t know and finally ‘unknown
unknowns’; things we do not know we don’t know.
Horne (2007) postulated that critically examining the assumptions, misrepresentations and
beliefs that maybe suppressed (even repressed) is essential; events such as the Olympics
may encourage the pretence that we have less knowledge than we actually do about the
formative elements and/or potential outcomes.
Furthermore, Preuss (1998) purported; cost–benefit analyses or economic impact studies
are easy to manipulate and can be influenced to support the desired results of the
commissioning party; who are often the organisers of the event (focussed mainly on
planned, positive and tangible legacies; Figure 2). Essentially information and/or beliefs may
be supressed, repressed or misrepresented in order to manufacture a favourable
environment.
Academics have a propensity to categorise legacy rather than define it (Cashman, 2006;
Chappelet, 2008). Preuss (2007) proposed five dimensions; planning, structure, tangibility,
time and space. Consequently, Preuss (2007, p. 211) suggested a definition of legacy;
notably it included a negative element:
“[…] irrespective of the time of production and space, legacy is all planned and
unplanned, positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for and
by a sport event that remain longer than the event itself.”
Page | 10
Figure 2. The Legacy Cube, taken from Preuss (2007).
Preuss’ (2007) bottom up approach considered soft (e.g. knowledge and cultural identity)
and hard (e.g. infrastructure and transport) structural changes derived from a mega event
(event-structures). Subsequently, these affect the location factors (supply side) of the host;
therefore any activity based on these changes is the event legacy.
Dickson, Benson & Blackman (2011) proposed a legacy radar framework (see Figure 2);
allowing several dimensions (cost, planning, tangibility, spatial impact, structure and
timeframe) to be applied to a specific element of legacy (e.g. infrastructure). The
combination of time, space and (addition of) cost generate a more dynamic and realistic
approach to legacy. Surpassing the identification of the components of legacy allows the
impacts to be measured and then compared (Figure 3). When applied over different times,
locations and events the development of specific metrics could promote a more rigorous
methodology; further facilitating more reliable comparison (Dickinson et al., 2011).
Page | 11
Figure 3. A Comparison of Three Legacy Profiles: The Legacy Radar Diagram, taken from
Dickinson et al., (2011).
Koenig and Leopkey (2009) posited that existing legacy types, although distinct, are not
mutually exclusive; due to the structures and human agents that affect legacy outcomes
discussed by Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan (2004). In order to understand the legacy
success/failure of London 2012 it would be useful to examine how these legacy types
interconnect and what the actors involved consider being its constituents and their
perception of success/failure.
2.3 Development of a Sustainable Legacy from hosting London 2012
The Brundtland Commission’s report (1987, p. 54) brought to prominence the term
‘sustainable development’; defining it as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The
Commission acknowledged the constraints of social organisation (the environment) in
Page | 12
meeting present and future needs. This concept relates to London 2012; e.g. concerning
demographic classification and urban regeneration.
Development can fundamentally be considered as a construction process (Cowen & Shenton
1995; Mosse 1998). Mosse (1998) conceptualised this progression as involving:
A flexible and changeable design resulting from learning derived during
implementation
Permeable boundaries influenced by relationship elements between legacy actors;
who are essential to the process
Dealing with idiosyncratic and unpredictable elements central to success or failure
(e.g. externalities)
Furthermore Mosse (1998, p. 10) argued that:
“Process oriented work involves continuous information gathering over a period of
programme work [...] it is concerned with the dynamics of development processes
that means with different perceptions of relationships, transactions, decision
making, or conflicts and their resolutions.”
Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan (2004) stated that interest in The Games manifests at a
national, regional and local level (Figure 4). Therefore multiple legacy visions and processes
reflect a range of concerns, priorities and interests that have mobilised substantial resources
and energy towards obtaining their objectives (Girginov and Hills, 2008).
The challenge is to reconcile a time constrained, pluralistically structured event with the
concepts of sustainability and legacy; which are concerned with the equity and efficiency of
allocating benefits to a diverse population through strategic planning.
Page | 13
Figure 4. The Complex Relationship Between Stakeholders.
Mog (2004, p. 2140) postulated that sustainable development is “an unending process
characterised by the approach used in guiding change rather than any fixed goals(s) to be
achieved through specific technologies, policies, institutions and actions.” Thus,
development of a sustainable legacy is an iterative process with the anticipation of adding
(or unintentionally reducing) value with an unidentified or in-distinct conclusion.
Girginov and Hills (2008, p. 2102–2103) related this concept to Olympic legacy stating:
“Legacy is very appealing because of its seeming ability to combine the practical and
policy-relevant with the scientifically respectable […] Equal attention needs to be
paid to the process of legacy construction as a moral, political and sports delivery
enterprise.”
Page | 14
Therefore the idea of Olympic legacy represents both a discourse and policy position; which
was clearly recognised by the UK government; who adopted legacy as a key theme to the
London 2012 bid.
2.4 Urban Regeneration
As Essex and Chalkley (1998, p. 202) stated: “the scale of investment required for the Games
has become so great that it might be argued that the concept of sport as a means of spiritual
renewal has given way to sport as a means of urban renewal”.
Since 1960, The Games have often been used as a catalyst for urban improvements or
renewal. Chalkley & Essex (1999) stated that this reflects an awareness of the potential to
stimulate urban programmes and policies2. Due to the ‘mega’ nature of the Olympics, Hall
(1992, p. 36) posited this; “offers the opportunity to provide the host city with publicity,
urban renewal, the construction of physical infrastructure, and economic development on an
unprecedented scale.” Consequently preparations are certain to have significant impacts on
neighbourhoods within the host cities (Newman, 1999).
Roche (1994) purported that the Olympics are short-term events with long-term
consequences associated with the formation of infrastructure, long-term debts, event
facilities and inexpungible succession planning to ensure their use. However, if successful, a
new (or renewed) positive image or identity can be portrayed through extensive media
coverage.
The 1992 Barcelona Olympics are perhaps the archetypal example of The Games use as a
catalyst to large-scale urban improvement; through funding models, the long-term projects
expedited and subsequent wider impacts they facilitated.
2 Partial responsibility was accredited to the increasing size of The Games.
Page | 15
The impacts of The Games on urban regeneration are multifarious; broadly they involve the
enhancement of transport networks, infrastructure and can enhance the city’s physical
appearance (Chalkley & Essex, 1999; Essex & Chalkley, 1998).
Roche (1994) posited; whether or not the decision to bid is based on public opinion
influences whether the average urban citizen is exposed equally to direct benefits and costs.
This relates to the proposition of ‘gentrification’ in the literature; whereby successful urban
regeneration results in increased land and property values thus displacing local populations
(Davis & Thornley, 2010).
Cochrane, Peck & Tickell (1996) emphasised that a Government lead decision to bid pre
disposed social inequalities to manifest; resulting in ‘fast-tracking’ and insufficient
evaluation of social/economic outcomes and limited public consultation (Hall, 1992).
Deadlines for major constructions and infrastructure are often leveraged to bypass the usual
stages in planning applications Lenskyj (2000). This poses a philosophical question; does the
politicised nature of Olympic legacy automatically ‘empower’ some actors/components and
‘disempower’ others?
Essex & Chalkley (1998) concluded that it is difficult to find evidence suggesting that The
Games themselves are responsible for a regeneration legacy; they are part of a broader
ongoing process. Davis & Thornley (2010) purported that it is challenging to evaluate urban
regeneration in terms of legacy (as a concept) due to its characteristics (i.e. the lack of a
universal definition); hosting the Olympics merely influences the process of achieving
regeneration. The authors concluded that the long term projected benefits of legacy are
preceded by complex and unevenly distributed short term outcomes.
2.5 Sport Participation
It has often been cited that an association between events and health improvement derives
from increased sport participation, healthy living, enhanced physical health and interest in
Olympic sport (Atkinson, Mourato, Szymanski, & Ozdemiroglu, 2008; DCMS, 2005; Haynes,
2001).
Page | 16
Ritchie (1984) reported that ‘mega’ events can increase interest and participation in sporting
activities. This can enrich the quality of individual and community life (Malfas et al., 2004)
and instil a sense of well-being through fun and enjoyment; an antecedent to self-fulfilment,
which encourages social interaction and cohesion (Hooper, 2001).
Coalter (2004) suggested that London 2012 may act as a catalyst increased physical activity
when embedded within broader social strategies; e.g. the Government’s broader social and
health agendas. Difficulties in isolating any ‘Olympic Effect’ derive from context; multiple
legacy actors. Furthermore, Murphy and Bauman (2007, p. 193) established that the “health
potential of major sporting and physical activity events is often cited, but evidence for public
health benefit is lacking”.
Weed et al., (2009) articulated that because few Olympic Games have strategically
attempted to raise physical activity or sport participation (Sydney not withstanding) little
sufficiently rigorous evidence exists. Also different methodologies and definitions are
applied to measure impacts; consequently, the findings can lack clarity and comparability.
The conflicting literature raises critical questions of the potential of The Olympic Games to
increase sport participation.
2.5.1 Positive
The London East Research Institute (2007) discovered an increased participation in physical
activity from 1985 (47%) to 1995 (51%) in relation to the Barcelona Olympics. However, as
Truno (1995) discussed this conclusion was reached comparing two independent reports,
which may not have been comparable. The London East Research Institute (2007) had noted
elsewhere in their report; that the Olympics was likely to be one of several causal factors.
2.5.2 No Change
EdComs (2007) postulated that there was no clear evidence that hosting events encouraged
physical activity, although it was advocated there were potentially short term gains. Murphy
& Bauman (2007) found no evidence of increased physical activity post Games in Sydney.
Page | 17
Other authors replicated these results; generally reporting insignificant changes to sport
participation, despite a short-term upsurge after The Games (Veal & Toohey, 2005).
2.5.3 Negative
MORI (2004) reported a decline of 2% in sport participation in the Manchester area in the
context of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Furthermore, Coalter (2007) argued that mega
sporting events may reduce sports participation by diverting funds away from grassroots
investment towards event related infrastructure.
Overall, it appears that utilising The Games to develop a sustained participation legacy can
be considered as a case not proven. Difficulties arise in isolating the ‘Olympic effect’ in much
broader strategies and agendas. However, British results will be supported by The Active
People Survey (Sport England) and Taking Part (DCMS); two world renowned datasets.
2.6 Economic Impacts
Crompton (1995, p. 15) defined the economic impact as the “net economic change in the
host community that results from spending attributed to the event”.
Since Los Angeles, 1984, the notion of substantial economic benefits to host countries has
been supported profusely; these Games enjoyed considerable commercial success
generated from television income and corporate sponsorship (US$215 million surplus),
highlighting that hosting could become a profitable exercise (Essex & Chalkley, 1998). It is
imperative that the host alters its composition by exploiting the economic stimulus of such
an event to achieve a self-sustaining process (e.g. through tourism, follow-up events etc.).
An ongoing debate discusses whether economic impact is perpetually, occasionally or never
positive for host cities (Matheson, 2009; Matheson & Baade, 2004; Rose & Spiegel, 2010;
Tien et al., 2011). Authors writing on the subject purport that a large positive gross
economic impact can be observed from hosting The Olympics in relation to certain factors
(e.g. Gross Domestic Product).
Page | 18
Gross measures, however, generally ignore opportunity costs; it is arguable that public funds
could be invested elsewhere if the net benefits exceeded those associated with The
Olympics (Baade & Matheson, 2002; Baade, Baumann & Matheson, 2008). Matheson (2004)
suggested net measures may be more useful as they consider any displacement.
Baade (1996) reported that considering gross and net spending is essential to prevent
embellishment; attributing spending to non/local residents, whilst considering leakages
(Baade & Matheson, 2002; Baade et al., 2008). A ‘crowding out’ effect may also result in
exaggerated economic impacts; Matheson (2004) defined this as a process whereby event
tourists replace other travellers who would normally visit the host city/country.
Hall and Hodges (1998) highlighted the effects of a mega-sporting event on the housing
market and land values; claiming that compulsory land purchase to construct event
infrastructure and for housing relocation can increase rent and house prices. This can
become problematic for people living on low incomes in these areas.
Crompton (1995) postulated that many of the positive effects manifest only temporarily and
their effects are mediated over time; therefore opponents and supporters of a project use
different multipliers. Using insufficient empirical evidence to justify their choices highlights
critical questions of their methodologies.
Bruckner and Pappa (2011) discussed a permanent level effect; generating positive
investment, consumption, and output responses before, during, and after the event. The
authors also stated that due to the length of the candidature process these responses can be
observed in a transitory capacity from the time of bidding. Conversely Tien et al., (2011)
reported that the economic impacts resulting from hosting The Olympics are only significant
before The Games (not during or after) in select parameters. This shorter term life cycle of
impacts is consistent with the findings of Baade and Matheson (2002).
Page | 19
2.7 Volunteering
The literature tends to focus on the ‘hard’ impacts rather than intangible or ‘soft’ outcomes
such as ‘human legacy’; which intimates sport investment is a development and social policy
tool (Downward & Ralston, 2006). Crompton (2004) argued that movement from
conventional economic assessments towards those focusing on the ‘psychic income’ (e.g.
volunteering) generated was required.
The Olympic volunteer was not conceptualised until Barcelona 1992; their evolution can be
attributed to the growth of the event, with many roles now being fulfilled by volunteers
(Giannoulakis et al., 2008; Chalip, 1999). Moragas et al., (2000) discussed volunteer
importance from different perspectives:
Political: A common objective and unity of action demonstrates a new form of
engagement or participation
Economic: Significant cost reductions through a volunteer workforce (Chalip, 1999;
estimated a saving of A$109.7 million for the Sydney 2000 Games); who with
appropriate training can transfer their skills to other sectors
Cultural: Solidarity, education and cooperation across cultural origins
Large and unique sporting events (e.g. The Olympics) generate a broad volunteer profile
(Chalip, 1999; MacAloon, 1999; Moragas et al., 1999). The frequency of subsequent events
can develop a sustainable body of volunteers equipped with core competences (Coyne &
Coyne, 2001); through training, providing ‘added value’ and rewards (Chalip, 1999).
Downward & Ralston, (2006) purported that previous volunteering involvement increases
preparedness to volunteer for another major event (both non-sporting and sporting). In the
context of the UK, which faces a supply shortage of volunteers, this is particularly pertinent
(Nichols, 2004).
Consideration of the motivations, perceptions, and behaviour of volunteers can create
conditions conducive to satisfaction, which is integral to the success of the event; however
these antecedents to volunteerism may not be present outside of this ‘special event’
Page | 20
environment, therefore a ‘strong’ volunteer base is not guaranteed (Williams et al., 1995;
Farrell et al., 1998).
2.8 Social Impacts
Cheshire & Gordon (1998) stated that events such as the Olympics can provide a stimulus for
new development agendas. Due to the size and commercial motivations of these events
implications can surpass the provision of facilities and event management (Chalkley & Essex,
1999); offering the potential to provide extraordinary opportunities to bordering
communities as well as the host (Guala & Turco, 2009).
Due to the nature of the concept of legacy or impacts (hard, soft, tangible, intangible,
positive and negative etc.) none of its constituents can be ignored. Ironically, although
governments attempt to serve public interest they tend to focus more on entrepreneurial
and commercial interests rather than soft, intangible legacies (Hall, 2001).
Within the literature there is little evidence of the social impacts for three reasons and as
such these have a propensity to be disregarded (Kim & Petrick, 2005):
Soft impacts (Social and cultural) are generally considered external to hard
(economic) effects used to endorse purported outcomes
Soft, intangible impacts are hard to quantify
Measurement of negative outcomes is not encouraged
As discussed by Ritchie, Shipway, & Cleeve (2009); assimilating social impacts with
environmental and economic outcomes are essential to provide a balanced appraisal.
Minnaert (2011) posited that these elements can manifest individually or in combination;
therefore offering a definitive classification of social impacts can be problematic.
Furthermore, Fredline (2005) postulated that in order to develop local support for hosting
mega events understanding the social facet is paramount. A repercussion of not doing so
could be residents feeling disenchanted (Waitt, 2003).
Page | 21
Positive examples of social impacts include (amongst others); reduced social exclusion,
improved civic pride, cultural agility, quality of life and development of national identity
(Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Kim & Petrick, 2005; Minnaert, 2011; Waitt, 2003).
Negative social impacts include; enhanced socio-economic inequalities (increased cost of
living), traffic congestion, isolated development in relation to their locality (Hall and
Hubbard 1998; Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Waitt, 2003; Raco, 2004; Ritchie et al., 2009).
Essex & Chalkley (1998) suggested the media coverage surrounding The Games can be used
to shape the hosts’ image; this is recognised as a discernible signal to other countries with
(potentially) positive connotations (Houlihan, 1994; Preuss, 2007; Rose & Spiegel, 2010;
Preuss & Alfs, 2011). Preuss & Alfs (2011) reputed; demonstrating fundamental changes to
the world within the host city or country is a motivation for hosting mega events.
The Olympic Games, in isolation will not be able to deliver social impacts. Therefore the
challenge is to situate the 2012 Games as a ‘catalyst’ for broader development in terms of
social outcomes. This will require the assimilation of the various components of legacy,
(considering all characteristics) with wider policy and development goals. Mean, Vigor &
Tims (2004) concluded that embedding the Olympics in mainstream programmes, strategic
use of the ‘Olympic Effect’ and investing in community capacity and ownership could
address this.
Page | 22
Chapter 3.
3. Methodology
3.1 Ontology and Epistemology
Research paradigms act as a framework that guides the behaviour of the researcher,
allowing them to address the philosophical dimensions of social sciences through a set of
fundamental assumptions and beliefs as to how the world is perceived (Jonker and Pennink,
2010).
Although philosophical backgrounds affect the practice of research they usually remain
implicit. To frame and understand social phenomena it is essential to question the research
paradigm to be applied, as this will influence how the research is undertaken (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill 2009; Neuman 2011). Within this, the ontological and epistemological
position must be addressed in order to promote transparency (Wahyuni, 2012).
Post positivists challenge the positivist notion of absolute truth, particularly when examining
human behaviour; allowing generalisations to be inferred, but recognising that knowledge is
a result of social conditioning. Also called critical realism; it stipulates that observable
phenomena within the social world must be considered in context of relevant law or
dynamic social structures in order to understand social reality (Wahyuni, 2012).
Furthermore, axiology encompasses the roles of ethics and values in forming the
researcher’s stance in relation to the subject studied and more broadly the research; an
important consideration as the researcher is biased by upbringing, cultural experiences and
world views; meaning research is value-laden and etic (Wahyuni 2012).
Ontology is concerned with whether the social world is regarded as something external to
social actors or as something that people are involved in constructing (Bryman and Bell
2011) and is the view of how one perceives a reality (Wahyuni, 2012). Critical realism is
Page | 23
objective; proposing that the social world exists independently of human thoughts and
beliefs/knowledge of reality, but is interpreted through social conditioning (Wahyuni, 2012).
Epistemology is concerned with what is considered appropriate knowledge about the social
world (Bryman and Bell 2011). It is the beliefs on the way to generate, understand and use
the knowledge that are deemed to be acceptable and valid (Wahyuni, 2012). A critical
realist approach stipulates that credible data can only be derived from visible phenomena,
whilst also concentrating on the context/s (Wahyuni, 2012).
Legacy has been framed through political, academic and public discourse. It is therefore a
complex concept; requiring a combination of perspectives that allow for the dynamic nature
of the relationship between legacy actors for its understanding. A challenge in
understanding legacy involves reconciling two types and levels of analysis; constructivist and
positivist; something a critical realist approach addresses.
3.2 Data Collection
This research project uses secondary data from The House of Lords Select Committee on
Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Report of Session 2013 – 2014 entitled; Keeping the Flame
Alive: The Olympic and Paralympic Legacy. This is a public document available online at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/78.pdf
3.3 Thematic Analysis
Braun and Clarke (2008, p. 79) stated; “thematic analysis is a method for identifying,
analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It organises and describes your data
set in (rich) detail”. This method can also be considered both a foundational and flexible
qualitative method due to its theoretical freedom; consequently, thematic analysis can
potentially provide a rich and comprehensive, yet complex, account of the data (Boyatzis,
1998).
Page | 24
Furthermore, Boyatzis (1998) reported it can go beyond description/organisation of themes
and interpret various aspects of the research topic in a systematic manner; utilising
intersecting purposes. These include its use as a method of:
Seeing
Making sense out of seemingly unrelated material
Analysing qualitative information
Systematically observing a person, interaction, group, situation, organisation or
culture
Converting qualitative information into quantitative data
Terminology Definition
1. Thematic Analysis “a process for encoding qualitative information […] requires an
explicit ‘code’.”
2. A theme “a pattern found in the information that at a minimum describes
and organises the possible observations or at the maximum
interprets aspects of the phenomenon […] maybe identified at the
manifest level [..] or at the latent level.”
3. A code “a list of themes; a complex model with themes, indicators and
qualifications that are causally related; or something in between.”
4. A codebook “the compilation or integration of a number of codes in a study.”
5. Methods of theme
development
1. “inductively from the raw information.”
2. “deductively from theory.”
3. “from prior research.”
Table 1. A Summary of Thematic Analysis Terminology, Boyatzis (1998, p. 161)
Boyatzis (1998, p. 1) declared that “observation precedes understanding”. Thematic analysis
guides the researcher through three phases of enquiry (from observation to understanding);
Page | 25
recognising an important moment (seeing), encoding (seeing it as something) and
interpretation (Boyatzis, 1998). Themes may be directly observable when identified at a
semantic level (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and generated inductively (from the raw data) or
deductively; through prior research (Boyatzis, 1998). Table 1 provides a summary of the
definitions of terminology commonly used in thematic analysis.
1. A Label
2. A definition of the themes characteristics or issue constituting it
3. A description/indicators on how to identify a theme
4. A description of any qualifications or exclusions to theme identification
5. Positive and negative examples to eliminate confusion when searching for the
theme.
Table 2. The Five Elements of a Good Code, adapted from Boyatzis (1998).
Boyatzis (1998) discussed three fundamental obstructions to effective thematic analysis:
Projection
This involves attributing your own characteristic, emotion, value, attitude (or such) to
another person; Freud (1992) described this as an ego defence mechanism. Projection can
be useful in understanding subjects’ language but must not fill in blanks or ambiguous
moments.
Contamination by projection can be addressed through:
Development of an explicit code (Table 2 highlights the five elements of a good code)
Consistency of judgement (reliability)
A diversity of perspectives for coding
Page | 26
Relating closely the development of codes and themes to the raw data
Sampling
The principle of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ encapsulates this notion; if the raw data is
corrupted by factors/variables that the researcher is unaware of then any analysis and
subsequent interpretation will not be reliable.
Due to the use of secondary data in this study sampling could be an issue. However, this
issue is addresses within the aims and objectives with the inclusion of a need to “establish if
any stakeholders are not/under represented”.
Mood and style
Due to the subjective nature of qualitative research many facets of mood and style may
affect analysis. However being rested, open, developing a clear code, establishing
consistency of judgement, suspending analytical frameworks and rational judgements are
cited as methods to address this barrier to effective analysis.
3.4 Data Analysis
The method of thematic analysis used will be a hybrid approach, incorporating; the inductive
(themes emerging from participant’s discussions) approach of Boyatzis (1998) and the
deductive (derived from a framework) approach discussed by Crabtree and Miller (1999).
This will complement the research objectives by allowing the bias of evidence to be
observed through deductive analysis while allowing for themes to emerge directly from the
data using inductive coding.
The deductive framework used for analysis will be The House of Lords Select Committee on
Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Call for Evidence. This was used as it provided a framework
for the issues that The Select Committee deemed important and will allow any opinions not
Page | 27
expressed within this framework to be coded inductively. The call for evidence document is
available online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/olympic-paralympic-
legacy/olympiccfe.pdf
A document analysis of the House of Lords Select Committee (2013) proceedings will be
conducted using QSR Nvivo 10 (See Table 3 for a summary of the steps of thematic analysis).
Phase Description of the process
1. Familiarisation Read and re-read data, noting initial ideas.
2. Initial coding Coding interesting features in a systematic fashion across the data
set, collating relevant data to each code.
3. Potential themes Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all relevant data
to each potential theme.
4. Review themes Checking if themes work in relation to coded extracts (level 1) and
entire date set (level 2). Generate thematic ‘map’ of analysis.
5. Define themes Reflexive process to refine themes (including definitions and
names) and overall narrative of analysis.
6. Report Selection of vivid, compelling and rich extracts relating to research
question and literature for inclusion in scholarly report.
Table 3. The Phases of Thematic Analysis, adapted from Braun & Clarke (2008)
3.5 Research Quality
Features of qualitative research have been generated from various theoretical traditions
that confirm the value of research (Bryman, 2001; Burr, 2003). As these theories advocate
Page | 28
the relative nature of social realities, the issues of the reliability and validity become
controversial concerns (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982).
Consequently, alternative methods to assess qualitative research projects have been
suggested (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). A criterion of trustworthiness is proposed, which
assesses “how good a qualitative study is” (Bryman, 2001, p. 30). The concept of
trustworthiness includes four sub-criteria, namely credibility, transferability, dependability
and conformability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Bryman, 2001).
The research analysis will be an iterative and reflexive process; when applied throughout
qualitative inquiry, this is described by Tobin and Begley (2004) as the overarching principle
of ‘goodness’.
Boyatzis (1998) purported an essential step in the development of analysis is to determine
the applicability of the code to the raw information. The House of Lords Select Committee
document will be used as a test piece. Following the coding process of the document, I will
invite my supervisor to code the documents as well. The results will be compared to ensure
reliability.
Long and Johnson (2000) posited peer debriefing is another useful step; this involves
discussing emerging findings and the assigned coding with an experienced colleague in the
constant comparative method. Patton (2002) describes this process as investigator
triangulation; concerns and recommendations raised during this phase are a basis for
further refinement of the codebook. Furthermore records of interim summaries and a
codebook are often found useful in drawing conclusions when employing this method
(Patton 2002).
3.6 Ethical considerations
The study will be conducted in compliance with the Loughborough University Ethical
Framework; this demarcates that as the document is publicly available and no human
participants are involved explicit ethical clearance is not required.
Page | 29
3.7 Limitations
Due to the nature of an MSc dissertation, the data will be coded and themes identified by
one individual and the analysis discussed with a supervisor. This process will allow for
consistency in the method but will fail to provide multiple perspectives from a variety of
people with differing expertise.
Also as an MSc student new to the skill of thematic analysis limitations may manifest in my
own ability when developing this form of enquiry. Effects will be reduced through the coding
of a test document and also regular meetings with my supervisor who has experience in this
method; both deductive and inductive codes will be triangulated.
Page | 30
Chapter 4.
4. Findings
This chapter will present, analyse and discuss the findings of the study. These will be
presented by stakeholder group, in no particular order. The key issues emerging from the
evidence will be structured using the inductive categories of The Select Committee’s Call for
Evidence and supported by key examples. This approach was employed to provide a
comprehendible framework for discussion and to highlight the constituents of legacy
considered important by different stakeholder groups.
Page | 31
4.1 Sport
4.1.1 Positive
Sporting Legacy
General Public Participation
Ritchie (1984) reported that ‘mega’ events can increase interest and participation in sporting
activities. Several National Governing Bodies (NGBs), including; British Cycling, The Amateur
Boxing Association (ABA), UK Athletics, Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) and The Football
Association (F.A.) cite increased public interest post Games; thus increasing participation
figures as measured by The Active People Survey (APS) and The Taking Part Survey (TPS).
“We saw our membership increase from 24,000 in 2009 to 76,000 at present, and
we are growing at a rate of 54%, year on year.”
Drake, British Cycling
Several mechanisms are involved in this increase; broadly they operate under the notion of
development as a construction process and are achieved through a process oriented work
(Cowen & Shenton, 1995; Mosse, 1998). British Cycling highlights the plethora of actors
involved who affect legacy delivery. However, they also introduce the concepts of planning
and stability; a common theme amongst other NGBs and stakeholder groups.
“We set our plan out prior to the Games to have a four-year plan to ensure that we
delivered a legacy, working with Sport England, UK Sport and, critically, our
commercial partner in Sky”
Drake, British Cycling
Coalter (2007) argued that mega sporting events may reduce sports participation by
diverting funds away from grassroots investment towards event related infrastructure. The
Page | 32
Labour and Coalition Government appear to attempt to mediate this by committing funding
and attaching participation targets to it.
“The previous Government devoted almost £900 million to grassroots sport to
increase participation, and we have a budget going forward of over £1 billion”.
Price, Sport England
A specific example of an NGB’s contrivance in achieving increased participation is The F.A.
They adapt and respond to changes in demand for football with their method of supply. This
relates to the concept of sustainable development discussed by The Brundtland Commission
(1987); meeting current needs without compromising the achievement of future needs.
“[…] it is about putting in interventions where we see participation drop off. […]
building where we see that participation is successful. Clearly the way people play
football is changing […] How do we, as a governing body, adapt to that?”
Sullivan, the Football Association
Sport England demonstrates that although not perfect, The APS and The TPS are
methodologically rigorous and world renowned datasets. Therefore the method of
measurement is both accurate and reliable; addressing the concerns of Murphy and Bauman
(2007). The longitudinal nature of these surveys allows some comparison within the UK, thus
counteracting some of the concerns raised by Weed et al., (2009).
“[…] we have a granularity and amount of detail that is very, very unusual. […] What
it allows us to do is to very reliably track, and certainly with statistical rigour, at the
local authority level, where a lot of the spending decisions are made.”
Price, Sport England
Page | 33
The DCMS (2013, p. 1) stated “[…] the Government sought to use the power of the Games to
inspire lasting change” and The DCMS (2010b, p.1) sought “to encourage the whole
population to be more physically active”. The ABA succinctly portrays how some NGBs have
begun to witness the fulfilment of these promises.
“[…] it [boxing] got fantastic coverage and the results since then have been
remarkable […] [boxing] is still growing, and growing at a tremendous rate. It
[London 2012] enabled a lot of young people to come into and experience boxing”.
Carbon, Amateur Boxing Association
Paralympic Sports Participation
Paralympic sport (participation and elite) has witnessed a change in attitude of the general
public. However, The British Paralympic Association (BPA) suggests a much broader disability
agenda must be captured to ensure a transformational change; rather than incremental.
“[...] clubs and coaches who now make no differential between a Paralympian and
an Olympian. They are just athletes, and that is the biggest and most important
thing of all.”
De Vos, UK Athletics
Improved perceptions relating to disability is a theme discussed across sporting
stakeholders; disability participation targets have been imposed on NGBs by Sport England
who collaborate with The English Federation of Disability Sport (EFDS) to ensure that they
are met.
Additionally, the Government (until 2017) and UK Sport have committed more funding
allowing Paralympic sports to plan for and maximise their legacy and elite performance;
symbolising a long term benefit to the change in attitudes and contributing to two of the
three disability legacy aims.
Page | 34
“[...] we [UK Sport] have increased our investment in Paralympic sports by 45%. We
are putting in £70 million over the next four years, so we know that the programmes
can grow even more”.
Nicholl, UK Sport
High Performance Sports: Both Olympic and non-Olympic
The success of The DCMS (2008, p. 6 – 7) aspiration to “Make the UK a world-leading
sporting nation” is broadly attributed to the ‘no compromise’ approach to delivering
financial support amongst the NGBs.
“UK Sport has done a really good job of allocating those funds to the correct sports,
which meant that they have had real continuity and been able to plan four or five
years ahead because the funding has been in place.”
Woodward, Team GB
The BPA suggests this intervention is successful as funding can be allocated on an elite
and/or participatory level. Those not receiving elite funding are well supported by the
current system in the view of the BPA, British Olympic Association (BOA), UK Sport and Sport
England.
“[…] those sports not necessarily being funded for medal success at the next Games
have the resources elsewhere in the system to start to develop those athletes for the
future.”
Hollingsworth, British Paralympic Association
NGBs have the opportunity to resubmit a business case for elite funding once a substantial
participation base has been generated; emphasising the view that a pathway from
participation to podium is the key to sustainability. Notably The DCMS (2008, p. 6 – 7)
objective to “Make the UK a world-leading sporting nation” is ambiguous; it does not
predicate elite success and therefore funding on participation levels.
Page | 35
“It is ultimately through a broad base of participation that athletes matriculate
through a system and can perform on the international level.”
Siebel, British Olympic Association
Sporting Facilities Legacy/ Future UK Hosting
UK Athletics and the British Volleyball Federation (BVF) regard the proliferation of
equipment used in the Olympics as a positive legacy. This provides a tangible legacy
improving the experience of participants at all levels for sports that had temporary venues.
“[…] thanks to LOCOG and their visionary approach, we were given the sand. […] The
outcome is that we have now created 55 beach volleyball courts around England,
particularly in London.”
Callicott, British Volleyball Federation
British Cycling considers the lack of facilities as the biggest barrier to participation, however
as Hall (1992, p. 36) posited a mega event; “offers the opportunity to provide the host city
with publicity, urban renewal, the construction of physical infrastructure, and economic
development on an unprecedented scale.” In the case of British Cycling traditional ‘physical’
infrastructure (e.g. transport networks) improvements are superseded by the potential of
‘sporting’ infrastructure to secure a participation legacy.
“It is because of the profile that the Games gave us around our sport and the impact
of these facilities when they are built that local authorities are now wanting to work
with us and help grow our sport.”
Drake, British Cycling
Consequently, despite Cochrane, Peck & Tickell (1996) emphasising that a Government lead
decision to bid pre disposed social inequalities to manifest; local authorities appear to
address some concerns by increasing opportunities to participate in sport.
Page | 36
Finally the commitment of UK Sport to host future events demonstrates that; London 2012
may act as a catalyst increased physical activity when embedded within broader strategies
(Coalter, 2004). This will be achieved through hosting of a portfolio of ‘mega’ events; thus
increasing interest and participation in sporting activities (Ritchie, 1984).
“We have a hit list of about 70 events that we are hoping to bring to the nation over
the next six or seven years, and we have already secured about 23 of those.”
Nicholl, UK Sport
Further Strategic Issues
Future Olympic and Paralympic Games
Both the British Olympic and Paralympic Associations cite the approach of LOCOG as
exemplary. An individual specialist in their field (i.e. logistics) was responsible for its
coordination across both Games; creating an unprecedented level of integration.
Consistency of expertise and professionalism in the delivery and staging of the two events;
combined with a different approach to marketing and broadcasting is a blueprint for future
Olympics and could also help to explain the perception change relating to disability.
“[…] we benefited hugely from that approach in terms of the way that the
organisation had the same person responsible for both the Olympics and the
Paralympics for their area of specialism”.
Hollingsworth, British Paralympic Association
Page | 37
4.1.2 Negative
Sporting Legacy
General Public Participation
The structure of candidature and Games delivery reflects the plethora of structures and
human agents that affect legacy outcomes discussed by Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan
(2004). Unfortunately the external generation of goals could restrict the development of a
sustainable legacy (as defined by (Mog, 2004, p. 2140).
“Legacy is important but it is not the prime motivation for bidding for a particular
city. We want to know that the Games are going to be run well. […] We want to
know that the bid will be focused on what is important for the athletes”.
Coates, International Olympic Committee
Sporting Legacy
General Public Participation
Members of the Select Committee question the reported participation statistics. UK Sport
attributes this to normal seasonal fluctuations; exacerbated by a period of particularly
inclement weather. British Cycling is given as an example of a full recovery; intimating that
other sports also experienced this; again highlighting the constraining effect of social
organisation on ‘sustainable development’.
“[…] our judgement and our analysis of the results is that it is more likely to be a dip
than a cause for long-term concern. […] the chart that shows the normal seasonal
curve of participation. […] in March, it undershot the seasonal average very
significantly. […] that did coincide with the coldest March for 50 years and 18 days of
Page | 38
frost. Whilst we cannot be absolutely certain, it looks as though there is good
evidence.”
Price, Sport England
Perhaps this portrays an insignificant change to sport participation, despite a short-term
upsurge after The Games as discussed by Veal & Toohey (2005). Furthermore some NGBs
(notably The F.A. and British Cycling) have become more adept at recording informal
participation. Can the recording of activity that is already taking place be considered a
participation legacy? Truno (1995) posited that an increase in participation post Barcelona
was witnessed by comparing two reports, which may not have been comparable. Are
statistics for London 2012 comparable when the parameters of measurement are transient?
Despite the F.A.s progressive approach to increasing participation many NGBs remain rooted
in tradition; unable (or unwilling) to meet the demand for their sport with supply. Potentially
this represents an ‘unknown known’ (something we don’t believe that we know) as
discussed by Horne (2007); NGBs are aware that demand is changing, but perniciously, are
unable or unwilling to modify supply.
“People’s expectations of what they get from sport and physical activity are
changing faster than they [NGBs] are, and we need constantly to adapt to that.”
Reed, Sport and Recreation Alliance
Contributing to this situation may be a propensity to deliver initiatives, thus, superficially
addressing problems. An inability to progress or divest initiatives based upon their
effectiveness could prevent London 2012 from embedding within broader social strategies
and thus acting as a catalyst to increased physical activity as discussed Coalter (2004).
“We react to a problem like “there is a necessity to bring up a legacy” with a series
of initiatives that have nice new names to them.”
Reed, Sport and Recreation Alliance
Page | 39
Secondly, a lack of targets to increase participation amongst underrepresented
demographics may negate any association between The Games and health improvement
deriving from increased sport participation, healthy living, enhanced physical health and
interest in Olympic sport as discussed by Atkinson, Mourato, Szymanski, & Ozdemiroglu
(2008), DCMS (2005) and Haynes (2001).
“There are no specific targets for women’s participation or for lower socio-
demographic groups, but we have a lot of programmes that focus in those areas”.
Price, Sport England
This contravenes the methodology required to achieve convergence in the host boroughs.
Particularly the objective to; “Tackle the major causes of premature deaths in our
communities” (Greenwich Council et al., 2009). This highlights the multiple legacy visions
and processes that reflect a range of concerns, priorities and interests discussed by Girginov
and Hills (2008) and also demonstrates Koenig and Leopkey’s (2009) assertion that existing
legacy types, although distinct are not mutually exclusive.
Paralympic Sports Participation
The Sport and Recreation Alliance suggest that a change in perceptions of disability was a
short term outcome; participation increases are unlikely. This opposes The DCMS (2010a)
legacy aim to increase the participation of disabled people in sport and physical activity.
“We were finding 85% [of our members] had seen no rise in the number of
[disabled] individuals coming to their clubs. Well over half of clubs were reporting
that they did not feel they were physically in a position to open their access and open
their clubs to a person with a disability.”
Reed, Sport and Recreation Alliance
Page | 40
Education and School Sport
The Sport and Recreation Alliance raise concerns over the loss of School Sport Partnerships
(SSPs). Good examples have been reiterated using various sources of funding resulting from
a belief that they brought an element of certainty to funding and had begun to impact on
wider social issues.
“The loss of the SSPs was pretty drastic. It was a big blow to have lost that from the
sector.”
Reed, Sport and Recreation Alliance
The Alliance (a membership organisation) believes a restructure would have been a better
approach. Concerns over the Coalition Governments School Games framework address the
sustainability of a P.E. budget for individual schools (professional development of teachers
through SSP’s alleviated this) and consequently what withdrawal of funding would mean for
legacy.
High Performance Sports: Both Olympic and Non-Olympic
UK Sport agrees with The BOA that ultimately a wide participation base allows athletes to
matriculate through the pathway to elite performance at international level. Consequently
the ‘no compromise’ approach to funding automatically favours successful Olympic sports.
“Handball and indoor volleyball […] had not actually competed, certainly in recent
years, at an Olympic Games before. That was a fantastic opportunity and platform
to profile their sport. [..] Those sports are now using that profile that they had over
the period of the Games to increase interest and participation.”
Nicholl, UK Sport
UK Sport believes participation targets should be met through Whole Sport Plan objectives
before elite funding is distributed. The British Volleyball Federation (BVF) and English
Handball Association (EHA) do not agree with this premise.
Page | 41
“[…] without sustained funding at all levels, it is impossible for any sport to develop.
[…] We have had funding for less than five and we have been cut, so we are not very
happy, as you can imagine.”
Callicott, British Volleyball Federation
More specifically increases in Whole Sport Plan awards address concerns at a participation
level, however, the ‘no compromise’ approach could hinder Olympic legacy by favouring
medal winning NGB’s. The BVF believe this reduces their ability to attract juniors at a
participation level; thus promoting a self-fulfilling cycle.
“If we want to develop encouraging young juniors to take up the sport and to
develop that talent, there is going to be a cliff off which they will fall when they get
to the age of 18 or 19, because there is nowhere to go and there is nobody prepared
to fund it.”
Callicott, British Volleyball Federation
The BVF appear to be particularly affected; with no elite level prospects and low
participation numbers they are unable to secure sufficient funding to provide the resources
required develop and grow.
“[...] 90% of the funding has been taken. We no longer have any staff or offices; it is
run off the back of my kitchen table.”
Callicott, British Volleyball Federation
UK Athletics summarise the tensions felt between NGBs and funding bodies; perhaps
surreptitiously prescribing to the opinion that sustained funding at all levels is required. Also
there may be a need to co-ordinate and appraise the method of awarding funding to
produce a more cohesive structure. Subsequently this provides further evidence of the
multiple legacy visions and processes reflecting a range of concerns, priorities and interests
discussed by Girginov and Hills (2008).
Page | 42
“At the moment, funding bids are often in isolation and strategies are in isolation.
That needs to be joined up really to ensure that every sport has got a playground-to-
podium pathway in place.”
De Vos, UK Athletics
Further Strategic Issues
Governance
A lack of cohesion, propensity to work in isolation and broader priorities of successive
Governments continually alter the environment in which sport operates. NGBs desire
stability and time to develop the necessary relationships required to execute effective
strategies.
“[…] what national governing bodies really benefit from is stability in the structures
and the investment routes that sit around them. We welcome when a landscape
stays, and we can understand and work with it and build partnerships over a period
of time. The chopping and changing of the structures around us does not help us in
building strategic plans and deliverers.”
Sullivan, The Football Association
Finally, members from several NGBs are questioned about the constituents of their boards.
Subsequently it emerges that they are not representative; there are potentially swathes of
UK demographics that do not have their views considered by all of the sport NGBs giving
evidence.
“Any current organisation looking to reflect the community it is in should have that
demographic across its board.”
Meli, English handball Association
Page | 43
4.2 Government
4.2.1 Positive
Sporting Legacy
General Public Participation
The DCMS cite compelling increases in participation for over 16s, women and those with a
disability. However this contradicts the view portrayed by negative sporting stakeholders.
“[…] in October 2012, compared to October 2011, 750,000 more over-16s were
playing sport once a week. 580,000 of those were women and 64,700 had a
disability, so it was across the piece. […] We now have 1.5 million more people doing
sport once a week than when we won the bid in 2005, and there are 15.5 million
adults taking part in sport once a week, again an all-time record.”
Brooker, DCMS
Several specific initiatives and policy documents (e.g. Creating a Sporting Habit For Life and
People Places Play) are cited as contributing to a sustained positive participation legacy.
Considering Coalter (2004) suggested that London 2012 may act as a catalyst to increase
physical activity when embedded within broader social strategies; the DCMS demonstrate a
belief in and commitment to this notion.
“For instance, take the work that is now going on in schools with the Change4Life
programme, encouraging health and activity through the work and funding of the
Department for Health, working within our schools. This sits alongside the £150
million extra money that is going to primary schools”.
Miller, DCMS
Page | 44
Consequently the environment created underpins the positive evidence; by default this
suggests a cohesive and co-ordinated effort that is likely to succeed.
“Because of the underpinning with the policies that we have at school, community
and elite level, the evidence so far is strong.”
Brooker, DCMS
Interestingly the DCMS highlight the nascent nature of policies (e.g. The Secretary of State
for Culture’s interest in women). This situates legacy generation as process orientated work
according to the definition of Mosse (1998).
“There have been, as we said earlier, some changes to policies as we have gone
along.”
Brooker, DCMS
This may contribute to certain NGBs negative view of the environment who desired
stability; whereas Government have a broader strategic responsibility and seek to manifest
interest in The Games at a national, regional and local level as stated by Malfas, Theodoraki
and Houlihan (2004).
Paralympic Sport Participation
The DCMS support the idea of improved perceptions surrounding those with disabilities;
thus contributing towards the DCMS (2010a) aim to change the way society thinks about
disabled people.
“[…] 81% of adults feel that the Paralympics had a positive impact on the way
disabled people are viewed.”
Miller, DCMS
Additionally, Government funding has been increased until 2017 and has also been
committed to improving the ability of NGBs to capture and retain disabled participants; The
Page | 45
Sport and Recreation Alliance and Veal & Toohey (2005) may suggest this is too late after
any short term surge in interest is diminished.
“[…] it [Sport England] has announced nearly £2 million of funding to the English
Federation of Disability Sport for them to work with governing bodies and others on
how best to develop programmes for disabled people.”
Brooker, DCMS
Progress towards The DCMS (2010a) aim to promote improvements in business, transport
and employment opportunities for disabled people is broadly visible in London. More
specifically Grey-Thompson compliments the standard set by the Olympic venues; hoping
that this becomes a transformational change.
“[…] how we looked at the whole [disability access] provision of the Games. It
worked exceptionally well. […] What London did was very smart in terms of building
that in.”
Grey-Thompson
She is hopeful of a sustained legacy as a result of those employed at LOCOG taking up
positions of power amongst other sporting organisations. Perhaps this will begin to provoke
NGBs to address the non-representative composition of their boards.
“The great advantage is that lots of very good people worked at LOCOG and got
diversity and inclusion. […] Those people will go and work elsewhere and they will be
an influence.”
Grey-Thompson
Education and School Sport
Despite other stakeholders (e.g. The Sport and Recreation Alliance and Youth Sport Trust)
vehemently disagreeing with the dissolution of SSPs, the DCMS believe the Sports Premium
Page | 46
(primary schools control investment of a ring fenced P.E. budget for their students) is a
positive initiative.
“This [Sport Premium] is a very significant investment, which is intended to enrich
and mainstream the importance of sport and PE in primary schools.”
Brooker, DCMS
Secondly, School Games Organisers are seen as providing the structure for competitive sport
at both a primary and secondary school level. When combined, these are portrayed as an
effective means of achieving the DCMS (2010b) aim to harness the UK’s passion for sport
and increase grass roots participation; particularly by young people.
“There are 450 School Games organisers in place and funding until 2014-15 to do
precisely this sort of co-ordination and development of competition within and
between schools.”
Brooker, DCMS
High Performance Sports
The DCMS suggests that funding will always be a limiting factor to the ability to win medals,
but that it has providence as an effective method.
“We have identified that if you spend the money you have in the right way, you will
be more successful, and the medal record from London 2012 speaks for itself.”
Miller, DCMS
Moreover, the ‘no compromise’ approach actually incentivises, focuses and motivates
sporting organisations to achieve at all levels and ultimately at international competition.
Page | 47
“Whilst it can be perhaps seen as tough love, it is that sort of approach that can
really focus organisations to regroup, refocus their energies, and move forward.”
Miller, DCMS
Regeneration Legacy
Olympic Park Legacy
The Mayor of London’s Office gives broad evidence in relation to the receipt of capital from
land sales in the Olympic Park and the subsequent use of these funds to prepare the
Olympic Park for public access; meeting an Olympic Park regeneration aim. Mangan (2008)
suggested that positive legacy intimates a successful event and justifies utilising public
funds; consequently it may offer an explanation for the narrative of this evidence.
“[…] there are provisions for receipts from land sales in the Park to be shared
between the GLA and the National Lottery and, potentially ultimately, between the
GLA and Government.”
Coleman, Mayor of London’s Office
More specifically, the Mayor’s Office uses this broad topic to discuss some of the legacy and
Convergence objectives. Firstly, to deliver affordable homes, expanding choice and mobility
for social housing tenants (Greenwich Council et al., 2009); mediating the process of
gentrification suggested by Davis & Thornley (2010).
“[…] a target of 35% affordable housing to be provided across all of that land, and
various other provisions relating to the types of affordable housing. […] the deal is
done and we have an outline consent that imposes requirements on us in respect of
the other land.”
Coleman, Mayor of London’s Office
Page | 48
Secondly, to create an employment and skills service allowing; “targeted approaches to
tackling large concentrations of worklessness, initially exploiting the opportunities offered by
major housing and estate renewal initiatives” (Greenwich Council et al., 2009, p. 7).
“Some 10,000 jobs have been created there, and I believe up to 20,000 jobs will be in
the long term. The park itself has the capacity to create up to 10,000 new jobs, too,
so the combination of that transport investment and the park investment […] has
had a seismic effect on how that whole area has developed.”
Miller, MP
Related Regeneration Issues
MP Miller reports an increase in volunteering prevalence emerging from The Games Makers
database. Responsibility for the future management of the database has been secured and
is the responsibility of a consortium led by Sport England; providing the foundation of
maximising a volunteering legacy.
“The important thing here is that figures are showing an increase in the number of
people volunteering once a month. Some 29% of people now volunteer once a
month; that is up 4%, which is significant.”
Miller, MP
Further Strategic Issues
Governance
Preuss (2007) proposed that there appears to be no clear and universal acceptance of a
definition of legacy; which could make it hard to measure accurately. The Cabinet Office
promote this broad (lack of) definition as a positive element of legacy delivery, however
Cashman (2005) postulated that legacy is often assumed to be self-evident; therefore there
is no requirement to define it precisely.
Page | 49
“The Government and the Mayor’s office have defined a legacy programme […] but
that does not mean that the legacy is only those things.”
Boggis, Cabinet Office
Fortunately this has been a positive experience and ‘known unknowns’; things that we know
that we don’t know, as deliberated by Horne (2007) have been beneficial to legacy from a
Government perspective. Perhaps this demonstrates the notion posited by Koenig and
Leopkey (2009) that existing legacy types, although distinct are not mutually exclusive; thus
employment legacy and economic growth are intertwined.
“Things like the emphasis on securing a strong employment legacy and the economic
growth aspects probably have strengthened over time, and there have been some
benefits from the Games that perhaps were not anticipated before”.
Boggis, Cabinet Office
International Legacy
The Cabinet Office address the DCMS (2008) aim to demonstrate that the UK is a creative
and inclusive place for business. However, Crompton (1995) postulated that many positive
economic effects manifest only temporarily and their effects are mediated over time;
therefore the permanent level effect (before, during and after The Games) discussed by
Bruckner and Pappa (2011) has not yet been witnessed.
“[…] against the £6 billion foreign direct investment target, £2.5 billion had been
secured bringing with it 31,000 jobs. We can provide the Committee, if helpful, the
regional breakdown of those figures. Around £1.5 billion was outside of London, so
to other parts of England and the devolved administrations. Of the 31,000 jobs,
around half were again outside of London.”
Boggis, Cabinet Office
Page | 50
4.2.2 Negative
Grey-Thompson warns of the perils of forgetting the impetus required to ensure legacy is
achieved; a case in point for the negative views of Government stakeholders.
“Ultimately, the Games are never going to change the world on their own. They are
a moment that is an incredible, special time, which is fairy dust; but there has to be a
huge amount of work behind the scenes to make sure the ongoing legacy actually
happens.”
Grey-Thompson
Sporting Legacy
Paralympic Participation
Grey-Thompson states that the monitoring of performance plans and demarcation between
spends on respective Olympic and Paralympic classifications is required; funding allocated
for Paralympic programmes should genuinely be spent on this area. This suggests distrust or
contempt of NGBs; they must prove that they are doing as they say and it should be a
requirement for more commitment to inclusion. This is crucial to achieving the DCMS
(2010a) promise to; increase the participation of disabled people in sport and physical
activity.
“I am slightly tired of seeing lovely posters with Paralympians on, but knowing that
in that particular sport beneath the surface what they genuinely do for inclusion is
somewhat limited.”
Grey-Thompson
Secondly, spectator accommodation at major sporting events/venues beyond those of
London 2012 is considered inadequate. Grey-Thompson suggests the only way to achieve
making the standard set by London 2012 the minimum requirement is through legislation;
Page | 51
reflecting the broader disabled rights political agenda and the opportunity the Olympics
affords for leveraging transformation in the sports sector.
“I am not a huge fan of legislation for the sake of it, but it would really nice if some
of the standards and levels of expectation that were raised by London would filter
into other sectors.”
Grey-Thompson
It is phased and iterative developments such as these that will allow a sustainable
Paralympic legacy to be achieved in accordance with the definition offered by Mog (2004).
Education and School Sport
The negative opinions of the education and school sport legacy revolve broadly around two
core issues; the dissolution of SSPs and the position of P.E. as a core curriculum subject.
SSPs were regarded as an innovative and successful programme; providing a cluster of
primary schools access to the expertise of a secondary school and an extensive range of
sports that appealed to both genders.
“My disappointment is in school sport. I thought there would be no risk to the legacy
for young people. I believe that there remains a risk and that is a disappointment to
me.”
Jowell, MP
It is suggested that SSPs could have been refined rather than removed; most of the budget
has been redistributed to primary schools (although funding for secondary schools is
uncertain) and many SSPs have reformed under different guises.
“What we have seen since then has been a gradual reconstruction of some of the
funding and […] dedicated funding of £150 million, but for primary schools. The
Page | 52
funding for secondary schools will end in 2013 and, after that, the situation is
uncertain.”
Jowell, MP
SSPs allowed sport to enter a broader agenda; imparting gravitas and increasing the
availability of funding and resources. This demonstrates Coalter’s (2004) conclusion that
London 2012 may act as a catalyst increased physical activity when embedded within
broader social strategies.
“The work we did with education was crucial in getting people to know what others
were talking about and in trying to ensure that some of the money best spent on
education was linked in some way to help with sport.”
Hoey, MP
There is also an argument within the evidence that the sport agenda should go beyond
education and Public Health (sport could be a preventative mechanism with the ability to
reduce the Health budget). However, Murphy and Bauman (2007, p. 193) established that
the “health potential of major sporting and physical activity events is often cited, but
evidence for public health benefit is lacking”.
The second issue relates to the inclusion of PE as a core subject at primary school. The
argument is a long standing debate and to some extent may be party political, but, it is
believed that this could be a multi-faceted catalyst. A swift, tangible benefit highlighted is
teacher training, which could be altered to include PE; improving motor skills and
embedding sport and physical activity as behaviour. Schools would then provide a stable
base through which bodies such as Sport England and NGBs could then operate in
collaboration with.
“What we want is to radically change initial teacher training so that we are
delivering really good quality physical education, but we are teaching good skills
from the youngest age.”
Grey-Thompson
Page | 53
Finally MP Hoey addresses a theme highlighted by UK Athletics and The Sport and
Recreation Alliance. The propensity to back initiatives and lack of cohesive structure are
again represented as negatives.
“All the money that the Home Office puts into sporting initiatives has been very
useful, but it is never in a planned way that links in with everything else. […] I cannot
see that happening, but we always need to be conscious that sport is not just about
sport but about everything that goes on in government”
Hoey, MP
Further Strategic Issues
Governance
Members of The House of Lords purposefully pursue legacy co-ordination and overall
responsibility for legacy delivery; arguing that currently there is not enough transparency
surrounding its delivery.
The Cabinet Office representative suggests arrangements are in line with Government
policy; allowing successful and meaningful liaison across departments.
“[…] appointing a Legacy Ambassador and creating a team specifically for this
purpose demonstrates the importance being placed on it. There was no requirement
to have a Legacy Ambassador; there was no mandate necessarily to have a central
team co-ordinating. I hope that in itself demonstrates the importance that
Government is placing on this”.
Boggis, Cabinet Office
Although her final point poses the question; if there was no mandate, why are the
Government appointing a Legacy Ambassador and a central team to monitor and
orchestrate its progress? Furthermore, if the exception has been made for co-ordination
why is not being made for the publication of legacy reporting?
Page | 54
4.3 London Communities
4.3.1 Positive
Sporting Legacy
General Public Participation
Broadly, The Mayor offers some statistics to support an increase in participation levels.
“We have seen in London a considerable increase in the number of people doing
sporting activities of one kind or another. I have a statistic in my head of 277,500
extra sporting acts of participation”.
Johnson, Mayor of London
The host boroughs suggest that capital investments constituting local authority and Olympic
investment have improved their sporting infrastructure; e.g. The London Borough of Barking
and Dagenham have installed or renovated Multi Use Games Areas, outdoor gyms and
major parks.
“We have a legacy of major parks […] lots of river restoration work, and if you look
at the success in terms of bringing the population back into parks, it has been very
good and important in terms of legacy.”
Gill, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
The Royal Borough of Greenwich offers another example of securing a legacy from the
Olympic Games; again through a combination of funding streams. This borough has
improved public spaces and also focussed on generating a ‘playground to podium’ talent
pathway.
Page | 55
“We are widening participation quite a lot […] but also looking for what the routes
are for those children who are successful and can do more. We are trying to also
graft on to the top of that a route to excellence, so that kids can be stretched as
well, if they are found to have the talent.”
Roberts, Royal Borough of Greenwich
Sports Facilities Legacy/Future Hosting
The Mayor of London offers a concise opinion regarding the positive nature of the sports
facilities legacy; which is also an important element for The IOC. The mechanisms behind
this can be considered in the context of a specific example.
“The distinction that I would draw with China particularly is that all the Olympic
venues […] now have a secure future.”
Johnson, Mayor of London
For the Olympic Stadium the legacy debate surrounds the stadium tenants; combining
winter (West Ham FC) and summer (UK Athletics) usage with scope for one-off events.
“We have in place a memorandum of understanding with athletics […] In effect, we
are the main winter tenant and athletics are the main summer tenant, and there will
be other one-off events that will happen around the stadium.”
Brady, West Ham FC
Fundamentally a Premiership football club provides a commercially viable revenue stream
and thus secures legacy; use for athletics and one-off events. West Ham FC portrays
themselves as a club sensitive to the local community with initiatives such as ‘kids for a
quid’; perhaps to some extent pre-empting the arguments portrayed by Leyton Orient FC.
“The cost of maintaining that stadium without anchor tenants would be huge to the
taxpayer, and this part of the process has certainly been a lead-in as well. Of course,
the legacy continues.”
Page | 56
Brady, West Ham FC
Secondly The Boleyn Ground site can be redeveloped contributing jobs and homes to
another area of East London (Leyton Orient FC provide a counter argument to this opinion;
discussed later). This could situate West Ham’s proposal in broader Government agendas
as suggested by Coalter (2004); affecting the participatory, regeneration and economic
legacy outcomes from London 2012.
“[…] we are talking about a huge project that would create jobs based in the
construction business. It would create new homes.”
Brady, West Ham FC
Regeneration Legacy
Olympic Park Legacy
Broadly, positive legacy secured by the host boroughs related to additional long term
employment through the job brokerage scheme. This was seen as a transformative method
of initiating and retaining relationships with different parties and generating lasting social
capital. However it is important to remember that each host borough has a different
context, point of departure and experience of legacy.
“[…] we have ended up in a position where we have very able officers in place, who
are making these connections, building these relationships and partnerships
between employer and resident, and those third-sector organisations that can
facilitate the route into work for those from 16 through to 50.”
Nicholson, London Borough of Hackney
Success was predicated on ensuring that the local populations had access employment
opportunities afforded by London 2012.
Page | 57
“Of the construction jobs, I think 37% of LLDC jobs are currently going to local
people, 56% to black and minority ethnic groups, and 90% of apprenticeships are
locally sourced.”
Johnson, Mayor of London
The benefits of the job brokerage system can be considered in three intertwined categories;
volume of jobs created, inspirational effects and long term employment prospects. The
evidence given was similar in opinion across the host boroughs; e.g. Barking and Dagenham
was a late admission to host borough status but still gave evidence of significant benefits.
The volume of jobs created was significant in creating an opportunity for local residents and
significant numbers of the populations were employed in a variety of roles across all five of
the host boroughs.
“We got 5,368 with LOCOG and 1,177 with the ODA. There will have been more who
did not go through our job brokerage scheme, but just happened to have gone
through Jobcentre Plus or whoever.”
Roberts, Royal Borough of Greenwich
The gravitas of London 2012 was regarded as an inspirational and motivational factor for
those who were unemployed. The legacy of this relates to increased skill levels and long
term employment prospects.
“[…] the local authority engaged with residents who were very far indeed from the
workplace. We ended up with large numbers of residents […] going through training
as a result of the Olympics acting as a motivator, shall we say, to inspire people to,
perhaps for the first time, consider learning a skill that could perhaps take them into
the workplace.”
Nicholson, London Borough of Hackney
As a result of up-skilling and entering a network actively engaged with organisations
seeking employees the short term contracts associated with The Games improved access
Page | 58
permanent employment contracts. These circumstances interact to contribute towards the
convergence agenda; effecting issues surrounding reduced social exclusion, improved civic
pride, and quality of life as discussed by Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Kim & Petrick, 2005;
Minnaert, 2011; Waitt, 2003.
Host Borough
Generally the host boroughs believe that Olympic projects have acted as an accelerant and
catalyst; new collaborative ways of working, applied through capital projects have aided the
convergence agenda and also resulted in a change of perception for East London. The capital
projects broadly involve the enhancement of transport networks, infrastructure and
enhancement of the boroughs physical appearance as suggested by Chalkley & Essex (1999);
Essex & Chalkley (1998).
Positivity revolves around further development of/around additional transport
infrastructure and also exploiting the freehold assets related to the Olympic Park. The
preparations for London 2012 delivered significant impacts as discussed by Newman (1999).
However Olympic projects must be leveraged post-Games to become sustainable.
“[…] a number of the projects were reliant on the impetus that the Olympics gave us.
[…] We are now talking to companies for rebuilding homes and putting in more
businesses in the whole of the area around Lea Bridge station, which would never
have happened.”
Robbins, Waltham Forest Council
The London Borough of Hackney believes that the convergence strategy is embedded across
multiple stakeholders; who are situated in the wider economy and reach beyond Local
Government. Their success supports the work of Fredline (2005) who postulated that in
order to develop local support for hosting mega events understanding the social facet is
paramount.
Page | 59
“We have shifted from the partnership of, say, the 2000s […] into a far more
collaborative environment, which involves local businesses […] higher and further
education […] the schools […] the wider economy within the borough.”
Nicholson, London Borough of Hackney
Essex & Chalkley (1998) concluded that it is difficult to find evidence suggesting that The
Games themselves are responsible for a regeneration legacy; they are part of a broader
ongoing process. This collaborative approach to regeneration may be far more sensitive and
responsive to local needs and thus positivity surrounds the outcomes; as witnessed in
Newham.
“We are pushing a lot of stuff down to the community much more. We are taking
our volunteers and putting them out to our different community hubs. […] we have
brought them together in a different way.”
Wales, London Borough of Newham
Davis & Thornley (2010) discussed the process of gentrification; whereby successful urban
regeneration results in increased land and property values, thus displacing local populations.
Waltham Forest appear to believe this signals an improvement in the borough and
consequently cite it as a positive; this does not suggest convergence is being achieved,
merely manufactured.
“[…] the GLA evidence shows that ABC1s are moving into Waltham Forest. We have
had a 50% increase in that category of resident over the past 12 months. That does
not just happen out of thin air; that happens for particular reasons. The perception
of an area is changing quite dramatically.”
Robbins, Waltham Forest Council
Page | 60
Related Regeneration
The London Community stakeholders are complimentary of the legacy left by The Cultural
Olympiad. The Mayor of London offers an overview of the positive effects.
“Olympic tourism in London has been absolutely record. We have had a 10%
increase in visits over the past year following 2012. There was a 12% increase in
spending— £4.9 billion.”
Johnson, Mayor of London
Chalkley & Essex (1999) proposed that the size and commercial motivations of mega events
can surpass the provision of facilities and event management; offering the potential to
provide extraordinary opportunities to bordering communities as well as the host (Guala &
Turco, 2009). The host boroughs believe that the Cultural Olympiad will help fulfil this
potential.
Tower Hamlets suggest embedding programmes and strategic use of the ‘Olympic Effect’ is
required to secure a legacy; agreeing with the conclusions of Mean, Vigor & Tims (2004).
“[…] the development corporation has a very key role to play in this. With the Queen
Elizabeth Park, they have made a commitment that they would ensure that a great
deal more arts and cultural events happen. That is where, as host boroughs, we
ought to be linking into that and using that as a key driver.”
Khan, London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Page | 61
4.3.2 Negative
Sporting Legacy
Sports Facilities Legacy/Future UK Hosting
The argument of Leyton Orient FC in relation to the Olympic Stadium tenancy agreement
illustrates the work of several academics on Olympic urban regeneration. Firstly Hall (1992)
suggested that a Government lead decision to enter candidature for the Olympics can result
in ‘fast-tracking’, insufficient evaluation of social/economic outcomes and limited public
consultation in relation to urban regeneration.
Leyton Orient FC has commissioned its own impact reports; perhaps suggesting a lack of
Government investigation. However, it is important to remember Preuss (1998) purported;
cost–benefit analyses or economic impact studies are easy to manipulate and can be
influenced to support the desired results of the commissioning party.
“We […] spent £30,000 with an economic consultancy to produce a report trying to
set out the effects of West Ham moving into the Olympic stadium, and us staying
where we are. This report is the most damning evidence, and it has not been taken
into account by anyone.”
Hearn, Leyton Orient FC
Secondly, deadlines for major constructions and infrastructure are often leveraged to bypass
the usual stages in planning applications as established by Lenskyj (2000). Conversely Essex
& Chalkley (1998) concluded that it is difficult to find evidence suggesting that The Games
themselves are responsible for a regeneration legacy; they are part of a broader ongoing
process. Therefore the commercial viability and broader regeneration of East London may
have influenced the LLDCs decision on The Olympic Stadium legacy tenants.
“In my view, commercially, the occupation of this stadium will increase West Ham’s
value by around £100 million. […] I think they are paying a £15 million contribution
Page | 62
to the reorganisation cost but are being allowed to sell and develop Upton Park. This
is state sponsorship beyond my wildest dreams.”
Hearn, Leyton Orient FC
Host Borough Legacy
Tower Hamlets and Greenwich believe that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and Welfare
Reform Act 2012 will have a great impact on their ability to achieve convergence; in part due
to the process of gentrification discussed by Davis & Thornley (2010). These reforms
illustrate a situation where the Coalition Government have appropriated Labour policies; i.e.
they alter the affordable, social and family housing allocations. Perhaps a concluding remark
by Davis & Thornley (2010) is becoming apparent; that the long term projected benefits of
legacy are preceded by complex and unevenly distributed short term outcomes.
“With the Welfare Reform Act that takes place in August, we will have families
moving out of the borough. It goes back to the point about the Olympic promise. The
Olympics was about regenerating an area and ensuring that the existing
communities benefited, and Tower Hamlets’s vision was not a borough that was
exporting families out and importing in just affluent people.”
Khan, London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Hall and Hodges (1998) claimed that compulsory land purchase to construct event
infrastructure and for housing relocation can increase rent and house prices. Greenwich,
Newham, Hackney and Barking and Dagenham are experiencing issues pertaining to this
phenomenon; suggesting the GLA must mobilise its land holdings to reduce the housing
deficit and thus prices.
“Basically it is just a lack of supply, and the lack of supply is driving up property
prices. […] London has a major housing crisis and we need to build to get out of it.”
Wales, London Borough of Newham
Page | 63
These debates appear to be long standing and party political; this serves to highlight the
constraints of social organisation (the environment) in meeting present and future needs as
discussed by The Brundtland Comission (1987). Perhaps improvements in an area due to
regeneration will always to some extent improve its appeal and result in population
movements; the Government do attempt to mediate the effects.
Further Strategic Issues
Governance
Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan (2004) stated that interest in The Games manifests at a
national, regional and local level; a lack of commitment at all levels will hinder legacy
delivery. The host boroughs (and other stakeholder groups) believe this is not being
achieved
“It has to be an approach taken by all levels of government, not just through the
issuing and the release of resource, in terms of revenue or capital, as that may be
appropriate, but just through the simple act of coming together as three different
governmental institutions”.
Nicholson, London Borough of Hackney
The host boroughs suggest a clear, distinct and identified ministerial leadership should co-
ordinate the involvement of multiple Government portfolios (involving almost all service
areas at all levels of service); generating, monitoring and sustaining the required
commitment.
“What one is really looking towards perhaps would be to have that kind of access
that of course could be captured in a ministerial portfolio of some description, but it
actually looks across Government, rather than it being specifically around, say, one
role within one Cabinet Committee […] It is a far wider remit than that, which goes
well beyond Culture, Media and Sport.”
Nicholson, London Borough of Hackney
Page | 64
4.4 Internal
4.4.1 Positive
Sporting Legacy
Sports Facilities Legacy/Future UK Hosting
The pre bid plans of The Lea Valley Regional Park Authority to build several of the venues is
regarded by them as key to success in securing legacy for Olympic Park facilities. Much of
the scoping and feasibility work had already been completed and legacy clients were already
in place; mitigating the issues highlighted by Hall (1992) of ‘fast-tracking’, insufficient
evaluation of social/economic outcomes and limited public consultation.
“[…] so it was a case of the Olympic bid coinciding with the plans that we had for
those venues. It was a very happy coincidence, it is fair to say, which enabled us, in
harness with the Olympic project, to deliver those venues bigger, better and
sooner—and, as a result, to deliver a much better legacy for the nation.”
Dawson, Lea Valley Regional Park Authority
Two interacting mechanisms allow success. Firstly the environment in which these projects
were delivered was stable (e.g. funding and objectives); importantly a long-term legacy was
strategically planned from the time of the bid, something advocated by Leopkey & Parent
(2012).
“An important point as well is that in terms of providing long-term certainty around
management, funding and management expertise, I think having a legacy client also
gave confidence to what could be achieved”.
Dawson, Lea Valley Regional Park Authority
Page | 65
Secondly, collaborative working through project development and construction allowed
close relationships to be formed; legacy objectives were embedded at an early stage.
Essentially work on achieving legacy began far before The Authority took responsibility for
delivery.
“As the legacy client, we worked hand in hand with the ODA, LOCOG and national
governing bodies throughout the design and construction process. So from the very,
very beginning, with the full knowledge of who the legacy client was going to be,
clearly we had that role to play.”
Dawson, Lea Valley Regional Park Authority
The LLDC defend the bidding process for the Olympic Stadium stating that it was fair,
detailed, legally robust and also thoroughly assessed despite Leyton Orient’s concerns. The
the LLDC suggest a bid with both football clubs could have been submitted for
consideration; consequently Leyton Orient (or West Ham) are at fault.
“We ran a very thorough and detailed competition for a concession arrangement in
the stadium. None of the bidders could prevent teaming with another bidder; no one
could stop that. We went through an assessment. We used top lawyers in the
process, as you would expect. We used PwC on all the assessments of the bids,
financial and otherwise.”
Hone, LLDC
The final decision is justified by suggesting that West Ham FC were the only party submitting
a commercially viable bid; if the anchor tenant does not have sufficient commercial power, a
rather large and expensive white elephant would be left; an element of legacy important to
The IOC.
“The concession agreement is a good deal for taxpayers […] you need a
concessionaire that is going to be able to fill it and use it and bring vitality to that
area of London. […] West Ham was the only credible bid on the table.”
Page | 66
Hone, LLDC
Host Borough Legacy
The LLDC address the integration of housing and development on The Olympic Park with
existing communities. As a corporation they are confident that the framework they have
developed will contribute towards the convergence objectives through an accelerated
programme of housing.
The LLDC are attempting to alleviate the potential (and impact) of gentrification by
delivering housing stock at various price points; enforcing stipulations for tenant allocation.
However the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and Welfare Reform Act 2012 may impinge on
the effectiveness of this.
“In terms of the ones on our land holdings, we have a policy of bringing forward up
to 35% affordable housing. Within that 35%, roughly split, one-third is going into
social housing, which tends to be typically about 30% to 40% of market rate, then
some intermediate uses which will be about a third. Then we will have affordable
housing, which is 70% to 80% of market rate as well going forward.”
Hone, LLDC
Providing properties at various price points provides access to differing segments of the
population. Therefore a community can be manufactured with enough spending power to
sustain any businesses that locate in the area; helping to generate a representative,
integrated and thus sustainable community.
“In whichever borough the housing falls, 40% [of nomination rights] will go to the
host borough and 30% goes to the East London Housing Partnership, which means
the surrounding boroughs as well. There is a hierarchy where 10% goes to the GLA
for wider London, 10% comes to us and 10% goes to the affordable housing
provider.”
Hone, LLDC
Page | 67
Further Strategic Issues
Governance
The Lea Valley Regional Park Authority and LLDC are positive about the inclusion of the
views of other stakeholders into the decision making process. A democratic board provides
strategic leadership ensuring collaborative working; thus providing a seamless, unified
solution. Resources are delivered through a skilled management team, clear policy
framework, business plan and strategic vision of Olympic and Paralympic legacy.
“[…] we have a democratic board with members from not only the riparian
boroughs, which have a local interest and understanding, but across all the
precepting authorities across London, Essex and Hertfordshire as well, which
provides that very clear strategic leadership going forward.”
Dawson, Lea Valley Regional Park Authority
Future Olympic and Paralympic Games
Some of the internal stakeholders generated knowledge that future hosts will replicate.
Firstly LOCOG produced an organisation that was representative of the UK population. The
diversity of the workforce was outstanding; something not overlooked by those entering or
already participating in candidature.
“[…] current host cities are now structuring and looking to put together their
workforces […] all their bids now contain quite detailed proposals for the way that
you make the workforce as diverse and as inclusive as possible.”
Coe, LOCOG
Secondly The Lea Valley Regional Park Authority suggests that initiating an Olympic legacy
vehicle as soon as possible is essential. This provides stability, ownership, accountability
Page | 68
continuity and a key thread of expertise; allowing legacy to be embedded in delivery as key
staff remain involved.
“In terms of transferring knowledge and looking at how we can pass on our
experiences collectively to future host cities, ideally the organisation with long-term
ownership and accountability for the Olympic Park should be in place from the
outset, to lead on the design and development of the park.”
Dawson, Lea Valley Regional Park Authority
Page | 69
4.5 Nations & Regions
4.5.1 Positive
Sporting Legacy
General Public Participation
Both representatives depict increased participation levels since London 2012. The Welsh and
Scottish Sport Councils portray confidence in their ability to achieve a sustainable growth in
figures.
“The impact so far has been, I think, very exciting. Last year, our national statistics
on participation increased for the first time in a long time. That increase has been
maintained this year and the frequency of existing participants has shown an
increase.”
Harris, sportscotland
Sportscotland cite funding from Scottish Government, The National Lottery combined with
Local Authority budgets as a major benefit; Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan (2004) stated
that interest in the Games manifests at a national, regional and local level. They believe
sustained participation will be achieved through collaborating sports and government
stakeholders.
“There is no “right” to investment in Scotland. A governing body or local authority is
not entitled; it is very much based on what it can deliver in partnership with its own
partners locally and with us nationally.”
Harris, sportscotland
Sport Wales are confident of sustaining increases in participation due to their focus on
planning with each sport, thus maximise effects. This strategy involves matching and
Page | 70
developing the supply of sporting opportunities with demand; agreeing with the sporting
stakeholders opinion that requirements and the way people wish to participate in sport and
physical activity is changing (e.g. 11 a side football versus 5 a side). Additionally, Sport Wales
refine this strategy by generating pathways leading from grassroots, through competition
and into elite performance.
“[…] it was about developing a pathway: learning to swim, getting involved in a club
and then staying involved. It was not about offering just single opportunities but
very much around making sure that once people get involved, they stay involved.”
Powell, Sport Wales
Education and School Sport
Sport Wales and Sportscotland appear to have benefitted from learning derived from the
implementation of SSPs. Sportscotland believe sport can impact other areas of society (e.g.
health); thus requiring a systematic approach to increase participation; e.g. a short term
project based approach to a committed long term investment.
By basing Active School’s co-ordinators within the education system and linking school
structures with community sports hubs (something The Youth Sport Trust believes is
missing) they were able to achieve this.
“Participation will not happen without doing things and putting things in place to
support, sustain and nurture it. It is important to take that forward. […] Community
sport hubs are about that: growing participation that is led, managed and
developed, with support, by communities themselves.”
Harris, sportscotland
Sport Wales also use the education system to improve sports participation but discuss their
5x60 (60 minutes of activity five days a week) programme; which focusses on young
people’s engagement through the Young Ambassador scheme. Consequently the conversion
Page | 71
rate of young people entering community sport and also competitive participation at a club
level improves.
“[…] it is giving young people the choice and the voice in what sport and activity they
want to take part in. Once you have got them involved and they are confident, you
have a better chance of getting them into community sport and keeping them all
involved in sport. The 5x60 programme is focused very much on them choosing the
activity.”
Powell, Sport Wales
Page | 72
4.5.2 Negative
Sport Wales highlight a threat, rather than a negative to the delivery of legacy. The impact of
budget cuts could jeopardise the delivery of legacy Wales.
“The short answer is that budget cuts will have an impact on the legacy and on sport
in Wales.”
Powell, Sport Wales
In attempt to pre-empt and dissipate any negative effect Sport Wales are entering a phase
of lobbying to ensure P.E. is enshrined as a core curriculum subject as well as demonstrating
how sport can enhance Public Health delivery and reduce its budget; thus increasing value
for money and securing an increase in investment in sport. Should funding be removed
structures will have been sufficiently altered to leave a legacy.
Page | 73
4.6 Other
4.6.1 Positive
Regeneration Legacy
UK Legacy Outside London
VisitBritiain suggest positive impacts for tourism outside London will continue to occur as a
result of their work co-ordinating effective and appropriate post-Games efforts.
“[…] we have just had the results in and, for a £25 million investment on image, on
which we track the increase in aspiration to travel to Britain, we have seen that
uplifted to a level that would deliver us £200 million worth of revenue, so that is a
return on investment of eight to one.”
Yates, VisitBritain
To enhance the image of the UK the media present for the Olympics filmed at various
locations around the country. The exposure of Olympic broadcasting coupled with
programmes about the UK and its history improved international perceptions of the UK
brand.
“When we tracked the brand and how perceptions internationally had changed, we
found that 75% of people we asked internationally said that the coverage they had
seen of the Olympics made them want to explore more than London—made them
want to go beyond London.”
Yates, VisitBritain
Preuss & Alfs (2011) reputed; demonstrating fundamental changes to the world within the
host city or country is a motivation for hosting mega events. When it is considered that a
DCMS (2008) objective was to; demonstrate that the UK is a creative, inclusive and
Page | 74
welcoming place to live in, visit and for business it would appear that this is a constituent of
legacy that VisitBritain believe has been achieved.
“For the first time, we were in the top 10 nations for welcome. Welcome is hugely
important for tourism. We know that 63% of people who saw coverage of the
Olympics said that it had increased their interest in visiting the UK, as well as those
75% who said they wanted to see more of London.”
Yates, VisitBritain
Ritchie, Shipway, & Cleeve (2009) suggested; assimilating social impacts with environmental
and economic outcomes are essential to provide a balanced appraisal; VisitBritain provide
an indication of a relevant economic parameter that supports this notion.
“We do know that tourism had record spend last year and spend is up, for the first
four months of the year, 12% to Britain.”
Yates, VisitBritain
Related Regeneration
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) are complimentary of the
approach of Government and LOCOG for the Games Makers project.
“[…] there has been more commitment to legacy than in any previous Games and,
for all the problems that we are talking about, more success in legacy than has been
seen in previous Games anywhere.”
Locke, National Council for Voluntary Organisations
Specifically the successes are attributed to the investment, leadership, management (micro
detail to macro responsibility), training and recognition of the Games Makers contributions.
Page | 75
“[…] Lord Coe said that the difference between a good Games and a great Games is
the volunteers.”
Locke, National Council for Voluntary Organisations
As a result of these highly developed skills several sources of statistics reported an increase
in overall volunteering and during the period of London 2012.
“[…] the Community Life Survey has shown an upturn in the number of people who
are volunteering overall. […] I believe that some 40% of the population said that they
had volunteered during the period, which was an increase, and something over 20%
were volunteering more than once a month.”
Locke, National Council for Voluntary Organisations
However, large and unique sporting events generate a broad volunteer profile (Chalip, 1999;
MacAloon, 1999; Moragas et al., 1999). However the motivations, perceptions, and
behaviour of volunteerism may not be present outside of this ‘special event’ environment,
therefore a ‘strong’ volunteer base is not guaranteed (Williams et al., 1995; Farrell et al.,
1998). Therefore, as Lord Coe suggests these volunteers are not guaranteed to support sport
at the grassroots level but may help deliver a legacy through memorable and inspirtational
events.
The frequency of subsequent events can develop a sustainable body of volunteers equipped
with core competences (Coyne & Coyne, 2001); UK Sport has already highlighted a portfolio
of events and related investment to secure this. Also, Downward & Ralston, (2006)
purported that previous volunteering involvement increases preparedness to volunteer for
another major event (both non-sporting and sporting). Therefore the UK is ideally placed to
secure an exceptional volunteering legacy.
“[…] a fifth of the volunteers had not volunteered before; they were new volunteers.”
Locke, National Council for Voluntary Organisations
Page | 76
The International Legacy
Trade and Industry
CompeteFor, the procurement process and portal for The Games was regarded as an
outstanding success by The Federation of Small Businesses. This is an excellent example of
an unplanned, tangible, positive of London 2012 in the legacy cube outlined by Preuss
(2007). Significantly; “Following CompeteFor's successful use by the London 2012 Games
authorities and their supply chains, the service continues to be used in the supply chain of
major capital infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail.”3
“Obviously, it [ComepeteFor] was funded to the end of the Olympics, but it is now
being taken up by BiP [BiP Solutions]. […] So it has a life, and we believe that this is a
real legacy. We had a legacy before we started. Because we believe that it is so
much better than other portals, we believe that it should gradually take over the
world of procurement.”
Stanbridge, Federation of Small Businesses/London chamber of Commerce and
Industry
3 https://www.competefor.com/
Page | 77
4.6.2 Negative
Sporting Legacy
Education and School Sports
The Youth Sport Trust and Association for Physical Education are disparaging of the decision
to replace School Sport Partnerships by the Coalition Government. The Youth Sport Trust
suggests they provided a co-ordinating framework and strategy for SSPs; linking P.E. related
delivery and teachers professional development with funding that went directly to the
schools.
“One of the whole purposes of the School Sport Partnership was to create what were
essentially competitive families, as well as support physical education and physical
activity development. That cluster of eight secondaries is about right for a home and
away, a tournament and so on, and then each of those is working with their small
primary schools doing very local competitions, sports days and so on. That was the
idea: that it gave us both a competitive structure and also a co-ordinated structure
for the delivery of teacher education.”
Campbell, Youth Sport Trust
Under the Coalition Government responsibility has been devolved to head teachers, thus,
removing strategic co-ordination. The Youth Sport Trust and Association for Physical
Education believe that under the previous system movement towards sustainable
development as defined by Mog (2004) was being achieved through process orientated
work demarcated by Moss (1998).
“They [SSPs] were still in infancy, and we were learning as we were going. Yes, just
like other things, we had some great examples and we had some poor examples,
usually dependent on the people involved and employed in it. […] the Ofsted report
that says that School Sport Partnerships improved the teaching of primary physical
education and the amount of time available for physical education. […] the
Page | 78
governing bodies only had 450 partnerships to go to, not 18,000 primary and 3,000
secondary schools. […] I was under the impression this was an evolving structure,
and it still had some evolution to go and it still had some improving to do.”
Campbell, Youth Sport Trust
To address the possibility of a negative legacy occurring for education and school sport
several mechanisms are suggested by The Youth Sport Trust and Association for Physical
Education. Firstly teacher training must increase its on P.E.; complimented by a supportive
network of mentoring and professional development. Improved core competences will
survive if funding is removed.
“We have to change the way we train our teachers in initial teacher training […] It
needs some sort of mentoring in a family of schools: not someone coming in and
doing it for them but someone mentoring them. Yes, of course you train them up,
but they also have somebody to turn to.”
Campbell, Youth Sport Trust
Secondly, the role of NGB is perceived as significant; adapting to engage and enhance school
P.E. provision and thus grassroots participation. NGBs are also considered to need to
improve their agility and inclusion capabilities by other stakeholders.
“The coaches within the national governing bodies have very good subject
knowledge. Working alongside teachers, both in primary and in secondary schools,
they have so much to offer in terms of development for those teachers, but not
displacing them.”
Marchant, Association for Physical Education
Finally, the instability of the environment is cited as a negative issue from a different sector
of stakeholder. The ability to plan and produce long term strategies with the ability to
survive consecutive Governments could give sport the opportunity to achieve a positive
legacy through its status as a core curriculum subject.
Page | 79
“The problem is that this short-termism makes everything so challenging. [..] You
then have to understand that on the ground, and people never catch up. The reason
we were successful at the Olympics, other than great coaches, performance trainers
and amazing athletes, was a consistent policy for 10 years”.
Campbell, Youth Sport Trust
The International Legacy
Trade and Industry
One negative impact on legacy highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses relates to a
focus on inward investment and lack of promotion of the ability of the UK to export. This is
regarded as a ‘missed trick’ and an important area where UKTI and other organisations
should be advocating businesses and opening up supply chains; which could affect the
ability to achieve The DCMS (2010b) objective to exploit to the full the opportunities for
economic growth offered by hosting The Games.
“It is about opening up the supply chain channels to export. […] That is where UKTI
and the embassies should be feeding much more of the supply chain back to us to
allow our members to bid for some of the work.”
Terpilowski, Federation of Small Businesses
Page | 80
Chapter 5.
5. Conclusion
As a point of departure for this chapter; the multi-faceted concept of legacy and the number
of actors involved at differing levels suggests that there will always be the opportunity for
winners and/or losers to emerge. These statuses can be concurrently justified or argued
against by different actors; some of who consciously or unconsciously appropriate the facts
to suit their own agendas.
The types of detail included in The Select Committee call for evidence generally centre
around key issues; whether the attitude of evidence is positive, negative or mixed in nature.
Within the oral evidence, several elements of the wider concept of legacy (which are
reflected to some extent by the structure of The Select Committee’s Call for Evidence)
receive more attention than others. For example participation is mainly addressed by
sporting stakeholders; urban regeneration and economic impacts by the host boroughs etc.
This demonstrates the priorities and agendas of a diverse group of stakeholders relative to
the constituents of legacy.
Furthermore, this must be considered in the narrative of Olympic and Paralympic Games
provision; i.e. candidature, Games delivery and post-Games. For example during candidature
The Games priorities are influenced by The IOC; who are not primarily concerned with
legacy but want delivery to be focussed on the athletes and to ensure that facility legacies
are implemented. Post-Games, the difficulties in isolating an ‘Olympic effect’ and
subsequently legacy in accordance with the host’s aims and objectives dominate the
evidence.
The Select Committee oral evidence (invited participants) includes numerous stakeholders
from a Sporting, London Communities and Government perspective; fewer representatives
of Internal, Nations & Regions, Other and Media stakeholders give evidence. As a
Government committee is investigating legacy this is perhaps unsurprising; they seek to
Page | 81
examine those they consider important and to some degree can hold accountable.
Perniciously, this disempowers the voice of stakeholders whose views are restricted to the
written evidence; they are considered less important.
Further investigation and comparison between these methods of submission would further
highlight not only whose voice is missing, but, potentially further ‘known unknowns’; voices
and opinions that have been supressed, repressed or misrepresented within the evidence.
The data presented in this study demonstrates that the voice of the media is un-heard and
few participants represent Nations & Regions and Internal stakeholders; many of the
Internal stakeholders are no longer in post and are not directly responsible for legacy
delivery.
The nature of LOCOG’s existence and also the premise of Olympic and Paralympic legacy
delivery appears to be predicated on leveraging the environment and relationships
developed during candidature and hosting into a transformational process whereby
strategic direction is less governed by an overarching body but becomes embedded in
‘everyday’ delivery. A pertinent question is; have LOCOG sufficiently fulfilled their role in
ensuring legacy actors are fully equipped to achieve the promised legacy outcomes?
Much of the evidence broadly assumes a mixed attitude; i.e. both positive and negative
elements. Unsurprisingly some evidence is weighted towards the positive end of the
spectrum (i.e. Nations & Regions and VisitBritain); perhaps assuming that legacy is self-
evident and thus supressing negative connotations. However some stakeholders such as The
Youth Sport Trust and some host boroughs viscerally address specific negative issues.
In part these represent long standing party political battles (e.g. the debates surrounding
SSPs and GLA landholdings); illustrating the impact of successive Governments on broad
priorities and policies which can affect the delivery of The Games and subsequently legacy;
notably the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Health and Social Care reform 2012. These
reforms appropriate the Labour vision for Olympic and Paralympic legacy without directly
modifying objectives; illustrating the poorly demarcated and dynamic nature of the legacy
concept.
Page | 82
Some stakeholders (i.e. The London Communities and Sport) attempt to address more
elements of legacy in the evidence they provide. These stakeholder groups also contain the
majority of individuals giving evidence; multiple NGBs and host boroughs are represented.
The increase in stakeholder voices not only highlights a proliferation of contexts, but also an
unwillingness to accept or attribute responsibility to the relevant delivery agent.
Subsequently a variety of mechanisms are employed to deliver (or attempt to deliver)
legacy; these can differ across different levels of the same department.
The data highlights that this plethora of contexts, actors and mechanisms results in several
representatives (e.g. Sport and Recreation Alliance) from different stakeholder groups (e.g.
sport, other and Government) suggesting that the context of delivery is unstable and not
conducive to the long term, strategic planning and relationship development required to
deliver effective policy and consequently a sustainable legacy.
For example; if the evidence is considered from a macro or meso level (e.g. The DCMS, Sport
England and UK Sport) there can be disparity with stakeholders operating at a micro level.
These overarching organisations suggest that they incentivise, motivate and deliver a system
that is as fair as possible to those operating within it; many other stakeholders agree with
this sentiment based on results, but also discuss the negatives associated with this
approach.
Specifically, the ‘no compromise’ approach to funding is the most polarising issue emanating
from the evidence; however even this enters a wider debate encompassing a ‘playground to
podium’ pathway. Opinions on producing a sustainable system of participation and elite
performance at a macro and meso level diverge from those at a micro level (e.g. the EHA
and BVF). These examples highlight a ‘silo’ mentality; organisations, actors and sectors that
contribute towards legacy delivery are not as cohesive and co-ordinated as they could be
and have tendencies to work in isolation.
Page | 83
Sir Clive Woodward surmises this predicament succinctly suggesting that:
“There should be a no-compromise approach to certain sports: if you give them
substantial amounts of money, you expect a return. But there is another chunk of
sports where you have to help develop those sports, where I think a certain amount
of money, if you put in performance criteria, will mean that you see them move up.”
Woodward, Team GB
Essentially, context affects effectiveness; a broad spectrum of indicators must be considered
and funding allocated accordingly. In relation to legacy these criteria should transcend cost
per medal, funding amount sought or participation figures and find themselves embedded in
broader Government strategies and policies to maximise their impact. This is particularly
pertinent when co-ordinating and leveraging legacy constituents across many Government
departments and policy areas; notably but not exclusively Public Health, The DCMS, Welfare,
Disability etc.
To integrate sport at a national level across policy areas and departments from ‘playground
to podium’ a co-ordinating, strategically astute, committed, stable and respected board is
required. In the evidence it is was suggested that legacy delivery was most effective under
two Coalition Deputy Prime ministers; possessing the required gravitas, expertise and cross-
Government portfolio responsibility to nurture a project with such scope.
Due to the dynamic nature of a democratic Government perhaps Select Committee
responsibility (reflecting the current balance of power in Government) would to some
extent alleviate the appropriation of legacy; instilling the required co-operation and
commitment. Thus a stable and predictable environment for sustainable legacy
development would be generated. Furthermore legacy development should be delivered
under the scrutiny of the general public; serving to illustrate principles of good governance
and generating accountability in a converging top down and bottom up approach.
Page | 84
The difficulties associated with the identification of the ‘Olympic effect’ highlights the need
for focussed longitudinal studies. Unfortunately the lack of such work highlights three
things. Firstly, the motivation to host The Games is often not legacy and secondly any
Olympic and Paralympic Games can only be delivered within the IOC’s guidelines (and
subsequently what they deem important aspects of legacy or not).
Thirdly; legacy as a concept ultimately reflects a ‘known unknown’; each Games delivery
operates in a different context and the exact outcomes are in part un-predictable. Therefore
longitudinal measurement only serves to confirm whether legacy aims and objectives have
been met rather than providing a template for future Olympics and Paralympics.
Despite this, London 2012 can certainly be considered as influential for future Games;
specifically the integration of The Olympic and Paralympic Organising Committee, whilst
marketing and broadcasting them differently was pioneering. The attitude shift for the
disability agenda that this catalysed will impact The Paralympic Games, however in the
context of the UK and internationally there is still much work to be done to deliver
transformation at a societal level.
The scope of data available provides an intuitive point of departure for further research; the
inclusion of written evidence would provide a more in depth analysis. Commitment to the
longitudinal study of the London 2012 legacy would offer empirical evidence illustrating
whether the aims and objectives set out by The DCMS during candidature are met;
developing the legacy radar framework discussed by Dickinson et al., (2011) could
potentially allow comparison over time and also different hosts. However, a longitudinal
meta-evaluation may also prove useful not only in terms of measuring legacy; providing
learning derived through implementation.
In summary the desire of stakeholders to operate within a stable, predictable environment
generated by an overarching, sufficiently powerful and experienced body combined with the
need for longitudinal evaluation of impacts to thoroughly assess Olympic and Paralympic
legacy represents a dichotomy faced by Governments. Legacy development is encapsulated
by the unending construction process discussed by Mosse (1998) and successes will be
Page | 85
derived through the process oriented work deliberated by the same author. Academics
studying this further would do well to remember Girginov and Hill’s (2008, p. 2102–2103)
statement:
“Legacy is very appealing because of its seeming ability to combine the practical and
policy-relevant with the scientifically respectable […] Equal attention needs to be
paid to the process of legacy construction as a moral, political and sports delivery
enterprise.”
Finally this study has contributed to the body of legacy research specifically on London 2012
and more broadly Olympic legacy by offering an initial examination of previously unanalysed
data gathered by the House of Lords Select Committee proceedings. Examining the nuances
of legacy development through the lenses of different stakeholders has not only provided a
reflection on the achievement (or not) of the legacy objectives set out during candidature
but also informs on possible directions for future research. It has further illuminated the
difficulties involved in generating a sustainable legacy as a result of The Olympic and
Paralympic Games; which themselves are delivered as part of a broader context and agenda.
Page | 86
References
Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., Szymanski, S., & Ozdemiroglu, E. (2008). Are We Willing to Pay
Enough to `Back the Bid’?: Valuing the Intangible Impacts of London's Bid to Host the
2012 Summer Olympic Games. Urban Studies, 45(2), p. 419-444.
Baade, R. A. (1996). Professional Sports as Catalysts for Metropolitan Economic
Development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 18(1), p. 1-17.
Baade, R., & Matheson, V. (2002). Bidding for the Olympics: Fool's Gold? Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Baade, R. A., Baumann, R., & Matheson, V. (2008). Slippery Slope? Assessing the Economic
Impact of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Région &
Développement, 31, p. 79-89.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), p. 77-101.
London 2012 Ltd (2005). London Candidate File to Host the Games of the XXX Olympiad and
the Paralympic Games in 2012. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070305103412/http://www.london2012.co
m/news/publications/candidate-file.php
Bruckner, M., & Pappa, E. (2011). For An Olive Wreath? Olympic Games and Anticipation
Effects in Macroeconomics. Retrieved from
http://idea.uab.es/~evipappa/olympics%2021%20April.pdf
Page | 87
Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Cashman, R. (2005). The Bitter-sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games. Sydney: Walla Walla Press.
Chalip, L. (1999). Sydney 2000: Volunteers and the Organisation of the Olympic Games:
Economic and Formative Aspects. Paper presented at the Symposium on Volunteers,
Global Society and the Olympic Movement, Lausanne. Retrieved from
http://olympicstudies.uab.es/volunteers/chapil.html
Chalkley, B., & Essex, S. (1999). Urban Development Through Hosting International Events: A
History of the Olympic Games. Planning Perspectives, 14(4), p. 369-394.
Chappelet, J. (2008). Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games.
International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), p. 1884–1902.
Cheshire, P., & Gordon, I. (1998). Territorial Competition: Some lessons for policy. Annals of
Regional Science 32(3), p. 321–346.
Coalter, F. (2004) London 2012: A Sustainable Sporting Legacy? In: Vigor A, Mean M, Tims, C
(Eds). After the Gold Rush: A Sustainable Olympics for London (p. 91-108), London: IPPR
and Demos.
Coalter, F. (2007). London Olympics 2012: ‘The Catalyst That Inspires People to Lead More
Active Lives’? Journal of the Royal Society of Health, 127(3), p. 109-110. Retrieved from
http://rsh.sagepub.com/content/127/3/109.full.pdf
Page | 88
Cochrane, A., Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (1996). Manchester Plays Games: Exploring the Local
Politics of Globalisation. Urban Studies, 33(8), p. 1319-1336.
COOB'92. (1992). Memoria Oficial de los Juegos Olimpicos de Barcelona 1992 (Official
Report of the Games of the XXV Olympiad Barcelona 1992). 1, COOB'92: Barcelona.
Retrieved from http://library.la84.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1992/1992s1.pdf
Cowen, M. & Shenton, R. (1995). The Invention of Development. In: J. Crush (Eds.), Power of
Development (p. 27–44.) London: Routledge.
Coyne, B., & Coyne, J. (2001). Getting, Keeping and Caring for Unpaid Volunteers at
Professional Golf Tournament Events. Human Resource Development International, 4(2),
p. 199-214.
Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic Impact Analysis of Sports Facilities and Events: Eleven
Sources of Misapplication. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), p. 14–35.
Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A Template Approach to Text Analysis: Developing and
Using Codebooks. In: B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research (p. 163-
177.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Daly, J., Kellehear, A., & Gliksman, M. (1997). The Public Health Researcher: A
Methodological Approach. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Davis, J., & Thornley, A. (2010). Urban Regeneration for the London 2012 Olympics: Issues of
Land Acquisition and Legacy. City, Culture and Society, 1(2), p. 89-98.
Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S. (2002). Non-host Community Resident Reactions to the 2002 Winter
Olympics: The Spill over Impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), p. 46-56.
Department for Culture Media and Sport. (2005). Government and Public Sector Olympic
Games Impact Study.
Page | 89
Department for Culture Media and Sport (2008). Before, During and After: Making the Most
of the London 2012 Games.
Department for Culture Media and Sport (2010a). London 2012: A Legacy for Disabled
People.
Department for Culture Media and Sport (2010b). Plans for the Legacy from the 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Dickson, T., Benson, A.M., & Blackman, D. (2011). Developing a Framework for Evaluating
Olympic and Paralympic Legacies: Looking Beyond the Fun and Games. Journal of Sport &
Tourism, 76(4), p. 329-341.
Downward, P. M., & Ralston, R. (2006). The Sports Development Potential of Sports Event
Volunteering: Insights from the XVII Manchester Commonwealth Games. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 6(4), p. 333-351.
EdComs (2007). London 2012 Legacy Research: Final Report. COI, on behalf of the
Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: Catalyst of Urban Change. Leisure Studies,
17(3), p. 187-206.
Farrell, J. M., Johnston, M. E., & Twynam, G. D. (1998). Volunteer Motivation, Satisfaction,
and Management at an Elite Sporting Competition. Journal of Sport Management, 12(4),
p. 288–300.
Fredline, E. (2005). Host and Guest Relations and Sport Tourism. Sport in Society, 8(2), p.
263-279.
Freud, A. (1992). The Writings of Anna Freud: Vol 2. The Ego and Mechanisms of Defence.
London: Karnac Books. (Original work published 1936).
Page | 90
Giannoulakis, C., Wang, C., & Gray, D. (2008). Measuring Volunteer Motivation in Mega-
sporting Events. Event Management, 11(4), p. 191-200.
Girginov, V. and Hills, L. (2008). The 2012 London Olympic Games and Participation in Sport:
Understanding the Link. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), p. 2091–
2116.
Girginov, V., & Hills, L. (2009). The Political Process of Constructing a Sustainable London
Olympics Sports Development Legacy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics,
1(2), p. 161-181.
Girginov, V. (2008). Management of Sports Development. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gratton, C., Nichols, G., Shibli, S., & Taylor, P. (1997). Valuing Volunteers in UK Sport.
London: Sports Council.
Greenwich Council, Hackney Council, Newham Council, Tower Hamlets Council and Waltham
Forest Council (2009). Strategic Regeneration Framework. London: Hackney Design and
Print. Retrieved from
http://static.squarespace.com/static/50b4ab77e4b0214dc1f631e9/t/50b4d086e4b0214d
c1f6888c/1354027142740/strategic-regeneration-framework-report.pdf
Grix, J. (2012). ‘Image’ Leveraging and Sports Mega-events: Germany and the 2006 FIFA
World Cup. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 17(4), p. 289–312.
Guala, A., & Turco, D. (2009). Resident Perceptions of the 2006 Torino Olympic Games,
2002-2007. Sport Management International Journal, 5(2), p. 21-42.
Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management and Planning. London:
Belhaven Press.
Page | 91
Hall, C., & Hodges, J. (1998). The Politics of Place and Identity in the Sydney 2000 Olympics:
Sharing the Spirit of Corporatism. In: Roche M. (Eds.). Sport, Culture and Identity (p. 95-
112), Aachen: Meyer and Meyer Verlag.
Hall, T., & Hubbard, P. (1998). The Entrepreneurial City and The “New Urban Politics”.
In: Hall T & Hubbard P. (Eds.). The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies Of Politics, Regime
and Representation (p. 1-23), Chichester : John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Harper, D. (2001). ‘Legacy’. In Online Etymological Dictionary, www.etymonline.com.
Retrieved 11/01/2014
Haynes, J. (2001). Socio-economic Impact of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Barcelona:
CEO-UAB.
HM Government (2007). Securing the Future: Delivering the UK Sustainable Development
Strategy. London: HM Government.
Hooper, I. (2001) The Value of Sport in Urban Regeneration. In: Gratton C. and Henry I.
(Eds.). Sport and the City: the Role of Sport in Economic and Social Generation, London:
Routledge.
Horne, J. (2007). The Four ‘Knowns’ of Sports Mega‐Events. Leisure Studies, 26(1), p. 81-96.
Houlihan, B. (1994) Sport and International Politics. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2007). London 2012 Olympic
Games and Paralympic Games: Funding and Legacy. Second Report of the Session 2006–
07 Volume 1 Report, Together with Formal Minutes, London: The Stationery Office
Limited.
International Olympic Committee (n.d.). The Olympic Bidding Process. Retrieved from
http://www.olympic.org/content/olympic-games/bidding-for-the-games/.
Page | 92
International Olympic Committee (2013). Olympic Charter. Retrieved from
http://www.olympic.org/olympism-in-action.
International Olympic Committee (2002). Provisional Remarks, Conclusions and
Recommendations: International Symposium on Legacy of the Olympic Games, 1984–
2000. Retrieved from
http://olympicstudies.uab.es/olympiclegacy/web/conclu/legacy_conclusions.pdf.
International Olympic Committee (2005). Report of the IOC Evaluation Commission for the
Games of the XXX Olympiad in 2012, Lausanne: The IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2012). 2012 Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire.
Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_810.pdf
Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. (2010). The Essence of Research Methodology: A Concise Guide for
Master and PhD Students in Management Science, Springer, Heidelberg.
Kim, S., & Petrick, J. (2005). Residents’ Perceptions on Impacts of the FIFA 2002 World Cup:
The Case of Seoul as a Host City. Tourism Management, 26(1), p. 25-38.
Koenig, S., & Leopkey, B. (2009). Canadian Sporting Events: An Analysis of Legacy and Sports
Development. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada
Conference in Niagara Falls, Canada. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Simon/Downloads/628-986-1-PB.pdf
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic
Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), p. 31-60.
London East Research Institute. (2007). A Lasting Legacy for London? Assessing the Legacy of
The Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. London: London East Research Institute.
Page | 93
Long, T., & Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.
Critical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), p. 30-37.
MacAloon, J. (1999). Volunteers, Global Society and the Olympic Movement. Paper
presented at the Symposium on Volunteers, Global society and the Olympic Movement,
Lausanne. Retrieved from http://olympicstudies.uab.es/volunteers/macaloon.html
Matheson, V. (2009). Economic Multipliers and Mega-Event Analysis. International Journal
of Sport Finance, 4(1), p. 63-70.
Matheson, V., & Baade, R. (2004). Mega-sporting Events in Developing Nations: Playing the
Way to Prosperity? South African Journal of Economics, 72(5), p. 1085-1096.
Mean, M., Vigor, A., & Tims, C. (2004). Conclusion: Minding The Gap. In: Vigor A, Mean M,
Tims, C (Eds). After the Gold Rush: A Sustainable Olympics for London (p. 129–151),
London: IPPR and Demos.
Minnaert, L. (2011). An Olympic Legacy for All? The Non-infrastructural Outcomes of the
Olympic Games for Socially Excluded Groups (Atlanta 1996-Beijing 2008). Tourism
Management, 33(2), p. 361–370.
Moreno, A., Moragas, M., & Paniagua, R (2000). The Evolution of Volunteers at the Olympic
Games. Paper presented at the Symposium on Volunteers, Global Society and the
Olympic Movement, Lausanne: The IOC. Retrieved from
http://olympicstudies.uab.es/volunteers/moreno.html
MORI. (2004). The Sports Development Impact of the Commonwealth Games 2002 - Post-
Games Research, Final report: Research study conducted for UK Sport in Greater
Manchester, Blackburn, Congleton and Liverpool.
Page | 94
Murphy. N., & Bauman, A. (2007). Mass Sporting and Physical Activity Events – Are they
“Bread and Circuses” or Public Health Interventions to Increase Population Levels of
Physical Activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 4(2), p. 193–202.
Newby, L. (2003). To What Extent Has the Commonwealth Games Accelerated the Social,
Physical and Economic Regeneration of East Manchester. Manchester: DTZ Pieda
Consulting.
Newman, H. K. (1999). Neighbourhood Impacts of Atlanta's Olympic Games. Community
Development Journal, 34(2), p. 151-159.
Neuman, W. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nichols, G. (2004). Pressures on Volunteers in the UK. In: Graham M, Stebbins R (Eds.),
Volunteering as Leisure/Leisure as Volunteering: An International Assessment (p. 197–
209), Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
NSW Government (2001). Budget Statement of the New South Wales Government 2000–
2001. Retrieved from
http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1668/bp2_6.pdf
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage
Publications.
Preuss, H. (1998). Problemising the Arguments of the Opponents of Olympic Games.
Unpublished paper. Retrieved from
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/ISOR/ISOR1998w.pdf.
Preuss, H. (2000) Economics of the Olympic Games: Hosting the Games 1972–2000. Walla
Walla Press, Sydney.
Page | 95
Preuss, H. (2006). Lasting Effects of Major Sporting Events. Retrieved from
http://www.idrottsforum.org/articles/preuss/preuss061213.pdf
Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Event
Legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), p. 207-228.
Preuss, H., & Alfs, C. (2011). Signaling Through the 2008 Beijing Olympics: Using Mega Sport
Events to Change the Perception and Image of the Host. European Sport Management
Quarterly, 11(1), p. 55-71.
Preuss, H., & Solberg, H. (2006). Attracting Major Sporting Events – The Role of Local
Residents. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(4), p. 391-411.
Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Raco, M. (2004). Whose Gold Rush? A Social Legacy of a London Olympics. In: Vigor A, Mean
M, Tims, C. (Eds). After the Gold Rush: A Sustainable Olympics for London (p. 31–49),
London: IPPR and Demos.
Ritchie, J. (1984) Assessing the Impact of Hallmark Events: Conceptual and Research Issues.
Journal of Travel Research, 23(2), p. 2–11.
Ritchie, B., Shipway, R., & Cleeve, B. (2009). Resident Perceptions of Mega-Sporting Events:
A Non-Host City Perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Journal of Sport and
Tourism, 14(2/3), p. 143–167.
Roche, M. (2000). Mega-Events and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Global
Culture. London: Routledge.
Rose, A. K., & Spiegel, M. M. (2011). The Olympic Effect*. The Economic Journal, 121(553), p.
652-677.
Page | 96
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students.
London: Pearson Education.
Tien, C., Lo, H., & Lin, H. (2011). The Economic Benefits of Mega Events: A Myth or a Reality?
A Longitudinal Study on the Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 25(1), p. 11-
23.
The Brundtland Commission (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Vancouver Organising Committee. (2007). Legacies of North American Olympic Winter
Games Volume One: Lake Placid 1980. Vancouver: VANOC. Retrieved from
https://doc.rero.ch/record/27384/files/2007-04_-
_Legacies_of_North_American_Olympic_Winter_Games_-_Vol._1_-
_Lake_Placid_1980.pdf
Tobin, G., & Begley, C. (2004). Methodological Rigour Within a Qualitative Framework.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), p. 388-396.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence: Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
Truno, E. (1995). Barcelona: City of Sport. Retrieved from
http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp039_eng.pdf
Van Den Heuvel, S. G., Boshuizen, H. C., Hildebrandt, V. H., Blatter, B. M., Ariëns, G. A., &
Bongers, P. M. (2005). Effect of Sporting Activity on Absenteeism in a Working
Population. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(3), p. e15–e15.
Veal, A., & Toohey, K. (2005). Sport for All & The Legacy of Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
Paper Presented at the Third International Event Management Research Conference,
Sydney.
Page | 97
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The Research Design Maze: Understanding Paradigms, Cases, Methods
and Methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), p. 69-80.
Waitt, G. (2003). Social Impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),
p. 194-215.
Williams, P. W., Dossa, K. B., & Tompkins, L. (1995). Volunteerism and Special Event
Management: A Case Study of Whistler's Men's World Cup of Skiing. Festival
Management and Event Tourism, 3(2), p. 83-95.
Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Mansfield, L., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., & Dowse, S.
(2009). A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical Activity and
Health Legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Centre for Sport,
Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR), Canterbury Christ Church University.