Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
Hosting Mega-Event Programme: The Praiseworthy Gamble
Samih Yehia
Hosting mega-event is a national progamme that requires synchronizing of multiple
portfolios. Mega-event has the power to boost the economy of the city yet in the same
time, it can be a massive destruction. This paper will present the risk that cities have to
accept it once hosting mega-event. The author position is to accept the threat of the mega
event in order to gain the benefit yet the hosting success or failure will be affected by the
objectives assigned ahead of the event.
Keywords: Mega-events, legacy, cities bankruptcy, opportunity
Topic: Strategic management of portfolios, programmes and projects
Field of the research: stakeholder mega-event management
Introduction
Mega-events, considered by O‟Reilly et all (2008) as “Global properties”, are usually
defined as an international significance incidence that fascinates bulky spectacles for a
certain period of time, provide long-term impacts on the host destination before and long
after the closure of the mega-event (Ritchie, 1984; Hiller, 2000). Mega-events attract
substantial international visitation and are associated with large-scale economic
movement that influence the citizens of the hosting cities socially and environmentally.
Mega-events are excessive national marketing strategic visions that aim to create
“eventful city” (Richards & Palmer 2010). Mega-events fall under three main categories:
Mega cultural event, mega business event and mega sports event (Jago et al 2010).
This paper will cover the concerns and anticipations of hosting business and sports
mega events like Expo, FIFA world cup, commonwealth games and Olympic games
(summer and winter). Authors of this paper will not consider any particular event
specifically but they will use the lessons learned from different events to spot the lights
on the potential risks and benefits of hosting mega-events. The ultimate goal of this
paper is to illustrate the negative and positive impacts of hosting such events for citizens
as well as leaders in order to help them in being prepared for the events‟ consequences.
In addition to that, authors will try to link the success of any mega-events with the
objectives assigned by the progamme director ahead of the events. Mega-events were
surrounded continuously by the sparks of the success and overpromising results, yet
significant gaps perceived between the organizers forecast and the final actual
outcomes, as well as between the expected impact in boosting cities‟ economies and the
final actual rewards. (Horne and Manzenreiter, 2006).
____________________________________
Author Biography: Samih Yehia is a researcher in mega-event stakeholder management, lecturer in
several university and consultant investment for leading developer in Dubai.
Author‟s email address: 2013132021@student.buid.ac.ae
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
Hosting Mega-event is a progamme that requires an evolutionary project management of
multiple portfolios like transportation, infrastructure, telecommunication, security and
construction. Each portfolio will contain numerous programs that should be completed
successfully and within the assigned timeframe otherwise the success of the entire event
will be chancy. Authors are writing this paper from a city that just won the bidding of
Expo2020 and noticing the overstated expectations of the mega-event stakeholders.
This paper will be vital for the hosting community as well as the city citizens and
investors to alert them about the threats that they might encounter and should avoid
once pursuing the benefits of such event. Wishful thinking, legacy, glory of hosting
mega-events and the potential economical benefits are the major elements that
encourage decision makers to select such progamme. These elements may lead them to
ignore the negative consequences while glorifying the expected benefits (kim et al,
2006). Lei (2013) stated that still no guaranteed net economic gain that should be
expected as a result of mega-event progamme. Witt (1998) noticed the increase in the
literature that emphasizes the cost of hosting mega-events instead of focusing on the
benefits, he added that the “benefits of mega-events may be offset by detrimental
sociocultural, economic and ecological impacts”. With the increasing role of the social
media, decision makers can‟t neglect the impact of hosting mega-event on the whole
society and the overpromising speeches will be questioned after the event.
Mega-events are used consistently as a method to boost the GDP of the hosting
country, increase sales and investments, generate economic benefits, create jobs
and reduce unemployment. Mega-events tend to raise the attraction appeals of the
tourism industry by setting or changing the existing image of the host destination
through the promotion generated by the event. Mega events can play the role of the
catalyst for regional development and increase the community pride and prestige.
However, the consequences of those events are numerous and can‟t be fully
bounded in one paper. Mega-events will lead to an increase in the inflation rates and
a jump in the goods, services and properties prices. Government may increase taxes
to fund the hosting cost and assist the public sector. The increases in taxes and the
inflation rates will lead to further economical problems and decrease the city
competitiveness compared to other destination. Moreover, The short run benefits of
hosting mega-events can be overwhelmed by the long-term consequences. Megaevents will have negative impacts on the entire society like the rise in the crime
percentage, relocation of the lower socio-economic groups, congestion, construction
noise and reduction in the government aids and projects due to the high hosting
spending. The international media attention for the events will increase the protest
and terrorist groups‟ activities. Mega-events‟ visitors will increase the excessive
energy and water usage, this will lead to an extreme increase in the carbon footprint
of the hosting city and put a pressure on the limited natural resources. In general,
mega events will lead to a disruption of the society‟s lifestyle.
Decision of hosting mega-events is driven mainly by the political forces more than the
economical ones. The speeches of the mega-event program‟s directors are always
loaded with the economical prosperity assurances, promises and national pride. The
authors of this paper will take a position that hosting mega-events is a gamble where
only the high expected outcomes make it commendable. The sparks of the glory will
be turned off after some events leaving behind their huge liabilities and facilities that
sometimes will cost the communities an enormous maintenance cost if the facilities
weren‟t designed to serve the community properly after the event. Mega-events also
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
give countries landmark facilities that become later a major tourist attraction and a
symbol for the national pride. The Eiffel tower in Paris is a very strong example of
how the Expo1889 landmarks become a world attractive facility. However, hosting
mega is not about pride and landmarks only, as much as mega-events have the
potential to generate business, some mega-event led to bankrupt big cities like
Louisiana Expo1984 where organizers declare bankruptcy during the run. Megaevents are attractive for decision makers since they give them shortcuts to achieve
their appeals much faster than going through the regular development plans yet it‟s
always considered as a big achievement for any leader.
According to this paper‟s authors hosting mega-events‟ benefits deserve accepting
the threats that can be generated, the categorizing of the threats and opportunities of
the hosting process will add value to the existing literature in this field; such
categorization will make the comparison between different points simpler. The way of
evaluating the importance of each point will be left to the decision makers to consider.
Literature review
The legacy of hosting mega-events was always considered as the main driven power
behind the competition between cities to win it. Mega–events are increasing the
national pride and the international exposure of any country, it is a great tool for
cultural exchange and increasing awareness of certain subjects. The problematic
issues of mega-events started when organizers adopt the trend of announcing megaevents as programmes that will generate profit instead of using it as a tool out of
multiple steps that will lead to an economic improvement. This literature will reveal the
threat of hosting mega events by comparing it to the opportunity that will be
generated by it.
The Opportunities Generated By Hosting Mega Events
1.1
1.2
Infrastructure development: Mega-events, described by Hiller (1990) as
“windows of opportunity without opposition”, have the ability to leave behind it
significant legacies and high quality facilities for the hosting community.
Hosting mega-events will lead to an enormous investment in the infrastructure
and urban renewal, development of new areas, building and renovating hotels,
upgrading in telecommunication infrastructure, constructing new airport
terminal, developing new subway lines and building the event facilities like
stadiums, Expo arena and Olympics village. Athens 2004, Turin 2006, Beijing
2008 and Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympic games won the bid and hosted
the events with a clear targets “ Gaining new facilities and increasing transfer
to event preparation and hosting knowledge” (Parent, 2008,P. 135)
International recognition: Mega events will increase the “ Recognition
effects” described by Ashowrth & Goodall (1988) as “ The major rational of
hosting mega-event”. Jago et al (2010) stating that the main reason why megaevents are not achieving the expected benefits, adopted by the event
organizers ahead of the event, comes from the assessment of the short-term
impact instead of considering the mega-event as a part of long-term
development strategy. The National and international media coverage for the
mega-events will lead to higher recognition for the hosting city as described by
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
1.3
1.4
Andranovish et al (2001). This recognition will be translated into an increase in
the visitation after the event due to the promotion and media coverage
generated indirectly by the event. Indianapolis used the method of hosting
sports events strategy to change the full city situation from “ Indiana-no-place”
to a real sport hub and tourist destination (Euchner 1999)
Catalysis for development: Mega-events should be considered as catalysis
for development (Swart & Bob 2007). Coates& Humphreys (2003) stating that
the remark “economic benefits should be considered weak at best”. Megaevent is an opportunity for the local government to attract international
investment and to create a pleasant environment for the investment. Megaevents should be planned as a part of a wider developmental plan that will
ensure the improvement of the city infrastructure to meet the expected visitors
as well as maintaining high hosting standards to ensure that visitors are going
to repeat their visit again in the future.
Organizers are expecting to host the world during the mega-events that‟s
why they will try their best to organize the town in a unique way in order to
meet the international leading cities standards. That will involve industrial
relocation, urban development, infrastructure renovation and “inward
investment “(Roche 1994). Hosting cities usually become a large
construction sites drove by government and private investment right after
winning any mega-event. With no doubt, this will increase employment.
Hotchkiss et al., (2003) conducted a study on the relation between hosting
Olympic games and the level of unemployment and they found it strongly
correlated; Hosting Mega-event will reduce unemployment and lead to
poverty alleviation.
Empower the national identity and community dependability: Stakeholders
in Mega-events are essential for the success of the event. Organizers are
trying to engage the community as much as possible in the organizing
activities of the event, this usually boosts the feeling of being accepted and
integrated with the community. Mega-events will have a positive social impact
by increasing the community pride; improving the quality of life for the citizens
and reinforcing the cultural values and traditions for the local citizens (Kim et al
2006). This will build a unique national identity (Hall 1997).
Mega-events are an opportunity for attracting an international publicity and
recognition for the host community. The world cup in South Africa FIFA
2010 exposed South Africa as well as the full continent to the world (Jago
et al 2010). Residents also believe that hosting a mega-event will increase
the cultural and shopping opportunities for the local businesses (Jeong &
Faulkner, 1996). This will help the cities in creating a global economical
awareness that will reflect on the broader environment and increase the
city competitiveness through the high economic growth level (Fry 1995).
From the Barcelona Olympic Games (1992), Toohey & Veal (2000) stated
that the only way to make the mega-events “untouchable“ is by letting the
citizens become involved in the hosting aspects and activities and making
them feel that these events are “fully their own“, after that nobody, neither
political parties nor government, nor people in general could allow it to be
denaturalized or pushed to one side. The Barcelona Olympic games
(1992) will remain as an excellent example about how the hosting
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
1.5
1.6
1.7
community empowers the identity of the community through the success of
using mega event for redevelopment and repositioning of the destination
(Jago et al 2010). Hosting mega-events will increase the sport participation
for the local community since they will have high quality facilities after the
event, this will lead to create a culture of international competitiveness in
the sports‟ industry for the hosting community. With the increasing role of
the sports in improving the national pride, hosting mega-events become
the path to glory.
Hosting Mega-event is a clear message from the hosting city to the whole
world stating that, “ you can trust our city”. It will reflect the international
dependability of the city and proverb to the world that this country is safe,
secured and welcoming. Successful stories of hosting Mega-event led to “
Enhanced community pride” Fredling et al (2003)
Economic growth: The commercial success of some mega-events was
significant and trigger economic growth and development. Los Angeles 1984
Olympic games was a successful story of how mega-events can generate
profits and accelerate construction in airport and fiber optic infrastructure (Tien
et al 2011). The 1996 Atlanta Olympic games generate $5 billions in tourism
from an investment of $650 million in new construction and $609 million in
federal funds. The 2002 winter Olympic games in Salt Lake generate $4.5
billion in tourism out of $1.3 billion in federal funds investment (Andranovich et
al. 2001). Hosting Mega-events will boost the GDP of the hosting city for
certain period of time, Researchers like Andranovich et al. (2001) stated that
using mega-events to boost the GDP of a country is "a potentially high-risk
strategy for stimulating local economic growth", However, the huge number of
visitors will at worse increase the economic growth and tourism revenues for a
limited period of time. In addition to that, the construction of mega projects will
attract large workforces way before the events. The increase of the city citizens
with productive people along with the escalations of the government and
private investments will unquestionably reflect a major economic progression.
In short terms, Mega-events will lead to a massive cash injection, increase in
the sales for the local business, job creation, poverty alleviation and earning
from the foreign exchange for international visitors (Getz 1994) In the long run,
Mega-events will increase visitation for the hosting city after the event due to
the promotion generated by the event (Macfarlane & Jago 2009).
Humanity impact: Mega-events have the ability to increase awareness and
initiate debates for certain subjects that are challenging for the planet citizens
like global warming, racism, hunger, peace, sustainability, poverty, violence,
human rights…. the 1994 winter Olympics in Lillehammer in Norway focused
on the “ green games”, 2014 FIFA world cup in Brazil mission was “ say no to
racism”. Several researchers (Mihalik & Cummings, 1995; Ritchie & Aitken,
1984, 1985, 1990) concluded that the communities that have hosted Megaevents, like the winter Olympics in Calgary 1988 and Summer Olympics in
Georgia 1996, believe that the positive social impact of such events are more
important than the exceptive positive economic benefits. Cities that host megaevents with specific theme may turn to be an international hub for discussing it.
Political outcomes: Andranovich et al (2001) stated that the successful
hosting of the Los Angeles 1984 Olympic games enhanced “ LA Mayor‟s”
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
presence. The president of South Korea, Dae Jung Kim in S.Korea/Japan FIFA
world cub 2002, stated “ Today is the happiest day in the 5000 years of the
nation‟s history” Kim et al (2006). Success in gaining the hosting for any megaevent will be always considered as a success for the countries‟ leaders, as well
as it reflects the trust given by the international community to their significant
role in governing the city. This means that hosting mega-events will give
leaders powerful tools for success, like the unemployment reduction and the
increase in the tax revenue of the city.
The Threat generated by hosting mega events
2.1
2.2
Economical impact: Using mega-events‟ strategy as a stimulator for the
local economic growth was described by Andranovich et al (2001) as a “
high risk strategy”. Lie (2013) stated that China spent $40 Billions on
Beijing Olympic games in 2008; while, the budget was $2.2 Billions. This
had an impact on increasing the China GDP by 2.02 yet the question
remains whether this was the right investment or not. Lie (2013) suggested
that if the same amount of money was used in developing different area of
China, the GDP improvement may stay for a longer time. A study
conducted by Tien et al (2011), on 15 countries that host 24 summer and
winter Olympic games, found that Olympic games do not produce any
long-term positive impact on the host countries, although some sort-term
impacts may be significant. Moreover, a similar result was founded by
another study conducted by Roche (1994). Mega events are likely to cause
prices inflation due to the stress on services, local housing and property
markets (Jones 2000). Vancouver Expo86 and Calgary Olympic 1988 are
two historical evidences of how mega-events will have a major negative
impact on the tenant‟s rights and the currency exchange value (Olds
1998).
Local governments tend to increase taxes or to use resources from other
sectors, in order to finance the construction cost of the new facilities
required to host the event (Deccio & Baloglu 2002). Those taxes along with
the inflation resulted by the events will reduce the attractiveness of the
hosting city. Because of that, the MNC and the large firms will consider
relocation to somewhere else cheaper or with fewer taxes. The cost of
hosting mega-events may take several decades to be repaid, Montreal
1976 Olympic games is an example about how cities may take decades to
repay the cost of hosting such events (Ritchie et al 2009).
Media focus: As “ Bad news sells”, Media will start looking for undesirable
stories about the hosting city in order to generate press scoops. Jago et al
(2010) stated that one of the negative results of hosting mega events is
that plight of disadvantaged group will often receive a media attention
before and during the event. FIFA world cup 2014 in Brazil was a recent
example about how the media covered the forced relocations of lower
socio-economic groups, the construction accidents and the slow progress.
In addition to that, the protestors‟ movements regarding governmental
spends and policies got international attraction. Nadvi (2008) stated that
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
2.3
Due to the high media profile, cities which host mega-events become a
terrorist target.
Any inadequate facilities or improper practices that happen during the
mega-events may damage the image of the hosting city and decrease the
world dependability and the national pride of the community (Ritchie 1984).
Mishra (2012) wrote a paper about the commonwealth games in India
2010 called “ the shame games” where he illustrated how the western
press focused on the deficiencies and problems in India infrastructural
compromise and the functionality of the equipment and facilities used in
the events. In addition to that, western press covered several stories about
Indians‟ racism, poverty, sex slavery, child labor, labor laws violation and
the lack of safety and security in Delhi. The western press highlighted the
risk of visiting India as well as the huge differences that are existed
between India and the west. The problems that occur during the events will
lead to a “tarnished of city image” (Jago et al 2003) which will discourage
potential tourists to visit this destination in the future.
Disruption of citizens’ lifestyle: Described by Jones (2000) as a major
impact of hosting mega events since the new facilities will be located in the
heart of the city center. This construction process might take years ahead
the events and it will have a negative impact on the tenants and
homeowners adjacent to the hosting facilities with inconvenienced road
closures, traffic jam, continuous movement of big trucks, dust and
construction noise.
In addition to that, Mega-events may lead to a distortion in the local
economy and hindrances to sustainable economical development (lenskyi
2000) due to the growth that the local economy will have it during the
events which will vanish right after the event .The sudden decline in the
number of visitors and economical movement straight after the event is an
expected result of the pick happened ahead and during the event. Jones
(2000) stated, “ there appears no rigorous hypothesis as to how the
hosting of a hallmark event translates to long term development”, for this
reason, the expansion of the local economy capacity ahead of the event
will be relapse to be an excess in the business volume after the event. As
a result of this, the level of the unemployment will increase, the
government aids will raise and further pressure on the exhausted
governmental resources will be expected.
Furthermore, the limited air transport capacity and the increase in the price
of accommodation are two major negative impacts of hosting mega-events
on any society. This crowding-out is a disturbing impact of hosting mega
events where no destination can avoid, no matter what preparation they
had made (Preuss 2011). This crowding out will discourage the regular
visitors from visiting the hosting city and probably will make them change
their tourist habits in the future.
Other social and cultural problems can be expected as a result of hosting
mega-events. The radical increase in the housing cost will thrust the lowincome earners to move away from the conventionally cheap housing area
(Chen & Spaans 2009). Mega events have a negative influence on
traditional family values (Kousis 1989) where some cities will be forced to
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
2.4
2.5
2.6
change from a closed community to an exposed one rapidly. Mega-events
may lead to conflicts between the hosting community and the visitors who
are coming from different standards of living, economic welfare and
different purchasing power (Tosun 2002). The last impact of the crowding
out will be the functionality of the telecommunication devices like Internet
and mobile phone that will be affected due to the massive load coming
from limited area.
Inappropriate development: Governments are likely to spend more
money in the hosting cities than the areas that will not be a part of the
events. Blacke (2005) expected that London Olympics2012 would have a
more positive impact on the economic welfare for the people living nearby
London; while, those living elsewhere in UK would have suffered from the
reduction in the economic welfare and government allowances. The
construction of Mega-events facilities like stadiums, arenas and sports
facilities may crowd out investment in more badly needed infrastructure. In
addition to that, the role of the business entrepreneurs will be limited once
they try to compete with the large national construction companies; this
may lead to further unemployment (leonardsen 2007).
The White elephant impact: Mega-events require mega facilities in order
to be accepted by the hosting authority. Those facilities are usually
massive or have inappropriate design in order to be used by the local
community after the closure of the events (Matheson and Baade, 2003).
Taxpayers of Montreal calling the stadium that host Olympic game 1976 as
“ Big owe” instead of the name given to the stadium based on the Shape of
it” Big O”. A CNN report by Paula Newton in 2012 echoing the anger that
Montreal citizens still feeling it because of the way that the games were
funded. US1.48 billion was the price tag of the event, which left the city at
that time, almost bankrupt. In addition to that, those facilities will require a
huge maintenance cost, which may turn to be a serious drain on
community resources. The usage of those facilities may be hard for the
local population after the event and may turn to be a “white elephant”
projects as of Lie (2013)
Crime level: Mega-events have direct impacts on increasing the “ crime
level” during the event. The local residents do not always perceive this
subject. A study of Ohmann et al (2006) for the FIFA World cup 2006 found
that, even thought crime rated did increase during the event, only 12% of
the citizen correctly perceived this increase. Billings and Depken (2001)
wrote a book about sports events and criminal activities where they found
out that those criminal activities increase in the neighborhood of the megaevents facilities during the event. Hall (1997) identifies a relationship
between hosting mega-events and the increase in the robbery, sexual and
common assaults. A research by Getz (1997) found the same results that
mega-events are likely to be the scene of both premeditated and
opportunistic crimes and they surely increase crimes like the public
drunkenness, the disorderly behavior and the vandalism. Generally, megaevents have a direct impact on increasing crimes like burglary, larceny and
robbery yet they don‟t have any major impact on increasing the critical
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
2.7
crimes where human beings are battered like murders, rapes and assault
(Howsen & Jarrel 1990)
Environment: the large number of visitors within a short period of time will
put a big pressure on the hosting city natural recourses. Mega-events will
lead to an excessive energy and water usage (Sherwood et al 2005)
. This
excessive usage of natural resources to generate power, that can serve
the massive amount of visitors, will have a major impact on increasing the
carbon footprint of the hosting city as of
DeLacy and Bergin-Seers (2009).
In addition to that, hosting mega-events will require large virgin lands to be
developed; the destruction of the natural environment is another critical
concern. Kim et al. (2006) stated that the impact of hosting mega-events
would include “changes of land use, pollution of beaches, lakes, and rivers,
and deterioration of cultural or historical resources”. Mega-events will
require further roads development, massive areas for the events facilities,
increase in hotels and residential construction and new airports terminal.
Discussion
The way of judging the mega-events‟ impact on the hosting city vary from one
event to another based on the status of the city ahead of the event. Well known
“world city” like London, New York or Paris will benefit less than the emerged
city like Dubai, Shanghai or Seoul. As much as some countries are seeing
hosting the events as a window of opportunity for an international attention and
economical benefits, others may see it as a kind of a gamble where the
expected benefits are not worth taking the potential risks. The objectives
assigned by the hosting communities and the overpromising outcomes should
be questioned further to what the publics are doing nowadays. Winning the
bidding of mega-events will be associated usually with overpromising speeches
about the benefits and ignorance for the negative consequences of the hosting
process. Hosting mega-events will require large investments from both the
government and the private sectors; such investments will be reflected on the
society in a form of economical growth and prosperity ahead of the event.
However, the mega-events keep getting the credit that they played the role of
the catalyst of development and that they were behind all of those investments,
In some situations we agree with this idea, however, in most of the cases,
Mega-events were a part of a full development plan yet they were considered as
a motive of such plan. However, the question that should be always asked, did
the way of spreading the development spending was affected by the location of
the event or not? The answer of this question is obvious in some countries
where development was oriented to the main infrastructure related to the event
and the areas that are surrounding the event. Areas located away from the
event weren‟t developed properly and on the top of that, the government
spends, which were devoted to those areas were generally being diverged to the
mega-events‟ arena. In addition to that, most of the mega-events are crossing
the budget assigned ahead of the hosting yet due to the importance of the
event, few people are judging the hosting community about the over budget
spending. On the top of that, the mega-events‟ spending will boost the GDP of
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
the hosting city, yet this increase can be generated sometimes even without the
mega-events if the same investment is taken.
Flybjerg et al (2003) studied the impact of hosting mega events where they
found that the preparation and implementation of hosting mega-events is high
risky one, the unexpected things are likely to appear and the initial plans rarely
turn out as originally intended. As much as they agree with this statement,
authors of this paper still believe that the expected tangible and intangible
outcomes along with the mega-events‟ legacy make the risk worth taking. We
hold this position after seeing how mega-events are changing the image of
certain countries and increasing their international exposure, such exposure is
leading to a long economical impact on the city and community‟s pride.
Reflecting the image of a certain city as an eventful city will increase the future
international tourism; in addition to that, some people around the world may
have stereotypical image about certain cities that are unsecured, undeveloped
or unwelcoming, mega-events have the power to change such image.
The economic rationale of hosting mega-events is going to face further
challenges in the future. Poynter (2006) suggests that it may be useful to
segregate the direct hosting costs and benefits from the long-term structural
economic changes that are derived from the urban and infrastructural
development. Ingreson (2001) had almost a similar opinion where he proposes
that the studying of the mega-events‟ outcomes should consider two elements
“cost and revenue for the event‟s organizers, and the event‟s impact on the
area”. A major criticism of the mega-events along with the seven points
mentioned above is that, the event outcomes published after the events are
always including the infrastructure and urban development achievement that
would probably occurred anyway, yet it‟s always counted as direct benefits of
the event. Authors of this paper believe in the rational of this point yet
suggesting that as long as those infrastructure development are going to occur,
it‟s healthier to be followed by international exposure and visiting to cover
rapidly the construction cost. This will happen only if different facilities are
designed wisely to serve the community after the event.
As the authors‟ position is supportive to the concept of accepting the megaevents‟ risks in order to achieve the intended outcomes, Authors of this paper
suggest that the impacts of mega-events should never be considered as a
numerical calculation when benefits are calculated and compered to the costs.
Mega-events should be hosted with the concept of creating the legacy for the
future generation and increasing the international appeal of the country and the
hosting community. The mega-events‟ legacy can be created in forms of
landmark facilities, advanced infrastructure, community dependability and
knowledge of hosting mega-events as unique as possible. Mega-events can be
used as tools to change the aspect of the city from industrial or economical city
to an eventful city. In addition to that, Mega-events will cost large amount of
money once hosted for the first time. After that, once the infrastructure is up to
the international standards and the city is used to the concept of hosting the
world for a certain period of time then the future hosting will cost less money
and will create a better experience for visitors as the hosting city will benefit
from its previous experience.
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
Mega-events‟ literatures have very limited studies about “what are the common
criteria that every mega events should achieve it in order to be considered as
successful hosting”. In addition to that, the literature review in hosting mega
events has limited studies that contain multi mega-events‟ studies that
associate the events‟ result compared to the intended outcomes. Authors of
this paper weren‟t able to set neither certain international common measuring
criteria nor studying the outcomes of several events once compared to the
objectives assigned ahead of the event. From our point of view, the common
judgment about the short and direct economical impact of the hosting will never
reflect the actual impact.
The knowledge of how to sequence the projects in the hosting preparation
process, how to test the adequacy of the facilities‟ design ahead of the building
process and how to test the fitness of those facilities for the community usage
after the events were some additional limitation of the study. This study as so
many other papers weren‟t able to explore those points. The readiness
assurance of the city, how to synchronize the milestone for different portfolios
and how to make the hallmark as special as possible still considered as a gap
in the mega-events‟ literature review. This common missing body of knowledge
in the hosting literature should be considered further in the future studies.
Presenting the positive and negative consequences of hosting mega-events
will be a useful tool for the decision makers to judge whether they want to bid
for a hosting process or keep doing what they are used to do. This paper
presents certain opportunities and threats that will be commonly generated by
any hosting event. By presenting those two edges of the mega-events,
decision maker can judge whether the expected outcomes worth taking even
with the threats associated with them. Mega-events might be a one-lifetime
experience for certain communities which will make the existing generation
proud of having such event. After the payback of all the debts that some megaevents might cause, the tangible and intangible legacy will remain the main
source of the community‟s pride that will be broadcasted to the future
generation.
References
Andranovich, G., Burbank, M.J., & Heying, C.H. (2001). Olympic cities: Lessons
learned from mega-event politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 113-131.
Ashworth, G and Goodall, B. 1998. Tourist images: marketing considerations. In
marketing in the tourism industry: the promotion of destination regions, GoodallB,
Ashworth G( eds) Belhaven: London; 213-238
Billings, S., & Depken, C. A. II (2011). Sports Events and Criminal Activity: A Spatial
Analysis. In R.T. Jewell (ed.), Violence and Aggression in Sporting Contests:
Economics, History, and Policy. USA: Springer Publishing.
Chen, Y. Spaans(2009) M. Mega-event strategy as a tool of urban transformation,
Sydney‟s Experience. The 4th international conference of the international forum
on urbanism. Amsterdam. The New urban question- Urbanism beyond NeoLiberalism
Coates, D. and B.R. Humphreys (2003), “Professional Sports Facilities, Franchises
and Urban Economic Development”, Public Finance and Management, Vol. 3, pp.
335-357
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S. (2002). Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002
Winter Olympics: the spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 46–56
DeLacy, T. and Bergin-Seers, S. (2009), A Review of Carbon Calculation and Offset
Companies Offering Services to the Australian Events Sector, Melbourne
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Melbourne
Euchner, C. C. (1999). Tourism and sports: The serious competition for play.
Fainstein (Eds), The tourist city (pp. 215-232). Ne%A Haven. CT: Yale
U'niversity Press.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. & Rothengatter, W. (2003) Megaprojects and Risk. An
Anatomy of Ambition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Fredline, L., Jago, L. and Deery, M. (2003), “The development of a generic scale
to measure the social impacts of events”, Event Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.
23-37
Fry, E. Hi (1995). North American municipalities and their inovlment in the global
economy. In P. K Kersi & Gappert ( Eds.I) North American cities and the global
economy ( PP. 21-44) Thousandsand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Getz, D. (1994), “Events tourism: evaluating the impacts”, in Ritchie, J.R.B. and
Goeldner, C.R. (Eds), Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook
for Managers and Researchers, Wiley, New York, NY
Hall, C. M. (1997). Mega-events and their legacies. In P. E. Murphy (Ed.), Quality
management in urban tourism (pp. 91-102). Chixhester and New York, NY:
Wiley
Hiller, H. (1990) The urban transformation of a landmark event. The 1988 Calgary
Winter Olympics, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 118–137
Hiller, h. h. (2000) „Mega-events, Urban Boosterism and Growth Strategies: An
Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic
Bid‟, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24, 449–58.
Horne, J. and Manzenreiter, W. (Eds) (2006), “Sports mega-events”, Social
Scientific Analyses of a Global Phenomenon, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hotchkiss, J.L., Moore, R.E., & Zobay, S.M. (2003). Impact of the 1996 summer
Olympic Games on employment and wages in Georgia. Southern Economic
Journal, 69, 691-704.
Howsen, R. M., & Jarrell, S. (1990). Transient crowding and crime: The more
„„strangers‟‟ in an area, the more crime except for murder, assault and rape.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 49, 483-494
Ingerson, L., “A comparison of the economic contribution of hall mark sporting
and performing arts events”, Henry, I.P., London and New York, Routledge,
2001, pp.46-60
Jago, L, Dwyer, L. Lipman, G. Lill, D. Voster, S (2010) optimizing the potential of
mega events: an overview. International journal of event and festival
management Vol 1 No 2 2010
Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T. and Ali, S. (2003), “Building events into
destination branding: insights from experts”, Event Management, Vol. 8, pp. 314.
Jeong, G. H., & Faulkner, B. (1996). Resident perceptions of mega- event
impacts: the Taejon international exposition case. Festival Management &
Event Tourism, 4(1), 3–11
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
Jones, C (2000) Mega-events and host region impacts: determining the true worth
of the 1999 Rugby world cup. International journal of tourism research V3
Kim, H: G. Ursoy,D; Lee, S (2006) The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South
Korea: comparisons of pre- and post-games. Tourism Management 27 (2006)
86–96
Kousis, M. (1989). Tourism and the family in a rural Cretan community. Annals of
Tourism Research, 16(3), 318–332
Lenskyj, H.J. (2000). Inside the Olympic industry: Power, politics, and activism.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
Leonardsen, D (2007) Planning of Mega Events: Experiences and Lessons. Planning
Theory & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1, 11–30,
Lie, C (2013). Can chinese cities achieve higher technical efficeincy after hosting
mega events? . International journal of China studies. Vol.4 April 2013
Macfarlane, I. and M, L. (2009), The Role of Brand Equity in Helping to Evaluate
the Contribution of Major Events, CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty, Gold
Coast
Matheson, V. (2002), “Upon further review: an examination of sporting event
economic impact studies”, The Sport Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-3.
Matheson, V. and Baade, R. (2003), “Bidding for the olympics: fools gold?”, in
Barros, C., Ibrahim, M. and Szymanski, S. (Eds), Transatlantic Sport, Edward
Elgar, London
Mihalik, B. J., & Cummings, P. (1995). Host perceptions of the 1996 Atlanta
Olympics: Support, attendance, benefits and liabilities. Travel and tourism
research association 26th annual proceedings (pp. 397–400)
Nadvi, L. (2008), “The ugly side of the beautiful game: the socioeconomic impact
of the 2010 FIFA world cup on the city of eThekwini and its „poors‟”, World
Journal of Managing Events, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Ohmann, S., Jones, I., & Wilkes, K. (2006). The perceived social impacts of the
2006 Football World Cup on Munich residents. Journal of Sport and Tourism,
11, 129-152
Olds, K. (1998). Urban mega-events, evictions and housing rights: the Canadian
case. Current Issues in Tourism, 1(1), 2–46.
O'Reilly, N., Lyberger, M., McCarthy, L., & Séguin, B. (2008). Mega-special-event
promotions and intent to purchase: A longitudinal analysis of the Super Bowl.
Journal of Sport
Parent, M.M. (2008). Evolution and issue pattems for major- sport-event
organizing committees and their stakeholders. Journal of Sport Management,
22, 135-164.
Paula Newton, Olympics worth the price tag? The Montreal Legacy CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/19/world/canada-montreal-olympiclegacy/index.html
Preuss, H ( 2011) A method for calculating the crowding- out effect in sport megaevent impact studies: The 2010 FIFA World Cup. Development Southern Africa
Vol. 28, No. 3, September 2011
Poynter, G., “From Beijing to Bow Bells: Measuring the Olympic Effect”, London,
University of East London, 2006
Ritchie, j. (1984), „Assessing the Impact of Hallmark Events: Conceptual and
Proceedings of 4th European Business Research Conference
9 - 10 April 2015, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-72-6
Research Issues‟, Journal of Travel Research, 23, 2–11.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Aitken, C. E. (1985). Olympulse II: evolving resident attitudes
toward the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. Journal of Travel Research, 23(1),
28–33.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Lyons, M. (1990). Olympulse VI: a post-event assessment of
resident reactions to the XV Olympic Winter Games. Journal of Travel
Research, 28(3), 14–23
Ritchie, B.W., Shipway, R. and Cleeve, B. (2009), “Resident perceptions of megasporting events: a non-host city perspective of the 2012 London Olympic
Games”, Journal of Sport & Tourism, Vol. 14 Nos 2-3, pp. 143-6
Richards, g. and palmer, r. (2010), Eventful Cities: Cultural Management and
Urban Revitalisation, Oxford and Burlington, MA, Butterworth-Heinemann
Roche, M. (1994). Mega-events and urban policy. Annals of Tourism Research,
21, 1-19
Sherwood, P., Jago, L. and Deery, M. (2005), “Unlocking the triple bottom line of
special event evaluations: what are the key impacts?”, Proceedings of the third
International Event
Swart, K. and Bob, U. (2007), “The eluding link: toward developing a national
sport tourism strategy in South Africa beyond 2010”, Politikon, Vol. 34, pp.
373-91.
Tien, C. Lo, H. Lin, H. (2011) the economic benefits of mega events: a myth or a
reality? A longitudinal study on the olymic games. Journal of sport management
25, 11-23
Toohey, K. & Veal, A.J. (2000) The Olympic Games. A Social Science Perspective
(Oxfordshire, CABI Publishing).
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231–245
Witt, S. F. (1988). Mega-events and mega-attractions. Tourism Management, 9(1),
76–77