A Sports Event Is Forever: Legacy Will Win You the Olympic Games

What remains of a great spectacle after the last race is run or the final match is played? How can the vast expense of mounting such events be justified? What if there is nothing left behind or, even worse, what if the legacy is negative - costly, underused facilities, a debt-ridden host city or possibly both? The Montreal Olympics of 1976 were a sporting success but the citizens of that city did not pay off the debt until 2006. Greece gave us a memorable Summer Games in 2004, as did Turin for the Winter Games in 2006, but much of the sporting infrastructure is little used. Good legacy is illusive; hence the reputation of the Barcelona Olympics of 1992 for its exemplary fusion of Olympic sport and urban regeneration. This also accounts for the growing and palpable concern of the IOC – and of FIFA - to see that the vast global competitions they control amount to more than a few great moments – no matter how extraordinary or inspiring they might be; that these events live on through their legacy.

Increasingly major sporting events must succeed not only in their own terms but they have also to bear the weight of great public expectation: to renew a city, to revive an economy, to re-brand a nation. The sheer scale of global sport; the gigantic expenditure of time and money involved; the huge demands of the world's media; all these combined pressures have concentrated the minds of international sporting bodies in the twenty first century. National governments, harassed by political critics and public protests at spiralling costs, are increasingly aware of the risks as well as the benefits of staging major sporting events.

How many schools, hospitals or houses could be built for the cost of hosting a single event? How many lives could be changed for the price of winning a medal, refurbishing or building a stadium? Sponsoring bodies, especially FIFA and the IOC, require their hosts to meet the costs of extremely expensive events that have to be run according to the sponsoring body's specifications (or 'demands' as their critics might say). Moreover large international bodies are increasingly aware of allegations of being undemocratic or unrepresentative or in extreme cases even corrupt. Leaving something of value behind is a good way to deal with such criticism. In other words, legacy justifies expenditure for the sponsoring body as well as for the host.

These are the kinds of possibilities and dilemmas decision makers have to face (...). Democratic politicians have to take the people with them. They have to face their voters and their taxpayers. They need to be able to respond clearly and convincingly to critics of environmental cost and public concern about the massive disruption and expense involved. There are few regimes with the wealth and political autonomy to stage a major sporting event without apparent concern for the cost. The Beijing Olympics of 2008 and the Sochi Winter Games of 2014 come to mind. However, even in China or Russia, there are also plans for domestic legacy, which co-exist with the wider geo-political agenda.

There are many major sporting events, at regional, national and international level, which produce impacts and legacies, such as national leagues and championships, world championships, continental competitions, and so on. It is no easy job to organize the event and work for its legacy, however institutions find they have increasingly to consider not only the event itself but its relevance as a sustainable investment, adopting a medium to long term approach. Organizing committees and governing bodies must balance these apparent divergent interests.

Just as the IOC have now formally written legacy into their charter, so FIFA has become ever more concerned with using the global game for economic and social development. Whilst the role of legacy has not featured quite as prominently in recent bidding for the World Cup as for the Olympics, FIFA has stressed the need to use the global appeal of football, and especially the World Cup, to drive the longer term development of sport in the host nation and - in the case of South Africa in 2010 - of the wider continent of Africa.

'Legacy' is the new big thing. But what is it? In a general sense the meaning of the word is simple enough: what is passed on or inherited from one person to another and by extension from one organisation to another or one generation to another. But in practice the term is elusive and confusing. In 2002 the IOC called a conference on 'the Legacy of the Olympic Games, 1984-2000'. One aim of this landmark meeting was to put an end to the continual confusion of 'impact' and 'legacy'. For the IOC it was important to stress that the legacy of the Games went beyond the direct expenditure on sporting facilities and embraced the whole transformation of infrastructure of a city, leaving a lasting benefit independent of the use made of Olympic sites themselves. Preuss (2007) usefully clarifies this debate by stressing that the economic impact of a mega event is normally a transitory economic stimulus, which may be considerable but is too short term to be considered legacy. On the contrary, economic legacy concerns the additional economic activity generated after the event, such as a growth in tourism in subsequent years.

The article is an extract from Richard Holt and Dino Ruta (eds), Routledge Handbook of Sport and Legacy. Meeting the challenge of major sports events, Routledge. The book will be presented on Thursday, 25 February, 9am, Aula Magna Bocconi, via Gobbi 5, Milan, at the conference Roma 2024. Planning for Sustainability and Legacy.
Richard Holt is Professor of History in the International Centre for Sports History and Culture at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. Dino Ruta is Professor of Human Resources and Sport Management at SDA Bocconi School of Management.