Large-Scale Sport Events: Influences on Sport Development Outcomes
Large-scale sport events are perceived to offer a range of potential outcomes for host cities. Sport development is one outcome that is often used to encourage public support and justify government spending on bidding and hosting large-scale sport events. However, studies investigating the relationship between large-scale sport events and sport development outcomes have not provided conclusive evidence to suggest such outcomes occur and there has been limited investigation into why this is so. This research applies interorganisational theory as a framework to better understand the delivery of sport development outcomes from large-scale sport events.
Preliminary findings presented at the SMAANZ 2011 Conference in Melbourne, Australia.
• Background• Research Problem• Theoretical Framework• Conceptual Framework• Research Questions• Research Design• Findings• Discussion• Concluding Comments
• Large-scale sport events offer a range of outcomes for host cities• Sport development outcomes are often used to encourage public support and justify government spending on these events• Sport development:“policies, processes and practices that form an integral feature of work involved in providing sporting opportunities and positive sporting experiences” (Bramham & Hylton, 2008, p. 2)• Assumption that sport events are a catalyst to get more people participating in sport more often – “trickle-down effect” (Hindson, Gidlow, & Peebles, 1994)
• There is limited research that supports the trickle- down effect• There is limited understanding of the relationship between large-scale sport events and sport development outcomes• Event leverage for economic, tourism and broader social outcomes: – importance of coordination and cooperation between organisations for achieving these broader outcomes (Chalip, 2002, 2006; Chalip & Leyns, 2002; Kellet et. al., 2008; O’Brien, 2005, 2006, 2007; O’Brien & Chalip, 2007, 2008; O’Brien & Gardiner, 2006)
• Interorganisational Network (ION) Theory (Benson, 1975; Hudson, 2004) – Organisational activities influenced by interrelationships between many organisations operating interdependently in a network• Effectiveness of IONs based on 4 dimensions:1. Domain Consensus – agreement between organisations for scope and role of organisations within the ION;2. Ideological Consensus – agreement between organisations for nature of tasks presented, and the appropriate methods for tasks;3. Interorganisational Evaluation – perception of the value of work of one organisation by another organisation in the ION;4. Work Coordination – patterns of collaboration and cooperation between organisations to achieve effectiveness and efficiency.
C Domain B Consensus Event A Organising Committee Ideological Sport Consensus Development Outcomes from a large- Key KeyOrganisation Organisation Inter- scale sport organisational event Evaluation Work Coordination D
• How can a large-scale sport event be used for sport development outcomes? – Identify the key organisations that impact on sport development outcomes from a sport event; – Establish how these key organisations conceptualise sport development from a sport event; – Examine the nature of the relationships that exist between these key organisations; – Investigate the factors that influence sport development outcomes from a sport event, at the: • organisational level; and • interorganisational network level.
• Case Study: Sydney 2009 World Masters Games• Data collection: Documents (and Interviews)• Data analysis: Open and Pattern Coding (Bazeley, 2007; Bryman, 2004) – sport development outcomes
Key OrganisationsEvent Organising Sydney 2009 World Masters GamesCommittee Organising Committee (SWMGOC)Relevant Government NSW Premiers Department & MajorDepartments Event Board (bid phase and legislation) NSW Sport & Recreation (later NSW Department of Communities)Contracted Sport 28 sports included in the event: SSOs,Organisations NSOs and a Masters Sport AssociationEvent Governing Body International Masters Games Association (IMGA)
NSW NSW Sport Development... SWMGOC Prem’s Sport & IMGA Sport Orgs Dept RecEncouraging ActiveLifestylesPromotion of SportParticipationEnhance Capacity forSport DevelopmentLegacy for Masters Sport– Enhanced Capacity
NSW NSW Sport Development... SWMGOC Prem’s Sport & IMGA Sport Orgs Dept Rec General Bid GeneralPlanned for... Objective Objective Objective/ promise Charter MissionStrategies implemented... None None None None LimitedOutcomes evaluated... None None None None Limited
• The preliminary findings show various ideas regarding what sport development outcomes were meant to be achieved through the Sydney World Masters Games – a lack of Domain Consensus• Without Domain Consensus there is no shared vision by which to guide organisational efforts to meet a common goal• As a result, sport development outcomes are adhoc, or become missed opportunities
Conclusions Future Research• To realise sport • Investigate relationships development outcomes between key from large-scale sport organisations and events: broader network – Shared vision; influences – Responsibility; and – Coordination
• Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.• Benson, J. (1975). The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229-249.• Bramham, P., & Hylton, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Hylton & P. Bramham (Eds.), Sports Development: Policy, process and practice (2 ed., pp. 1-9). Oxon: Routledge.• Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.• Chalip, L. (2002). Using the Olympics to optimise tourism benefits: University lecture on the Olympics [online article]. Retrieved from http://olympicstudies.uab.es/lec/pdf/chalip.pdf• Chalip, L. (2006). Towards Social Leverage of Sport. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 109-127.• Chalip, L., & Leyns, A. (2002). Local Business Leveraging of a Sport Event: Managing an Event for Economic Benefit. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 132-158.• Hindson, A., Gidlow, B., & Peebles, C. (1994). The "trickle-down" effect of top-level sport: myth or reality? A case study of the Olympics. Australian Journal of Leisure Recreation, 4, 16-24.• Hudson, B. (2004). Analysing Network Partnerships. Public Management Review, 6(1), 75-94.• Kellett, P., Hede, A. M., & Chalip, L. (2008). Social Policy for Sport Events: Leveraging (Relationships with) Teams from other Nations for Community Benefit. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(2), 101-121.• OBrien, D. (2005). Strategic Business Leveraging of a Mega Sport Event: The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games Experience. Australia: The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre; Australian Government,.• OBrien, D. (2006). Event Business Leveraging: The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 240- 261.• OBrien, D. (2007). Points of leverage: maximising host community benefit from a regional surfing festival. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(2), 141-165.• OBrien, D., & Chalip, L. (2007). Executive training exercise in sport event leverage. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(4), 296-304.• OBrien, D., & Chalip, L. (2008). Sport events and strategic leveraging: pushing towards the triple bottom line. In A. Woodside & D. Martin (Eds.), Advancing Tourism Management (pp. 318-338). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.• OBrien, D., & Gardiner, S. (2006). Creating Sustainable Mega Event Impacts: Networking and Relationship Development through Pre-Event Training. Sport Management Review, 9, 25-47.