FinalTHESIS

IMPACTS OF MEGA SPORTING EVENTS 1
Chapter I
Executive Summary
Review of Literature
Sporting events are one of the fastest growing segments of event tourism attracting cities
all over the world to compete to be the host (Zhou & Ap, 2009). Major international sporting
events like the FIFA World Cup and the World Olympics Games, have become the largest and
most important sporting events in the world (Zhou & Ap, 2009). They are seen as a ‘golden
opportunity’ for the country that hosts such a large event; however the long-term benefits don’t
always support the overall economic and residential goals. This research discusses and analyzes
the impacts to a city or state by hosting a mega-event such as the Olympic Games or FIFA World
Cup. The paper will review the bidding process of the events, the economic impacts, physical
legacies or infrastructure, residential views, and overall impact on tourism to the host city. The
bidding process for such events is a long, slow process that starts with a request for a bid. Some
factors that are looked at, within the host nation, are the size of nation and event, duration,
impacts to host country, global range, worldwide significance, and supporting infrastructure
(FIFA, 2014). To help decide on future host countries, in 2003 the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) has created the Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Study, which attempts to
measure the effect of the games on the countries economic, sociocultural, and environmental
impacts (Li, 2013).
The economic impacts of hosting a mega-event can be both positive and negative. Mega
sporting events spend significant public money to create new venues and infrastructure
innovations, solely for the event (Owen, 2005). Reasoning for this spending, is that it will create
positive long-term impacts on the economy, including job creation and visitor spending;

however, job creation is sometimes looked at as a transfer of spending and short-term
employment (Owen, 2005). Examining long-term outcomes are central to informing future
bidding and planning of mega events to host countries (Swart & Bob, 2012). What a country is
like before a major sporting event will determine its success during and after (Swart & Bob,
2012). The economic impact of mega events is measured using two constraints: direct
expenditures, such as investments in constructing venues and other infrastructure, and effects
such as changes in GDP (Ahlert, 2006). The overall concern, is whether the spending will
produce more long-term economic benefits than the investments themselves (Ahlert, 2006).
The investments would mostly be distributed to facilities and venues for the sole purpose
of the event. The Olympic Games Impact study focuses on two types of impacts of the event
infrastructure: investment in the event facilities (costs), and the use of these facilities (benefits),
(Li, 2013). The International Olympic Committee understands the importance of Olympic
legacies of the venues and suggests that existing venues should be used and a new one can be
built only if a post-Games legacy can be proved (Li, 2013). If these event venues are not used
post event, the impacts could be very low or even negative (Li, 2013). Physical legacies was a
particular concern for the residents of the host state, as they would be the ones to help finance the
venues and then have little use for them once the event is over.
To have a successful Olympic Games or World Cup the host countries must also have the
support of its people. Resident involvement and support has become an important factor in the
bidding and planning process of such events, but are often largely overlooked (Tichaawa &
Bama, 2012). The paper will discuss many of the residential concerns that communities have for
their homes and for themselves. Some of these concerns include environmental impacts that

construction, pollution and tourism will have on the state, the use of public spending for venues
over other necessary community projects, increase in traffic, crime, and inflation.
The paper will also analyze the impact that tourism has on the host nation. One of the
main perks for a country hosting mega-events is the increase in domestic and foreign tourists that
enter the cities before, during or post-events (Fourie & Spronk, 2011). This is considered
“induced tourism,” that creates large media attention to the host region (Giesecke &Madden,
2011). Attracting new foreign and domestic travelers to the city is a major ‘selling point’ for
countries proposing a bid (Gratton, 2005). The host nation has the advantage of national
exposure via media coverage that’s broadcasting the event. If cities are successful they are able
to market themselves to the world in a different light (Gratton, 2005).
Methodology
The goal of this study is to measure whether Boston, who won the United States bid for a
possible host city, will benefit from hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics or will this city suffer
some severe long-term consequences. The research will focus on how the event may affect the
local residents, and their views for overall success of the city. The research will be done by a
quantitative questionnaire. The questions will be available through a third party Internet source
called, Survey Monkey. This site will be monitored and edited by the researcher as well as
administration.
Conclusions and Significance
The research focuses on whether the city has the local support required to host such an
event and the residential views for overall success to the Greater Boston Area. Most of the
respondents from the researcher’s survey were between the ages 35 and 64. This is a positive
outcome for the researcher because it gives most responses from those who are paying taxes to

the state and local municipalities. The overall conclusions of the research were that more then
half of the respondents were not in large support of the 2024 Summer Olympics being held in
Boston, Massachusetts due to mostly over crowding, public funding, traffic, and little use of
infrastructure post-games.
This research can be useful to measure Boston’s support for the 2024 Summer Olympic
bid. In fact since there has been such little public support for the bid, there have been more
community surveys done for Boston to measure just public support (Nickisch, 2015). The Boston
Olympic committee and other Boston Political leaders can use this research to assess the support
of their residents.

Chapter II
Review of Literature
The study on the impact of mega-events started in the 1980s and is now a significant part
of tourism literature. During this time, government and public expenditure began to fund such
events for the economic advances, community involvement, developed infrastructure, and
national tourism (Gratton, Shibli, & Coleman, 2005). Mega sporting events are defined as large
cultural events that attract mass numbers of attendees and have international, national
significance. They are normally managed by national governmental and/or international non-
government sector (Horne & Manzenreiter, 2004). This paper will discuss and examine how
mega sporting events affect the host country, their residents, and global tourism. It will review
the bidding process and requirements from the event organizations, the disadvantages compared
to the advantages in the economy of the host nation, the event infrastructure and physical
legacies, the residential perspectives, and how tourism is affected by these major international
mega-events.
The beginning process for hosting a major event, starts with a bid. According to
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), there are several key milestones a
host country must comply, with in order to have a chance, in the bidding process. It starts with
FIFA sending a request for interest. There are many hosting agreements involved, as well as,
certain requirements (FIFA, 2014). Some factors that are looked at, within the host nation, are
the size of nation and event, duration, impacts to host country, global range, worldwide
significance, and supporting infrastructure (FIFA, 2014). To help decide on future host countries,
in 2003 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has created the Olympic Games Impact
(OGI) Study, which attempts to measure the effect of the games on the countries economic,

sociocultural, and environmental impacts (Li, 2013). The host cities, Beijing, Vancouver, and
London submitted OGI studies of their own (Li, 2013). Studies conducted on this subject
believe that hosting large sporting events provides positive economic benefits, measured in gross
domestic product (GDP) (Li, 2013). For example, the Sydney 2000 Olympics brought seven
billion dollars into the city during the games and, FIFA World Cup brought $24.8 billion to
Japan, and $8.9 billion to South Korea in the 2002 FIFA Tournament (Li, 2013). However,
some studies do not include types of direct investments and expenditures in constructing these
venues and infrastructure, or even domestic and inbound tourism expenses; this may lead to
inaccurate findings on the economic impacts of hosting these events (Li, 2013).
Disadvantages: Negative economic impacts
Mega sporting events spend significant public money to create new venues and
infrastructure innovations, solely for the event (Owen, 2005). Reasoning for this spending, is that
it will create positive long-term impacts on the economy, including job creation and visitor
spending (Owen, 2005). However, job creation is sometimes looked at as a transfer of spending
and short-term employment (Owen, 2005). Similar employment techniques could be
accomplished if the government gave money to the workers as unemployment insurance (Owen,
2005). Impacts on the investments in building event venues have not been sufficiently measured
(Li, 2013). For example, studies use the cost and benefit analysis; this includes the cost but not
the economic impact cost (Li, 2013). The cost of an event’s venues and infrastructure, relates to
direct spending, and economic impact costs, which calculates how this direct investment impacts
the host economy (LI, 2013). The study uses economic changes to measure it including increased
taxes, reducing other uses of public spending, and the change in household incomes (Li, 2013).
Therefore, the OGI studies focus on more of the economic impact of costs, rather then just the

costs (Li, 2013). Results of these events may reveal that negative effects outweigh the positive
effects (Gratton, Shibli & Coleman, 2005).
Examining long-term outcomes are central to informing future bidding and planning of
mega events to host countries (Swart & Bob, 2012). What a country is like before a major
sporting event will determine its success during and after (Swart & Bob, 2012). There have been
extensive debates relating the ability of developing countries to host mega sport events based off
their development challenges that are present... and South Africa was no exception (Swart &
Bob, 2012). While the Olympics or FIFA World Cup is seen as a ‘golden opportunity,’ correct
financial calculations are not being taken to ensure long-term success, especially in developing
countries (Li, 2013). This created specific concern with the 2010 FIFA World Cup hosted in
South Africa. Although South Africa has been known for hosting large sporting events in the
past, the events do not compare to numbers and magnitude of the FIFA World Cup (Fourie &
Spronk, 2011). FIFA requires certain standards for the host country in terms of sport venues,
accommodating thousands of people, and supporting infrastructure (Swart & Bob, 2012). The
amount of money that is put into renovations or new buildings sometimes outweighs the amount
of revenue generated (Swart & Bob, 2012). It is leaving empty hotels, restaurants, shops, and
more in areas of little tourist interest (Swart & Bob, 2012). Economists worried that the World
Cup could possibly worsen the economy and argue that income distribution could be negative
(Briedenhann, 2011). A major concern for some was the use of government money, being spent
on World Cup infrastructure, instead of funds and time on more crucial projects, such as
adequate housing and upgrading services like health care and education in deprived parts of the
country (Briedenhann, 2011). In the months after the World Cup, the South African government
was criticized for the distribution of huge funds in hosting a tournament that appears to have

done little to ease the country’s more serious problems in terms of poverty and unemployment
(Briedenhann, 2011). Many researchers have proposed whether such expenses are a good
investment for developing countries (Briedenhann, 2011). The short-term effect for South Africa
was good, however, there was little to no long-term economic benefit for this nation and its
neighboring countries (Kaplanidou, 2013).
South Africa examined the preparedness, or lack of, for this international event in 2011.
Zimbabwe, being the closest country next to South Africa was interested in an opportunity to
help (Zhou, 2011). They wanted to redevelop their agricultural infrastructure into a tourist
attraction for the upcoming World Cup; Agriculture and mining are their two biggest sources in
economic stability (Zhou, 2011). Many people perceived world sporting events as an opportunity
for economic and social benefit for the host destination and neighboring countries. With
Zimbabwe’s high unemployment rate and shortage of foreign currency, they saw this as a chance
for change (Zhou, 2011). To do so this country must invest time and money into building
sporting facilities and supporting infrastructure to accommodate the event, in return for the
potential for economic profits and creation of new jobs. The tourism industry stands third with
9% after agriculture and mining in terms of Zimbabwe’s GDP contributions (Zhou, 2011). The
government wanted to increase this and took actions in building infrastructure in the country.
This later resulted in lack of financial ability to fund the revamping and building. The FIFA
World Cup gave Zimbabwe help in financing these renovations (Zhou, 2011).
Unfortunately the expectations for Zimbabwe’s tourism industry fell dangerously short.
Their contract stated to provide 40,000 beds to tourists and World Cup teams that were above
three star quality; They totaled 12,000 beds throughout the country with 10,000 beds being above
the three star quality (Zhou, 2011). They tried again to revamp hotels and other services with a

plan to spend $60 million on hotel capacity expansion and $3 million for the campaign to market
Zimbabwe as the 2010 Cup approached (Zhou, 2011). Not only was there a need for hotel,
restaurant, and other services to be upgraded but the country’s major airports were being looked
at as needing major renovations as well. The government was failing to secure funds to complete
the upgrading of the airport because of the money going into the tourism needs. It was then made
official to the public that not a single team was staying in Zimbabwe for the 2010 FIFA World
Cup (Zhou, 2011).
This attracted less people to the area and even less when it was released that Zimbabwe had
become a cash society, with very few places even accepting international credit cards or debt
cards. Even many ATMs in the country were incompatible with international networks and are
unreliable (Zhou, 2011). The country did not adequately prepare themselves mostly in the areas
of financial resources, national payment system, unreasonably high prices, and accessibility of
the country (Zhou, 2011). Many people say
Zimbabwe’s hotels still could have benefited if these areas were taken care of, but it failed
because Zimbabwe didn’t have the financial structures a country needs to host such an extensive
event; or even to co-host. Even after they were given money from FIFA, they were unable to
comply with the necessary needs of the tournament and therefore did not economically benefit
the way they planned (Zhou, 2011). Developing countries such as Zimbabwe end up wasting
money that could have been spent on public education, health care, or other community benefits
(Li, 2013).
Government spending is used on venues and infrastructure and is taken away from other
areas of country that need revamping or funding. Sums of public money are being used to
support the amount of funds that are needed. Yet, there is very little evidence found statistically

or economically that signifies this is the case long term. Even long-term sporting programs, that
aim to keep professional teams in the area, have also failed to deliver on projected economic
benefits (Owen, 2005). It would seem that a less developed country would have more to gain
from event growth opportunities, but this has seen to be incorrect, and even detrimental for
developing countries. The opportunity costs, the loss of potential gain from other alternatives
chosen, of providing high quality facilities are much higher; and lack of updated infrastructure
requires significant additional expenditures (Owen, 2005). However, there are some well-
developed nations who have found success with hosting such mega-events.
Advantages of Hosting Mega-events: Positive economic advances
The economic impact of mega events is measured using two constraints: direct
expenditures, such as investments in constructing venues and other infrastructure, and effects
such as changes in GDP (Ahlert, 2006). The overall concern, is whether the spending will
produce more economic benefit than the investments themselves. Serious doubts of financial
success came after the 1976 Montreal Olympics, but quickly changed after the 1984 Los Angeles
Olympics, which made substantial profits (Gratton, 2005). The Barcelona 1992 Olympics was
also proof that long-term benefits can come to a host nation. The number of hotels, increased by
100%, with a 13% increase in occupancy percentage; the number of tourists increased from
1,732,902 travelers in 1990 to 3,378,636 in 2001, and the number of overnights increased by
over four million guests (Gratton, 2005). Barcelona moved from ranked 11th in the European
Cities Monitor in 1990 to sixth in 2002 (Gratton, 2005). The evidence leads to the notion that
Barcelona’s host of the Olympic Games was considered a huge success (Gratton, Shibli &
Coleman, 2005).

Another nation that saw large benefits was Germany, hosting the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
There were five categories that were evaluated at a macroeconomic level; this included the
countries GDP, employment, welfare, exports, labor, capital, and outputs (Ahlert, 2006). The
overall macroeconomic impact to this country was estimated to increase their GDP from $246.6
million in 2003, to 420.2 million in 2010, and a high of 1,756 million in 2006 (Ahlert, 2006).
Success did take place for this nation, not quite as it has imagined but it did increase to $365
million in 2010, and is now relatively constant at this rate (Trading Economics, 2014). During
this period it was also predicted to increase the employment rate of the German people. A
supposed 2,800 jobs were to be created each year, and in the year of 2006 more than 8.5
thousand jobs would be created (Ahlert, 2006). This indeed was true for the year prior to the
World Cup where the unemployment rate decreased dramatically, and after 2006 Germany’s
unemployment rate has continued to decrease (Trading Economics, 2014). This nation benefited
from the 2006 World Cup in terms of GDP and employment. The question still remains, to what
extend did these effects share equal success over all federal states (Ahlert, 2006). There were
twelve cities in Germany who adopted the commitment to new infrastructure and stadiums, and
these were the cities that flourished (Ahlert, 2006). Having twelve developed cities involved
made for less crowding, distribution of profits, and making money off the need to use public
transportation or purchasing of fuel. It increased the spending of diverse products during the
event all over the country, instead of one central area. It benefited local businesses not just the
man-made infrastructure for the sole purpose of the event (Alhert, 2006). This country showed
that the combined effort of united cities were able to see positive outcomes long-term.

Infrastructure
When looking at countries success from mega sporting events, the OGI study focuses on
two types of impacts of the event infrastructure: investment in the event facilities (costs), and the
use of these facilities (benefits), (Li, 2013). Countries spend millions of dollars on building the
expected infrastructure that is need for hosting such mega-events. For example Vancouver 2010
Olympic Games was estimated $593 million in costs on venue construction, (VANOC, 2008)
and 9.3 billion euros for the 2012 London costs (Guala & Turco, 2009). The use of event venues
and infrastructure after the event is called physical legacies (Li, 2013). The IOC understands the
importance of Olympic legacies of the venues and suggests that existing venues should be used
and a new one can be built only if a post-Games legacy can be proved (Li, 2013). If these event
venues are not used post event, the impacts could be very low or even negative (Li, 2013). There
are already concerns over the sustainability of South Africa’s venues and stadiums and their
maintenance costs. There are now 10 stadiums (the smallest one holding 40,000 people) that are
sitting in the middle of South Africa with little to no use or maintenance (Kaplandiou, 2013).
Research has found that cities in Europe, Australia, and the Americas have focused on building
venues that not only benefit the goal of the event, but mainly for domestic professional sporting
teams (Gratton, Shibli & Coleman, 2005).
To promote positive physical legacies the IOC, International Olympic Committee,
includes statements on this issue in the Olympics Charter (Li, 2013). The committee describes
physical legacies as “tangles and intangible elements of large scale events left to future
generations of a host country where these elements influence the economic, physical, and
psychological well-being at both community and individual levels in the long-term,” (Li &
McCabe, 2013, p. 390). Physical legacies can be positive or negative structures created for a

sport event and will remain for longer then the event occurs (Swart & Bob, 2012). The conflict
comes between short-term event requirements such as number of seats that are needed, and long-
term requirements such as smaller venues for future functions of the facility (Li, 2013). This
plays a huge role in the economic impact of the host country, especially in developing countries
where modern facilities are scarce (Li, 2013).
Host countries tend to look at costs as benefits and overlook the opportunity costs. The cost of
constructing a stadium is usually considered a benefit to the local economy because a large
amount of the spending is on hiring construction workers and purchasing materials from local
suppliers. This only looks at the production of the project and ignores the actual consumption of
the product in the future (Owen, 2005). For the 2010 World Cup South Africa predicted on
spending 8.4 billion on stadium development. This cost dramatically changed and spent 4.5
billion on the Cape Town Stadium alone, adding to about 14 billion for all new construction and
upgraded facilities (Tichaawa & Bama, 2012). They are still struggling to keep up with
maintenance cost post event to maximize the facilities benefits.
Before and after the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, 22 factors about event
legacies were evaluated. It was found that psychological impact items (such as being proud of
new infrastructure) increased post-event while economic impacts clearly decreased (Kaplanidou,
2013). In another study, Bob and Noor used similar factors to evaluate whether a country should
take on the host of mega sporting events due to specific requirements that are not currently there.
There are many factors that need to be recognized before the event takes place in order to have
the long-term success. Factors include what the facilities are going to be used for after, the
measure of accessibility (access to the nation or city), the average cost of transportation, new
housing built near these facilities, how can revenues benefit the public debt and taxations, and

control on crime (Bob & Kassens-Noor, 2012). These requirements are more strictly enforced in
less developed countries, because of the amount of new venues being built; the remaining
facilities must benefit the citizens and be sustained over a twenty year period (Bob & Kassens-
Noor, 2012).
Residential Impacts and Views
Bama, 2012). Ultimately the decision to host a mega-sporting event is in the hands of political
leaders or other powerful groups who have little, if any democratic community input (Gratton,
Shibli & Coleman, 2005). These political powers justify their reasoning with economic gains, but
there is no guarantee of these benefits (Gratton, Shibli & Coleman). The residents however are
the ones experiencing these impacts first hand as they evaluate as taxpayers and every day
consumers of the infrastructure (Guala & Turco, 2009). The need for public funding has
increasingly been an issue for developed and developing countries, as well as support to raise
local taxation to fund the infrastructure projects that are required (Shin & Li, 2013). One of the
few nations that proclaimed to have taken very little public funding was the Japan/ Korea FIFA
World Cup, which ultimately benefited the residents but left Japan with a much higher financial
debt (Horne & Manzenreiter, 2004).
Many host communities have also expressed a concern for the environmental impacts the
construction will have on their homes (Tichaawa & Bama, 2012). The Green Point residents of
Cape Town banned the construction of new infrastructure and stadiums in their city due to
unsustainable post-event usage, congestion, crime, crowding-out and other negative

environmental impacts through the Cape Town Environmental Protection Association, CEPA
(Tichaawa & Bama, 2012). There was further movement against the use of government funds
for the event, funds that could have been utilized for other projects in the community. Studies
have been done to evaluate mega-events with support from the host community vs. one’s with
little support. A survey was given to 400 Green Point residents, using random sampling, to
evaluate the community’s support. Overall the local residents were pleased with the upgrades to
the transportation infrastructure and the stadium renovations (Tichaawa & Bama, 2012).
However, 91.2% agreed the maintenance cost of these facilities will be very high and about 59%
said that the use of public funds were also too high. An overwhelming 95 percent thought that
South Africa hosted a successful FIFA World Cup, left a legacy for South Africa, and increased
tourism. The people thought the event untied South Africans and showcased their country in a
positively (Tichaawa & Bama 2012). The results concluded that the perspective of the residents
drastically changes from the pre to post-event, providing insight that developing countries can
host a successful mega-event (Tichaawa & Bama, 2012).
A questionnaire was given to 9,000 people who at some point contributed in hosting the
2006 Torino Olympic Games. The overall result suggested that most concerns were prior to the
event, while during and after the event those concerns started to fade. The concerns pre-event
were focused around major traffic, inflation, crime and excessive costs (Guala & Turco, 2009).
From the survey there were four main points the residents expressed: Prior event was the initial
surprise, optimism and pride for winning the bid. Second was worry but also trust when
preparing for the Games. During the event, happiness for their success, and finally an overall
mature evaluation years later (Guala & Turco, 2009). The major areas that residents believed

would benefit were the acceleration of “urban works” such as the subway and road systems, and
the increased visibility and being well known around the world (Guala & Turco, 2009).
Studies have also looked at the evidence for how local attitudes affect public funding (Shin
& Li, 2013). If the host nation doesn’t have overall support of their communities, they could be
losing out on necessary public money (Shin & Li, 2013). Local hosts should be considered a
more important stakeholder within mega-events because they experience the pre, during, and
post-Games conditions (Guala & Turco, 2009). The people of the community must be able to see
the long-term results of the money they are contributing (Shin & Li, 2013). For example, in the
2010 South Africa World Cup the residential perspective was that the economic benefits
projected wouldn’t benefit the people who needed it most, but would benefit the people who
were already economically stable (Weed, 2011). If the long-term results are consequential from
these events, it will negatively effect local attitudes. This can result in directly affecting
international tourism as well as on tourist destination image and hospitable behavior (Shin & Li,
2013). Aspects to evaluate social impacts from mega sporting events are supportive residents,
destination image, and social benefits vs. social costs (Li & McCabe, 2013). Assessing how the
community will react to tourism demand the city must evaluate the resident’s attitudes,
community cohesiveness, and their feelings to their own changes in society (Li & McCabe,
2013).
Resident perspective research should be considered in the event planning because the
residents are handling the changes each day, and could give insight for the event (Guala &
Turco, 2009). Evidence as been concluded that host nations who have the support of their
communities will have a greater success with mega-sporting events then nations who have little
interested from the locals (Shin & Li, 2013). For example when the Olympics were held in

Beijing there were many ‘environmental improvement projects’ imposed by the government to
revamp the cities’ VIC, which were known as Villages In Cities. These are places where mostly
migrant tenants live who cannot afford regular housing in the area. The government decided to
carry out these ‘environmental improvements’ on many of the known VICs throughout the city,
leaving about 74,100 permanent village residents and about 296,400 migrants evicted from their
homes, along with the landlords of these VICs out of money (Shin & Li, 2013). This was a
negative impact on the people of Beijing, leading to more poverty, increased crime rates, and
emotional impact (Shin & Li, 2013). With negative residential perspectives can bring negative
media attention and therefore less tourism interest is visiting during and after the event (Fourie &
Spronk, 2011).
“Negative or positive word of mouth will influence tourists’ perceptions of the host community
at large,” and will affect future tourism travel (Guala & Turco, 2009, p. 38).
Tourism
One of the main perks for a country hosting mega-events is the increase in domestic and
foreign tourists that enter the cities before, during or post-events (Fourie & Spronk, 2011). This
is considered “induced tourism,” that creates large media attention to the host region (Giesecke
&Madden, 2011). There has been evidence that suggests significant induced tourism with the
Olympic Games, specifically in the Sydney and Seoul Olympics (Giesecke & Madden, 2011).
However, measures of tourism must account for the lack of other tourism travel loss during the
event period despite some who say the events do not disrupt the regular tourist patterns (Fourie
& Spronk, 2011). Attracting new foreign and domestic travelers to the city is a major ‘selling
point’ for countries proposing a bid. The host nation has the advantage of national exposure via
media coverage that’s broadcasting the event. If cities are successful they are able to market

themselves to the world in a different light (Gratton, 2005). In theory this will attract present and
future travel into the country to increase tourism. Countries that exemplified this process were
Japan and Korea during the 2002 World Cup; the goal was to market themselves as technological
nations. Their objective was about branding the country for future tourist and foreign spending
rather then making money directly from the event (Horne & Manzenreiter, 2004). The export of
TVs increased 100% and videocassette recorders increased 80% during and post games. The
company Samsung took absolute advantage and spent 100 million US dollars on global
advertising, which projected to be viewed by about 2.5 billion people. This shows how mega-
events give the opportunity for host countries to reach billions of possible tourists and investors
(Horne & Manzenreiter, 2004).
There is also major concern of over crowding during these mega-sporting events (Fourie
& Spronk, 2011). One of the reasons why Germany had such a successful World Cup was that it
was spread out over twelve cities, and therefore did not loose out on as many ‘normal’ tourists,
or experience trouble with crowding out (Alhert, 2006). Other countries tend to be unfocused on
this issue. South Africa’s past sporting events like the Rugby World Cup, International Cricket
Council have shown to be successful in this area, however, the 2010 World Cup with much
larger tourism numbers experienced crowding (Fourie & Spronk, 2011). Many countries try to
avoid crowing issues by scheduling (if possible) events during their countries’ off-season for
tourism arrivals (Fourie & Spronk, 2011). Supply and demand factors will also take on a large
role in determining tourist entry. Major aspects that affect tourism demand are political stability,
tourism infrastructure, marketing, climate, neighboring countries, transportation/costs, and the
state of development (Fourie & Spronk, 2011).

Tourists that come to the host nation for such sporting events tend to spend high values for
goods and services such as accommodations and shopping, but this is only short-term. There is
little consistency to returning tourists in many areas (Li & McCabe, 2013). However, it was
found that such sporting events generated more societal and cultural benefits to the host country.
For example cultural exchange between tourists and residents were increased and in some cases
coming to a better understanding of other societies and their culture. When this occurred,
preservation of the land was respected, and the development of the local culture, natural
resources, and historical buildings were appreciated (Li & McCabe, 2013). This shows that
tourism can be benefited from mega-sporting events by not only short-term economic spending,
but also international cohesiveness.
Conclusion
This literature explores how major international sporting events, specifically the FIFA
World Cup and the Olympic Games affect on the host city or country as a whole. The framework
of this paper is based off four main aspects that were used to analyze these effects: Economic
impact, event infrastructure, residential perspectives, and tourism attraction. There has been
calculated evidence that shows many developing countries who host these mega-sporting events
don’t see the economic advances they were promised. These countries tend to spend enormous
sums of money on the development of infrastructure for event tourism, and in return are not
seeing positive long-term effects. This money could be better spent on other community projects
such as health care and education reforms (Swart & Bob, 2012). However, countries with an
already established infrastructure have shown more positive results. Developed countries use less
money to renovate existing facilities. Not only do they spend less, but physical legacies have
been more utilized long-term. Many times extraordinary venues are built and left untouched after

the event period. Developed countries are more likely to find use of these facilities post-event
(Ahlert, 2006).
Resident involvement in mega-sporting events has become increasingly important for the
success of the host city. Public funds and local taxes are needed to support the costs of the event.
Resident perspective will also affect tourist expectations and attraction to the host nation. With
negative local attitudes, it can directly decrease inbound tourism, which indirectly will affect the
economic goals (Fourie & Spronk, 2011).
Event organizations should further analyze all aspects the event will have on the host
country to statistically prove the success of the country’s goals. More conclusive estimations
should be taken to ultimately assess what is obtainable.

Chapter III
Methodology
Problem Statement
The first modern Olympic Games were help in April 1896 in Athens, Greece but can we
traced back until 776 B.C. The Summer and Winter Games have been held in over 40 countries
all around the World since 1896 (Hisotry, 2015). The Olympic Games have become one of the
most important spring events in the World, (Zhou & Ap, 2009). Many cities see hosting such an
event as a ‘golden opportunity’ and countries compete for the chance to host the next Olympic
Games (Zhou & Ap, 2009). The study of the impact of major sporting events started in the
1980’s and is now a significant piece of tourism literature. Many cities have seen economic,
infrastructure, and/or tourism benefits from hosting Major Sporting events such as the FIFA
World Cup and The Olympics Games. However, there are numerous cities that have experienced
negative long-term outcomes from hosting such events. The research will examine how mega
sporting events, specifically the Olympic Games will affect the host city, their residents, and
overall global tourism.
The goal of this study is to measure whether Boston, who won the United States bid for a
possible host city, will benefit from hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics or will this city suffer
some severe long-term consequences. The research will focus on how the event may affect the
local residents, and their views for overall success of the city. The research will be done by a
quantitative questionnaire. The questions will be available through a third party Internet source
called, Survey Monkey. This site will be monitored and edited by the researcher as well as
administration. The most recent research conducted on the resident’s perspective of the Boston

Olympic bid has also been done using a survey, so that it can reach a wide variety and number of
the targeted audience.
In previous residential views on the Olympic, opinions of the people are not taken into
any consideration; yet to have a successful Olympics Games the support of the residents has
become a huge necessary factor. Support from the surrounding communities is very important
for the need of public funding and support for raising taxation to fund the infrastructure projects.
Many cities with little infrastructure or in need of renovations are in large support of hosting
such events because they will be benefiting in the meantime. However, there is debate that this
money is being taken away from more important projects such as health or education priorities.
Many residents also express concerns over environmental, over-crowding, or tourism issues.
Methodology Support
Quantitative research will be the best method because the research should reach as many
Boston residents as possible and it will give a more overall view of the bid from residents. Each
question addresses a different aspect or issue that may occur if the Olympics take place. This
research will be able to clearly analyze the perspectives of residents for each aspect of a possible
Olympics. Quantitative research will allow the researcher to compare resident’s views to other
surveys taken and even from one question to another. The survey will consist of twenty multiple
choice, matrix, or scaled questions in order to obtain the most accurate information as possible.
Target Population
The target market for the questionnaire will be Greater Boston residents or residents in
close proximity to the city of Boston, Massachusetts. The target audience is men and woman of
all marital statuses and is preferably between the ages 22-65, but the research will accept all ages
over 18 years. The only criteria necessary for the participant is that they live in or near the city of

Boston and are aware of the 2024 Boston Olympic bid that is being evaluated for the city. The
goal is to reach 100 responders for this survey.
Distribution Method
The surveys will be created via Survey Monkey, which is an online resource that is
monitored by administration of Endicott College. The survey will then be distributed through
two social mediums: Facebook and LinkedIn to reach a wider audience. The survey is not to be
taken by current Endicott College students and they will be directed not to take this survey. The
link will also be distributed via email to Greater Boston residents, which the survey will then be
passed through to other resident contacts if possible.
Pilot Survey Results
For the pilot surveys, two pilots were conducted: an academic pilot survey that was to be
edited by other hospitality students, and a target population pilot survey. The purpose of the pilot
surveys was to gain feedback from other students as well as residents from Boston on how to
improve the questionnaire. This is crucial to perform before releasing the final survey to the
public and targeted recipients.
Academic pilot survey
The academic pilot survey was conducted on February 10th, 2015. There were six
Hospitality students that participated in this pilot. The responses and suggestions were to
rearrange the content in an order that would flow better with the thoughts of the responder. Small
functional edits in format were made as well as a few small grammar corrections. On question
number two the third option, somewhat, was removed as an option, as it was not needed. For
number three the options had to be reorganized so that options did not overlap one each other.
For questions five through ten, the order of scale options had to be reverse so that it started with

the negative options and become positive. The same questions also reworded the options; for
example from unsure to neutral and strongly support to very supportive. On number eleven the
last option was switched from neutral to I don’t know. Number twelve’s scale options were also
reversed to negative to positive. For questions 17, 18, and 19 the first word in the question was
changed from “what” to “Identify.”
Target population survey
The target population survey was completed by ten respondents on February 16th, 2015.
There were eight website responders and two that received the survey via email. Ten out of ten
of the responders said the survey took them five minutes or less, as well as providing no further
comments or information that was not asked earlier in the survey.

Chapter IV
Results
The first survey link for this research opened on February 24th 2015 and all survey links
were closed on March 12th, 2015. The total number of respondents came to 57. However, only 40
were used for this data due to unqualified respondents and unfinished surveys. This section will
review the results to the research.
Demographics:
The majority of respondents, 37.5%, were ages 35-44, with a close 35% of respondents between
the ages 45-65. There were no respondents under 18; so all the responses were usable. 66.7% of
the responders were female verses 33.3% male, and had either a graduate degree (51.3%), or a
bachelors degree (33.3%). Over 50% of the respondents made 100,000 or above in annual
income and about 30% made $50,000-$99,999 per year.
Table 1. Respondent Demographics
Characteristics Percentage
(%)
Age Range
A. Under 18
B. 18-24
C. 25-34
D. 35-44
E. 45-64
F. 65 or older
N=40
0
5
10
37.5
35
12.5
Gender
A. Male
B. Female
N=39
33.3
66.7
Education
A. Some high school
B. High School Graduate/GED
C. Associates Degree
D. Bachelors Degree
E. Graduate Degree
N=39
0
7.7
7.7
33.3
51.3

Income
A. $0- $24,999
B. $25,000- $49,999
C. $50,000- $99,999
D. $100,000 or above
N= 37
2.7
16.22
29.73
51.35
Residency:
All of the surveyors are residents of the Greater Boston Area; however were spread out relatively
evenly between the mile options. One fourth of the respondents lived in the City of Boston.
Only 40% of the 40 responders worked in the city, leaving 60% who did not. The majority of
respondents who worked in the city said they took the commuter rail to get into work with
68.75% out of the 16 responders. 40% of the 40 respondents said they would be concerned with
the commute, but 62.5% of the 16 respondents that work in the city said they would be
concerned.
Table 2. Respondent Residency
Residency & Travel Percentage
(%)
Distance from Boston
A. Live in the City
B. 0-3 miles
C. 4-6
D. 7-10
E. 11-20
F. 21-30
G. 31+
N= 40
25
15
12.5
7.5
17.5
10
12.5
Work in the City
A. Yes
B. No
N= 40
If yes: Commuting
A. Commuter Rail
B. Subway
C. Bus
D. Car
E. Walk
N=16
40
60
68.75
6.25
18.75
6.25
18.75
Concerned to Commute
A. Yes
B. No
C. Possibly
N=40
40
37.5
22.5

Resident Support:
There was a wide spread of results for the residential support of the Olympics, but 1/5 of the
responders said they were very supportive of the bid; and 27.5% said they were either
unsupportive or somewhat unsupportive. When the question was asked of how supportive they
were of increased taxes however, 85% of the responders said they were in some way
unsupportive of the bid, leaving only 7.5% of the responders supportive.
Table 3. Resident Support
Resident Support Characteristics Percentage (%)
Supportive or Opposed
A. Very Unsupportive
B. Unsupportive
C. Somewhat Unsupportive
D. Neutral
E. Somewhat Supportive
F. Supportive
G. Very Supportive
Mean= 2.15
N= 40
25
7.5
20
20
12.5
10
5
Support of Increased taxes
A. Very Unsupportive
B. Unsupportive
C. Somewhat Unsupportive
D. Neutral
E. Somewhat Supportive
F. Supportive
G. Very Supportive
Mean=4.85
N= 40
45
22.5
17.5
7.5
5
0
2.5
Concerned to Commute
(Only who work in the City: N=16)
A. Yes
B. No
C. Possibly
62.5
31.25
6.25

Table 4:
Do you believe Boston has the overall capability to host the Olympics as it stands today?
Capability Percentage
Yes 12.5 %
No 70%
Unsure 17.5%
Infrastructure:
Table 5 represents the results for question number nine on the survey; outlining what the
respondent’s feel is necessary for Boston to be more successful if the City hosts the 2024
Summer Olympics. The question was developed on a scale from 1 to 5; 1 meaning Not
Necessary and 5 being Necessary. The overall conclusion to update the transportation system
was an overwhelming necessary action with 85%; giving a mean of 4.85. The need for
additional hotels was somewhat average with a mean of 3.6. The need for additional restaurants
was on the lower side of the scale, with 42.5 of the respondents saying it was not necessary or
somewhat unnecessary, and 32.5% were unsure; with a mean of 2.63. Renovated hotels and
renovated restaurants were both relatively widespread with an average of 3.33 for hotels and 2.9
for restaurants.
Table 5. What Boston would need to host the 2024 Olympics N= 40
Characteristics Not
Necessary
Somewhat
unnecessary
Unsure Somewhat
Necessary
Necessary Mean
Updated
Transportation
System
0 0 0 6 34 4.85
Additional
Hotels
2 6 13 4 15 3.6
Additional
Restaurants
7 10 13 5 5 2.63
Renovate Hotels 4 7 10 10 9 3.33
Renovate
Restaurants
6 10 11 6 6 2.9

Environmental concerns:
The majority of respondents said the most concerning environmental factor was unsustainable
post-event venues and facilities with 77.5% agreeing. Overuse of public outdoor communities
was also a concern at 37.5% and increase in city pollution with 42.5% of the respondents.
Table 6. Environmental Concerns
Environmental Factors Percentage (%)
A. Increase in littering
B. Construction affecting your residential home
C. Unsustainable post-event venues/facilities
D. Overuse of public outdoor communities
E. Increase in city pollution
F. Other
N= 40
50
7.5
77.5
37.5
42.5
5
Economic Benefits:
Question number 12 asked: How likely is it that the Olympics expenditures such as infrastructure
and sire construction will produce lasting economic benefits? For the City of Boston the majority
of respondents (25% & 27.5) said it was unlikely with a mean of 2.63. For the Greater Boston
Area majority also said unlikely with 32.5% and 20% very unlikely; and had an average of 2.6.
For the Sate of Massachusetts, the results were again towards unlikely economic benefits; with a
mean of 2.43.
Table 7. Lasting Economic Benefits N= 40
Area Very
Unlikely
Unlikely Unsure Likely Very
Likely
Mean
Boston 25% 27.5% 15% 25% 7.5% 2.63
Greater Boston 20% 32.5% 20% 22.5% 5% 2.6
State of MA 25% 32.5% 20% 20% 2.5% 2.43
Long-term tourism:
The majority of the respondents, 57.5% thought the Olympics would not bring long-term tourism
into Boston; 25% thought it would and 17.5% were unsure about the long-term tourism effects.
An overwhelming 87.5% of the respondents said that they would be in support of long-term

tourism if it were to occur. The residents that said they would attend the Olympics were
surprisingly low with only 20% of definite attendance, but 40% said they would probably attend;
and the attendance rate had an average of 3.3.
Table 8: Long-term Tourism
Questions # 13- 15 Percentage (%)
Will Olympics bring long-term tourism?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Unsure
N= 40
25
57.5
17.5
Support of Long-term tourism
A. Yes
B. No
C. Unsure
N= 40
87.5
7.5
5
Attend the Olympics
A. Definitely would not attend
B. Probably would not attend
C. Unsure
D. Probably would attend
E. Definitely would attend
Mean= 3.3
N= 40
15
20
5
40
20
Residential Concerns:
Table 8 evaluates the residential concerns based on a liker scale from 1 to 7; 1 being very
unconcerned and 7 being very concerned. Overall residential concerns were on the higher side
than unconcerned with relatively high means throughout each characteristic. The highest
concerns were increase taxes, which had a mean of 5.48, overcrowding with an average of 5.65,
and the highest was increased traffic with a 6.28 total average. Increase of crime and
environmental effects were not far behind with averages of 4.58 and 4.83.

Table 9. Residential Concerns
Very
Unconcer
ned
Unconcer
ned
Somewha
t
Unconcer
ned
Neutr
al
Somewha
t
Concerne
d
Concer
ned
Very
Concer
ned
Mean
Increase
Taxes
2 0 2 5 9 11 11 5.48
Increase
crime
1 7 3 4 11 10 4 4.58
Environm
ental
Impacts
1 5 2 4 13 10 5 4.83
Over
Crowding
1 2 1 10 9 13 13 5.65
Increased
traffic
0 1 0 1 4 13 21 6.28
Other 5%=

Chapter V
Conclusions/ Limitations/ Recommendations/ Significance
Conclusions
Introduction:
This chapter connects the results from chapter IV to the researchers information. The research
examined how mega-sporting events, specifically the Olympics and FIFA World Cup affects the
host city, its residents, and overall domestic and international tourism. It specifically examines
how residential support from the host city can play a huge role in hosting a mega event of this
magnitude. The goal of this quantitative survey was to measure whether Boston, who won the
United States bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, will benefit from hosting or will this city
suffer some severe short or even long-term consequences. The research focuses on whether the
city has the local support required to host such an event and the residential views for overall
success to the Greater Boston Area. Most of the respondents from the researcher’s survey were
between the ages 35 and 64. This is a positive outcome for the researcher because it gives most
responses from those who are paying taxes to the state and local municipalities. And 84.6% of
the respondents had either a bachelor’s degree or graduates degree, which indicates they have a
good educational background. Each question in the study was created to find an accurate
representation of these residential views.
Residential Concerns and Support:
Bama, 2012). Large political groups ultimately have the power to make final decisions, even

when it may contradict the communities input (Gratton, Shibli & Coleman, 2005). These
political powers justify their reasoning with economic gains, but there is no guarantee of these
benefits (Gratton, Shibli & Coleman). However, the residents are the ones experiencing these
impacts first hand as they are taxpayers and every day consumers of the infrastructure (Guala &
Turco, 2009).
The evidence from Boston residents illustrates that the majority of residents are
concerned about increased taxes in order to support event infrastructure with most all of
respondents saying they are in some way concerned and were in some way unsupportive. The
results also show that over crowding and increased traffic are the next highest concerns of the
residents. The respondents said they would be concerned to commute to work each day during
the event months. There was little evidence that indicated there was concern for increase crime in
the city and most of residents expressed environmental concerns for the Boston area. Many host
communities have also expressed a concern for the environmental impacts the construction will
have on their homes (Tichaawa & Bama, 2012). The results from chapter IV illustrates that
about half of Boston residents are concerned with increase in littering, and increase in pollution
to the City’s environment. They were concerned about the overuse of public outdoor
communities but surprisingly not very concerned about construction affecting their residential
homes. This showed a small number were concerned in Boston compared to many other studies
across the globe.
When the Olympics were held in Beijing there were many ”environmental improvement
projects” imposed by the government to revamp the cities’ VIC, which were known as Villages
In Cities. These are places where mostly migrant tenants live who cannot afford regular housing
in the area. The government decided to carry out these “environmental improvements” on many

of the known VICs throughout the city, leaving about 74,100 permanent village residents and
about 296,400 migrants evicted from their homes, along with the landlords of these VICs out of
money (Shin & Li, 2013). This was a negative impact on the people of Beijing, leading to more
poverty, increased crime rates, and emotional impact (Shin & Li, 2013). The researcher’s results
however, did not indicate any of these concerns for the city of Boston and the Greater Boston
area. The survey did show evidence that the biggest environmental concern from Boston
residents was unsustainable post-event facilities and most all of the respondents agreed this was
an issue.
Infrastructure:
When looking at countries success from mega sporting events, the OGI study focuses on
two types of impacts of the event infrastructure: investment in the event facilities (costs), and the
use of these facilities (benefits), (Li, 2013). Countries spent millions of dollars building the
infrastructure that is need for hosting such mega-events. For example Vancouver 2010 Olympic
Games was estimated $593 million in costs on venue construction, (VANOC, 2008) and 9.3
billion euros for the 2012 London costs (Guala & Turco, 2009). Boston residents were asking if
they thought the area had the capability to host the Olympics as it stands today; the majority of
respondents said no it does not have the capability and a small number believed it is capable. The
findings indicated that the City of Boston would also need major infastructural changes and
additions to have the capability of hosting the Olympic Games. Almost all of respondents said
that Boston would need an updated transportation system in order to host the Olympic Games;
this could have been bias towards the timing of this survey as the Boston’s commuter rail was
out of order for a span of time while this research was being collected. The data also suggests
that additional hotels or renovated hotels would be necessary in the Greater Boston Area to

accommodate the mass number of tourists coming to the area. On top of the hospitality
infrastructure, the need for numerous event facilities was also a major concern.
The use of event venues and infrastructure after the event is called physical legacies (Li,
2013). The IOC understands the importance of Olympic legacies of the venues and suggests that
existing venues should be used and a new one can be built only if a post-Games legacy can be
proved (Li, 2013). If these event venues are not used post event, the impacts could be very low
or even negative (Li, 2013). The respondents were asked if they were concerned about
unsustainable post-event venues and facilities, more then half of the residents said it was a major
concern for the Boston area. The data shows that even the residents don’t see the infrastructure
being beneficial for long-term use. With little plan for long-term physical legacies, the residents
seemed generally concerned for the venues sustainability and long-term economic benefits.
Economic Advantages/ Disadvantages:
Mega sporting events spend significant public money to create new venues and
infrastructure innovations, solely for the event (Owen, 2005). Reasoning for this spending, is that
it will create positive long-term impacts on the economy, including job creation and visitor
spending (Owen, 2005). However, job creation is sometimes looked at as a transfer of spending
and short-term employment (Owen, 2005). For example, studies use the cost and benefit
analysis; this includes the actual cost but not the economic impact cost (Li, 2013). The cost of an
event’s venues and infrastructure, relates to direct spending, and economic impact costs, which
calculates how this direct investment impacts the host economy (LI, 2013). The study uses
economic changes to measure it including increased taxes, reducing other uses of public
spending, and the change in household incomes (Li, 2013). Therefore, the OGI studies focus on
more of the economic impact of costs, rather then just the costs (Li, 2013). Results of these

events may reveal that negative effects outweigh the positive effects (Gratton, Shibli & Coleman,
2005).
Examining long-term economic outcomes are central to informing future bidding and
planning of mega events to host countries (Swart & Bob, 2012). When Boston residents were
asked if the Olympics would have lasting economic benefits the results were very widespread.
The survey asked to scale their views from very unlikely to very likely; the results indicated that
residents varied on this question. Many cities in the United States who have hosted the Olympics
have had successful lasting economic benefits; for example Atlanta’s 1996 Olympics ended with
a profit of ten million dollars, while other more recent events in London and Vancouver broke
even (Costs to Host, 2015). The survey results illustrate that residents think the Olympics will
probably be similar to past Olympics such as London and Vancouver, and will break even for
long-term economic profit.
Long-term tourism:
One of the main perks for a country hosting mega-events is the increase in domestic and
foreign tourists that enter the cities before, during or post-events (Fourie & Spronk, 2011). This
is considered “induced tourism,” that creates large media attention to the host region (Giesecke
&Madden, 2011). There has been evidence that suggests significant induced tourism occurs from
hosting the Olympic Games, (Giesecke & Madden, 2011). However, the survey results indicate
that most Boston residents do not believe that the 2024 Summer Olympics would bring long-
term tourism into the City or the State. The research also showed that most of the respondents
would be in favor of induced long-term tourism. This suggests that Boston residents would like
the affects of having post-event tourists into the City, but do not think this will occur. Attracting
new foreign and domestic travelers to the city is a major ‘selling point’ for countries proposing a

bid, (Gratton, 2005). The host nation has the advantage of national exposure via media coverage
that’s broadcasting the event; If cities are successful they are able to market themselves to the
world in a different light (Gratton, 2005). However, Boston residents may not have thought
about how they could market themselves to attract future tourists. Surprisingly a relatively small
number of the respondents said they would definitely attend some part of the Olympic Games.
This shows that the residents are not committed to taking the necessary actions to help with state
with long-term tourism. The residents have the opportunity to merge themselves with other
cultures and present their city to attract new domestic and international tourists.
Limitations
One of the limitations to this survey was the use of a convenient sampling method. Convenience
sampling limits the survey from the larger population as the survey only reached 50 respondents
out of the entire Greater Boston Area. Additionally convenience sampling may address
responders who know the research. This may change the way one would answer a question, by
trying to give the “right” answer, and not their true thoughts.
Another limitation to the research was for question number three: “How many miles from
the City of Boston do you live?” The researcher should have given the option for people who do
not live within the Great Boston Area. This way, the researcher could remove their results and
use this question as a qualifier for continuing with the questionnaire.
Additionally, question number eight, which asks the responder how supportive they are
of increased taxes to support event infrastructure, should have had a qualifying question before
it. The qualifying question should have asked if the respondent is a Massachusetts taxpayer.

With this additional question, it would allow the researcher to eliminate the responder’s results
for number eight if they did not pay Massachusetts taxes.
Recommendations:
Past, current, and future quantitative research has and will be done to measure resident’s support
of hosting the Olympic Games. However, it would be beneficial to go into more in-depth and
detailed discussions, using qualitative interviews, with local residents to better understand their
reasons for being supportive or unsupportive.
It would also be helpful in future research to have one of the qualifying questions ask if
the responder is a state taxpayer for the city of the bid. This will eliminate college students or
recent graduates that live in the city, but still do not pay the state’s taxes. Not having to pay the
state’s taxes would differ their opinion on certain aspects of the event.
Another recommendation for this research could be to have another survey that measures
the support of business owners or managers of companies within the host city, especially
hospitality businesses (restaurants, hotels, etc.). This would enable the researcher to evaluate if
companies in Boston are in support of the bid; or if they agree with the average resident of the
city.
Significance:
The importance of support from local communities has been illustrated in numerous Olympic
research, however few surveys have been constructed before the event to evaluate that support.
This research can be useful to measure Boston’s support for the 2024 Summer Olympic bid. In
fact since there has been such little public support for the bid, there have been more community

surveys done for Boston to measure just public support (Nickisch, 2015). Boston’s NPR news
statin, 90.9 WBUR tested 504 registered Boston voters between March 16th-18th and results
indicate the support has continued to decrease (Nickisch, 2015). Support has fallen from 51% in
January 2015 to 36% in March 2015 (Nickisch, 2015). CEO of U.S. Olympic Committee, Scott
Blackmon, and Boston’s 2024 CEO, Rich Davey say that there is still time to convince the
residents that Boston is capable of hosting such an event (Nickisch, 2015). These exact
statements reinforce the researcher’s point that big executive powers will continue to overlook
the communities concerns and force an opposite view to those who oppose the bid, to those who
will be actually be experiencing the affects and concerns that come with the hosting of the
Olympics. Residents surveys have constructed, but the use to make changes based on the results
have yet to be seen. The search for a new United States host city has said to be underway, but
there are no confirmed alternatives as of April 2015 (Nickisch, 2015). This research could be
used by the Boston Olympic Committee and other political powers to analyze public support. It
could be then used to address those concerns by marketing to those specific issues, or it could be
that the support is too low that they use this information to remove themselves from the bid
completely.

References
Ahlert, G. (2006). Hosting the FIFA World Cup™ Germany 2006: Macroeconomic and regional
economic impacts. Journal Of Convention & Event Tourism, 8(2), 57-78.
Bob, U., Kassens-Noor, E. (2012). An Indictator framework to assess the legacy impacts of the
2010 FIFA World Cup. African Journal for Physical Health Education, Recreation &
Dance. 1, 12-21.
Briedenhann, J. (2011). Economic and tourism expectations of the 2010 FIFA World Cup: A
resident rerspective. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 15(1), 5-32. doi: 10.1080
Cost of the Olympic games - Cost to host Olympic games. (2015, January 1). Retrieved April 10,
2015, from http://www.tulsa2024.com/Cost_of_the_Olympic_games
FIFA, (2014). The official website of the FIFA World Cup™ - FIFA.com. (2014, January 1).
Retrieved November 10, 2014, from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/
Fourie, J., & Spronk, K. (2011). South African mega-sport events and their impact on
tourism. Journal Of Sport & Tourism, 16(1), 75-97. doi:10.1080
Giesecke, J. & Madden, J. (2011). Modeling the economic impacts of the Sydney Olympics in
retrospect- game over for the Bonanza story? The Economic Society of Australia. 30 (2),
218-232.
Gratton, C., Shibli S. & Coleman, R. (2005). Sport and economic regeneration in cities. Journal
of Urban Studies, 42(5), 985-999. doi: 10.1080/0042
Guala, A. & Turco, D. (2009). Resident perceptions of the 2006 Torino Olympic games.
Choregia, 5(2), 21-42.

Horne, J. & Manzenreiter, W. (2004). Accounting for mega-events: Forecast and actual impacts
of the 2002 World Cup finals on the host countries Japan/Korea. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, 39(2), 187-203. doi: 10.1177
Kaplanidou K. & Gibson H., Walker, W. (2013). Quality of life, events impacts, and mega-event
support among South African residents before and after the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 631-645. doi: 10.1177/0046
Li, S. (2013). Large sporting events and economic growth: Evidence from economic
consequences of event infrastructure. Event Management, 17(4), 425-438.
Li, S., & McCabe, S. (2013). Measuring the socio-economic legacies of mega-events: Concepts,
propositions and indicators. International Journal Of Tourism Research, 15(4), 388-402.
doi:10.1002
Owen, J. (2005). Estimating the cost and benefit of hosting Olympic games: What can Beijing
expect from its 2008 games? Industrial Geographer, 3(1), 1-18.
Shin, H. & Li, B. (2013). Whose games? The cost of being “Olympic citizens” in Bejing.
Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 559-575. doi: 10.1177
Swart, K. & Bob, U. (2012). Mega sport event legacies and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. African
Journal For Physical, Health Education, Recreation & Dance, 1(2), 1-11.
Tichaawa, T. & Bama, H. (2012). Green Point residents’ perceptions of the 2010 FIFA World
Cup: A post-event analysis. African Journal for Physical Health Education, Recreation
& Dance. 1, 22-32.
Trading economics, indicators from 196 countries. (2014, January 1). Retrieved November 21,
2014, from http://www.tradingeconomics.com

Weed, M. (2011). The Human impact of major sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16(1),
1-4. doi: 10.1080
Zhou, Y. & Ap, J. (2009). Residents’ perception towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008
Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 78-91. doi: 10.1177/0047
Zhou, Z. (2011). FIFA 2010 World Cup: Preparedness of Zimbabwean hotels. International
Journal Of Hospitality & Tourism Systems, 4(1), 135-156.

Appendix A
Consumer Form and Instrument

FinalTHESIS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FinalTHESIS

Similar to FinalTHESIS (20)

FinalTHESIS