A Theoretical Approach for the Olympic Legacy Study Focusing on Sustainable Sport Legacy

Abstract

The management of the Olympic Games has changed significantly since the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. The introduction of commercialisation probably saved the Olympic Games from a fateful crisis. It brought financial stability and attracted cities to bid for the Games. On the other hand, the impact of hosting the Olympic Games increased as more stakeholders became involved in its management. In addition, the global community became concerned about environmental issues. Global organisations including the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were required to take actions towards sustainable development. In this context, the debate regarding the Olympic legacy became of interest among stakeholders and researchers. The IOC introduced indicators to measure impact and legacy, which is now referred to as Olympic Games Impact (OGI). However, there are some issues in the current OGI study. This paper aims to suggest a theoretical approach which would contribute to solve the issues by focusing on sustainable sport legacy as an example. The proposed theoretical approach is focusing on event objective and analysing the relationship between sport policy and sport legacy development concentrated on the process and opportunity rather than the outcome.

Keywords::

• Olympic Games
• Olympic legacy
• Olympic Games Impact
• sport legacy
• sport policy

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the IOC Olympic Studies Centre (OSC) and the Olympic Games department (OG Knowledge Management section) for providing the OGI-related reference for this study.

Notes on Contributors

Keiko Homma is currently a doctoral student at Tokyo Metropolitan University. She took her Master of Management in Sport Management degree at University of Technology, Sydney.

Naofumi Masumoto is a professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University.

Notes

^1.Cashman, “Impact of the Games,” 5.

^2.IOC, Guide on Olympic Legacy, 7.

^3.Girginov and Hills, “Political Process of Constructing Sustainable,” 3.

^4.Toohey, “Olympic Sustainability Reporting,” 9.

^5.VANOC, Olympic Games Impact Program, 8 and IOC, Environment and Sustainable Development, 3.

^6.LOCOG, Olympic Games Impact Study, 7.

^7.Veal and Frawley, ‘Sport for All’ and Major Sporting Events, 22.

^8.Gratton and Preuss, “Maximizing Olympic Impacts,” 1923 and Toohey, “Sydney Olympics,” 1955.

^9. The examples of legacy debate are as follows: “The legacy fallacy: the Olympics doesn't increase sport participation” by Kate Hughes, August 16, 2012. http://theconversation.com/the-legacy-fallacy-the-olympics-doesnt-increase-sport-participation-8810#comments; “Olympics: a true legacy would be sport for all” (The Guardian, August 12, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/12/observer-editorial-encourage-school-sport) and “Will the Olympics legacy help grassroots sport or focus on the elite?” (The Guardian, August 21, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/21/communities-youngpeople).

^10.IOC, Olympic Charter, 21.

^11.Weed, Coren and Fiore, “Systematic Review of the Evidence Base,” 17.

^12.Hoye and Nicholson, “Australia,” 227.

^13.Toohey, “Post-Sydney 2000 Australia,” 2770.

^14. Girginov and Hills, “Political Process of Constructing Sustainable,” 4.

^15. Cashman, “Impact of the Games,” 5.

^16.Verbruggen, “Common Legacy,” 24.

^17. Ibid.

^18. Cashman, “Impact of the Games,” 5.

^19.Toohey and Veal, Olympic Games.

^20. Toohey, “Olympic Sustainability Reporting,” 3.

^21. Ibid.

^22.IOC, Olympic Legacy, 32.

^23.IOC, Agenda 21, 7.

^24. IOC, Environment and Sustainable Development, 1.

^25. IOC, Agenda 21, 23.

^26.IOC, Legacy of the Olympic Games, 491.

^27.IOC, 114th IOC Session, 26.

^28.IOC, 115th IOC Session, 5.

^29.Furrer, “Sustainable Olympic Games,” 17.

^30. There is a note regarding the term ‘global impact’ in the VANOC's Baseline Report as follows. ‘The term “global impact” is defined as the “total” or “holistic” impact of the Games in the host city, region and country. It does not refer to the “worldwide” impact of the Games’.

^31. VANOC, Olympic Games Impact Program, 8 and LOCOG, Olympic Games Impact Study, 7.

^32. VANOC, Olympic Games Impact Program, 8 and IOC, Environment and Sustainable Development, 3.

^33. The total number is 126 according to the VANOC Baseline report, whereas it is 120 according to the LOCOG Pre-Games report.

^34. LOCOG, Olympic Games Impact Study, 7.

^35.OGI-UBC Research Team for VANOC, Olympic Games Impact, 1.

^36. LOCOG, Olympic Games Impact Study, 6.

^37.IOC, Technical Manual, 5.

^38.IOC, Legacies and Impacts Bibliography, 4.

^39. IOC, Guide on Olympic Legacy, 28.

^40. Ibid., 30.

^41. IOC, Olympic Legacy, 9.

^42.MacAloon, “‘Legacy’ as Managerial/Magical Discourse,” 2067.

^43. Of the total number of the initial 126 indicators for the VANOC, 80 were context indicators while 46 were event indicators. The event indicators were to be reported in the Games Report.

^44. VANOC, Olympic Games Impact Program, Appendix A.

^45. OGI-UBC Research Team for VANOC, Olympic Games Impact, 22.

^46. LOCOG, Olympic Games Impact Study, 7.

^47. Ibid., 13.

^48. Gratton and Preuss, “Maximizing Olympic Impacts,” 1923.

^49. Toohey, “Sydney Olympics,” 1955.

^50.Cashman, “What is ‘Olympic Legacy’,” 33.

^51. Veal and Frawley, ‘Sport for All’ and Major Sporting Events.

^52. Weed, Coren and Fiore, “Systematic Review of the Evidence Base,” 24.

^53. IOC, Olympic Charter, 10.

^54. Ibid., 14.

^55.Truño, “Barcelona: City of Sport,” 10.

^56.London East Research Institute, Lasting Legacy for London, 57–8.

^57.Hindson, Gidlow and Peebles, “‘Trickle-Down’ Effect of Top-Level Sport,” 24.

^58.Frawley and Cush, “Major Sport Events and Participation Legacy,” 74.

^59. Weed, Coren and Fiore, “Systematic Review of the Evidence Base,” 8.

^60. Ibid., 49.

^61.Veal, Toohey and Frawley, “Sport Participation Legacy,” 11.

^62.Hogan and Norton, “The ‘Price’ of Olympic Gold,” 203.

^63. Hoye and Nicholson, “Australia,” 227.

^64. Girginov and Hills, “Political Process of Constructing Sustainable,” 4.

^65. Toohey, “Post-Sydney 2000 Australia,” 2770.

^66. Girginov and Hills, “Political Process of Constructing Sustainable,” 3.

^67. Ibid.

^68.Chalip, “Towards Social Leverage,” 112–3.

^69. Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture+complex

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Keiko Homma

Keiko Homma is currently a doctoral student at Tokyo Metropolitan University. She took her Master of Management in Sport Management degree at University of Technology, Sydney.

Naofumi Masumoto

Naofumi Masumoto is a professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University.