The sport mega-events of the 2020s: governance, impacts and controversies

Introduction

As the guest editors of this Special Issue in Sport in Society, we would like to begin this editorial by paraphrasing sociologist Maurice Roche, who must be considered a key scholar in the social and historical study of mega-events. For Roche (2000), who initially and predominantly focused on the Olympics and World Fairs, mega-events constitute some of the modern society’s great shows. In his 2000 book, Roche further concluded vis-à-vis mega-events that ‘[w]e are likely to see much more of them, in both “official” and “alternative” forms, as “global society” and its culture begin to take on a more patterned and institutionalised character in the early generations of the twenty-first century’ (p. 235).

Fast forward 20 years, and the social scientific study of sport mega-events has increasingly taken new turns and followed new avenues. As Roche (2017) argued more recently, mega-events always have the capacity to surprise us and provide us with a glimpse of broader processes and tendencies at play in the global life. Here, we concur with Roche and, in distinctive ways, this Special Issue is firmly rooted in such perspective. Sport mega-events, in our view, can help us better understand and make sense of the world that we live in. However, if we are to expand our knowledge on exactly how or why mega-events have the capacity to surprise us and tell us new things about societies, then we would argue that a continued and comparative study of mega-event is as necessary as it is scholarly important in the current world.

It is well-established that sport mega-events are socially, culturally, financially, politically and historically important and valuable. For example, in the modern world, sport mega-events are commonly utilized by states as tools for soft power, nation branding and public diplomacy (Rookwood and Adeosun 2021). Events are collectively memorized and work as reference points in communities’ social calendars and in the broader public structuring of time (see Roche 2003). And, indeed, each sport mega-event is filled with anticipation of sporting success, Olympic records, defining moments and atmospheric expectations.

Though, sport mega-events must not be unequivocally glorified. They have also been subject to increased opposition, criticism and scrutiny. These typically relate to their astronomical economic costs, their physical, social and spatial impacts on public space and their failure to produce those ‘legacies’ that regularly are promised or exaggerated in the bidding stages (Boykoff 2020). All these social realities feed into the three subthemes of this Special Issue. These include governance, impacts and controversies. As we argue, these three themes will follow most – if not all – mega-events in the 2020s. Simultaneously, these subthemes often inter-link and may reinforce each other, as we will unpack further next.

Governance

All mega-events involve complicated and long-lasting bidding, planning and construction phases. Commonly, mega-events provide cities with an opportunity to revitalise urban spaces and increase tourism, and often involve some of the largest security operations in the world. Further, mega-events are – as mentioned – increasingly used as political tools and for purposes of soft power on the international scene. The actors involved within a mega-event’s planning are multiple and diverse. While mega-events are hosted by cities or countries, they are simultaneously administered by sport governing bodies and organised by local organising committees. Then, sport mega-events are typically sponsored by gigantic international corporations and broadcasted by powerful media giants. Moreover, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the staging of events was also largely guided by the World Health Organization’s guidelines (Lee Ludvigsen 2021). One key question is thus how sport mega-events are governed. Especially when considering the multitude of public and private actors that are involved in the staging of events and their decision-making processes. Furthermore, questions may also be asked around the transparency and regulation of mega-events. As Horne and Manzenreiter (2006, 18) remind us:

Sports mega-events have been largely developed by undemocratic organizations, often with anarchic decision-making and a lack of transparency, and more often in the interests of global flows rather than local communities

As Pierre Bourdieu (1998) alluded to in his piece on the ‘Olympic spectacle’, sport governing bodies, such as IOC have become commercial enterprises and, as Boykoff (2016, 136) writes, ‘only about half of the IOC’s revenue comes from granting television rights, while corporate sponsorship makes up 45 percent and ticket sales only 5 percent’. Indeed, the increased commercialism and lack of transparency have proved highly problematic. It has meant that mega-events like the football World Cup and the Olympic Games have been subject to much public criticism over the lack of transparency, allegations of bribery (Sugden and Tomlinson 2017; Boykoff 2020) and the strict conditions that event owners place upon their bidders and potential hosting countries (Włoch 2013). In that sense, it is completely prudent to ask: ‘Given all the unpredictability and uncertainties surrounding major international sports mega-events, why do governments and cities compete for the right to host them?’ (Horne 2007, 85). Indeed, as Paulsson and Alm (2020) recently observed, some countries have – in order to avoid political risk at national and local level – withdrawn their Olympic bid considerations or applications following the lack of public support.

It may be argued that sport mega-events can work as a microcosm for the wider power relations and governance structures that exist within the world (of sports). Critical voices including sport-related social movements (Norwegian Supporters Alliance 2021), athletes, journalists (Zirin 2016) and academics (Boykoff 2020; Sudgen and Sugden 2020) have called for reforms in the current governance of neoliberal mega-events. Even still, a number of sport mega-events tend to leave behind ‘white elephants’ (Horne 2007) and are often associated with substantial cost overruns that, first and foremost, are felt by the local populations and communities.

Against this reality, Müller (2015, 15) concludes that: ‘Radical changes to the rules of the games – in how mega-events are planned, awarded, and governed – are needed’. Further, Müller argues that, ‘[d]ebates and actions to counteract the mega-event syndrome must start now, early in the bid phase, when the basic parameters can still be changed’ (ibid.). As such, it is hoped that the papers of this special issue can tie into and contribute to these debates and actions regarding mega-event governance and regulation, to facilitate a more transparent and sustainable future for sport mega-events. This naturally links up to our next subtheme, which is impacts.

Impacts

Sport mega-events are typically framed in terms of impacts and attempts to engender positive ‘legacies’. In generic terms the notion of ‘impact’ is often applied in reference either to having a marked effect or influence, or to the action of entities coming forcibly into contact. This definitional variance may be helpful in the applied context of sport mega-events. The intended outcomes of mega-event hosting often include asserting influence, such as over national and international audiences. However, some of the unintended adverse consequences of such events can serve as by-products of collisions between different organisations, personnel, policies, and priorities. Rather than being manifest as rigidly polarised positions, a more nuanced interpretation might suggest that mega-event impacts can vary significantly. For instance, a sports facility constructed to stage a mega-event might incur considerable cost, in terms of financial outlay and the conditions for, treatment of and risks to the workforce involved in its construction. As what has become an archetypal example, Qatar’s forthcoming 2022 FIFA Men’s World Cup has been widely criticised in relation to related human rights abuses, in addition to allegations of bribery, corruption, and discrimination (Khalifa 2020).

In different circumstances the long-term usage and implications of such facilities can propel sports performers, organisations and investment. The City of Manchester Stadium (as it was known before naming rights changed due to Etihad’s sponsorship agreement) was initially proposed as an athletics arena in Manchester’s failed bid for the 2000 Summer Olympics, and was converted to a football ground after staging the 2002 Commonwealth Games. It subsequently became the home of Manchester City Football Club, helping attract investment which has propelled the club from the second tier of English football in 2002 (and indeed the third tier in 1998) to become five-time Premier League champions since. There are of course a litany of examples of stadia constructed for mega-events that have not been well utilised or served to promote sport participation and performance levels in the long term. As previously noted, sport mega-event literature details numerous cases of such ‘white elephants’, as Drummond and Cronje (2019) argue.

Legacy claims can include references to sustained usage of purpose-built facilities and other infrastructural investments, stressing quantitatively projected economic benefits, which can underestimate costs and overstate the potential advantages. In cases where there is a failure to yield positive legacies and impacts this can hinder development in sporting, economic and political contexts, amongst others. Prioritising the expenditure of public money to finance infrastructural construction can deplete resources elsewhere, restricting spending on healthcare, housing and education, for instance. Such decisions can adversely impact upon political leaders if the benefits of hosting an event that their administration has overseen are not widely perceived to outweigh the costs.

Realistically, sport mega-events should positively impact a broad range of communities. Long-term requirements should drive short-term investment and event organisers should prioritise the economic viability of events, working with key stakeholders such as sports federations, political organisations, broadcasting and media companies and commercial partners. For host nations, impacts should be informed by key objectives including the staging of safe, profitable, memorable and innovative events with sustainable outcomes and legacies which promote and increase opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity and improve national elite sport performance levels. It is also reasonable to expect successful mega-events to facilitate modernisation, trade, tourism and revenue growth within host nations and cities.

Controversies

In terms of controversies, sport mega-events have been the sites for a number of controversial moments through the history (see e.g., Boykoff 2016). Whilst an exhaustive list of ‘controversies’ related to sport mega-events is beyond of this paper’s remit, controversies may be both sporting related and non-sporting related. In recent times, these include cases of doping, allegations of bribery or corruption (Philppou, this issue) and human rights breaches (Boykoff 2016). Furthermore, some of the contentious consequences of mega-events may also be the displacement of social groups or communities in order to ‘sanitize’ or ‘clean up’ event cities and their spaces and places.

As Müller (2015) asserts, ‘[m]ega-events are exceptional happenings and so, too, is the time during which the hosts prepare for them […] Many governments pass laws that introduce exceptions in areas such as taxation, immigration, property rights, urban planning, and freedom of speech’. For example, in a case study of London’s 2012 Olympics, Watt (2013) explores the experiences of displacement of lower-income East Londoners against the backdrop of positive ‘legacy’ discourses. As such, Watt argues that wider neoliberal processes such as gentrification can be accelerated by events such as the Olympics. This again led to a local community disconnected and spatially excluded from the Olympic-related changes. Similarly, Zirin (2016) explore exceptional processes of militarization and gentrification in the cases of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil, and he notes how many local residents felt excluded from the wider sporting spectacles, which were locally resisted. Thus, the contemporary controversies of mega-events are often tightly linked up to their governance and impacts and collectively underpin – as we previously contended – why a continued academic engagement with sport mega-events is imperative.

This special issue: an overview

In this special issue, titled The Sport Mega-Events of the 2020s: Governance, Impacts and Controversies, we have included a number of articles that capture forthcoming sports mega-events in the 2020s. Whilst some of the papers are case studies focusing specifically one mega-events, some of the papers will focus more specifically on issues or controversies that arise in line with contemporary sports mega-events and their housing. Furthermore, some of the papers also take a ‘step back’ and look at recently staged mega-events to see what these may tell us about the next decade.

As we discussed above, mega-events are usually hosted to have a short or long-term impact. ‘Impacts’, much like ‘legacies’, are contested and may however transcend diverse fields, including health, physical activity and education. So, Annear, Sato, Kidokoro and Shimizu tap into existing debates surrounding physical activity legacies that often are promoted in the housing of sports mega-events. Drawing from a systematic review, the authors question whether sports mega-events can be considered physical activity interventions. Naturally, the findings of Annear et al. will be of high relevance for scholars, but also for policy-makers, event planners and cities pursuing the prestigious hosting rights of future mega-events. Similarly, Kokolakakis and Lera Lopez also investigate sport mega-event ‘legacies’. The authors remain mainly focused on London’s 2012 Olympics and how the types of ‘legacies’ have impacted ethnic minority groups and sport participation.

Mega-events have long-lasting social impacts on their local communities and the host city residents. A central scholarly question that remains is thus what local residents feel about their cities staging sport mega-events. As such, the paper by Polcsik and Perenyi provides the first comprehensive literature review which systematically explores the published literature on residents’ perceptions between 2000 and 2020. With their findings and conclusions, this paper may thus be integral to the development and definition of future research directions. Following this, Beissel, Postlethwaite and Grainger’s article turn towards the FIFA 2023 Women’s World Cup in football. This event’s hosting rights were awarded to Australia and New Zealand, and by exploring bid books, relevant web sites and social media discourses surrounding this bid, the paper examines the communicated hosting visions of the event promoted as ‘As One’. This paper and its material give unique insight into the importance of social media in building popular narratives around ‘legacies’ and situates the event within the wider political and cultural frames of the Asia-Pacific. Meanwhile, Olveira, Souza and Capraro examine aspects of media coverage ahead of the 2022 women’s Euros which England will be the host of.

Then, as we stated, mega-events are often surrounded by controversies. This includes allegations of bribery, corruption and abuse of power. Seeking to explore the darker side of sport mega-events, Philppou explores stakeholder perspectives of bribery. Drawing from interviews with anti-corruption specialists, sporting officials and other stakeholders, Philippou highlight some of the key issues related to corruption and bribery and proposes some potential solutions. Again, these practical solutions can have large-scale implications and could ensure increased transparency and oversight in the world of sports mega-events.

The final three papers are structured around sport mega-events’ politics and governance. The paper by Wise and Ludvigsen examines the upcoming men’s FIFA 2026 World Cup that will be co-hosted by Canada, Mexico and the US. This will be the first time a World Cup is co-hosted by three countries, and this particular mega-event has been surrounded by political rhetoric and possesses unique geographical features. For Wise and Ludvigsen, the political and cultural journey towards ‘United 2026’ – as the bid was promoted as – may be situated in a political and historical context, with the NAFTA agreement that initially was signed by Bill Clinton. Their paper traces this bid’s political underpinnings and, as the event approaches in time, Wise and Ludvigsen also offer some tentative pathways for empirical research on this event, and the geopolitics of mega-events more widely. Rookwood’s article is also concerned with some of the political impacts and motives of sport mega-events. Rookwood explores the roles of sport mega-events in Azerbaijan and how mega-events are deployed to leverage political influence within and beyond the country’s region in the present-day. The recent years have seen sustainability and the environment feature regularly in the public rhetoric of international sporting organisations. In this context, Walker and Orr explore the environmental conditions that may be of relevance for policy makers and planners for their event contingency plans. The immediate issues which Walker and Orr touch upon include heat conditions and poor air quality in relation to event cities. Yet they also reflect on the long-term consequences of this and the importance of designing climate-resilient events in the 2020s and beyond. Consequently, this article marks the closure of this special issue.

Into the 2020s and beyond

As we are writing this editorial paper, the 2020 UEFA European Championships in men’s football and the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo (both staged throughout June, July and August 2021) have just concluded amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst the respective events’ closing ceremonies served as symbolic ends to the two events; closing ceremonies – for fans, commentators and athletes alike – concurrently symbolize a start of a new period, and generate levels of anticipation, hope and expectation for the next sports mega-event that is pinpointed in the sporting calendar. Whilst it must be recognized that the two mega-events mentioned above provided many athletes, coaches, spectators and TV viewers with memorable moments amidst a challenging pandemic period, these events were simultaneously controversial. In the UK, 9,000 Covid-19 cases were linked to the Euro 2020 fixtures post-event (The Guardian 2021), whilst the Tokyo Olympics were staged despite widespread public opposition to the event across the host country (Lee Ludvigsen and Parnell 2021). Upon reflection, it feels appropriate for us to conclude by reiterating that sport mega-events matter. They matter sociologically, politically, culturally and economically. As Horne and Manzenreiter (2006: 1) argue, ‘sports “mega-events” are important elements in the orientation of nations to international or global society’. Sport mega-events also entertain us and enable defining moments and long-lasting memories (Giulianotti 2019). That is one reason why our social calendars – as mentioned – circulate around these gigantic and all-consuming occasions and projects (Roche 2003).

Whilst the academic lexicon of studies on sports mega-events may be considered to be well-established, has grown immensely throughout the 2000s and 2010s, and boasts a number of key publications (e.g., Roche 2000; Horne and Manzenreiter 2006; Boykoff 2020), it still remains imperative that this field continues to develop in line with external and internal trends and developments. This includes but is not limited to environmental changes (Ross and Orr, this issue), emerging technologies and digital media (Woods and Ludvigsen 2021), Covid-19 (Parnell et al. 2020) and athlete and civic activism that emerges in responses to neoliberal sport mega-events (Boykoff 2020). Throughout the 2020s and beyond, we remain certain that sport mega-events still will generate new and complex questions speaking to their governance structures, their emerging controversies, and their impacts.

Such perspective guides this Special Issue’s key aims, which revolve around, firstly, to mark a new and significant path in the social study of sport mega-events. Secondly, the Special Issue seeks to illuminate some of the most pressing issues that emerge around contemporary mega-events and demonstrate how an analysis of these issues in sport, can facilitate an understanding of these issues more broadly, and how we see the modern world. Through a fascinating range of transnational, contemporary and inter-disciplinary contributions in this issue – that are both empirical, conceptual and theoretical in their nature and approaches – we remain optimistic that this Editorial and Special Issue as a whole and, most importantly, the separate articles featuring within it, can influence and shape the (ever-)evolving research agenda over the new decade. A decade that consists of exciting, revealing and defining sport mega-events that have taken place, or will take place across global cities like Tokyo, Beijing, Paris, Los Angeles and Milano, only to name a few.

Jan Andre Lee Ludvigsen
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University
[email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0085-2321
Joel Rookwood
School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Central Lancaster https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6510-4519
Daniel Parnell
Centre for Sport Business, University of Liverpool Management School, University of Liverpool https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5593-0633

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.