1. IE601: Theorising The International Events Industry “After World War II,
the development of international events and festivals has been driven
by the logic of capitalism”3,320 words
This essay will centre on a discussion of the above statement, using two contrasting case studies
and two academic theories. The result is a dispute on the timeframe of capitalism, sponsorship
and international events prior to the end of World War II (WWII) in 1945. This creates a
discussion around the other driving factors of international events including politics and
consumer culture.
Capitalism arose after the Industrial Revolution, when people were separated from their land
and forced to sell their labour-power to expropriators for “the production of commodities” –
produce with value. This created surplus-value (profit), thus the logic of capitalism is to attain
profits (Comninel, 2000, p. 44; Cohen, 2003).
Sponsorship is used throughout to benchmark the establishment of capitalism in events with
discussion of the title statement. For the purpose of this essay, it is defined as: “an exchange
relationship involving payments made to events by external organisations (these can and do
include public agencies) or persons, for specific benefits provided by the events” (Getz, 2007, p.
283). Events often provide large audiences for sponsors to build relationships with. This can
create value in enhancing brand image and awareness through association with the event, with
the purpose of increasing sales and profits (Smart, 2007). In turn, this funding is at the heart of
the economics of the event itself, making the staging of events financially stable and more
lucrative (Stone, 2009; Budd, 2001). Sponsorship began to emerge in international events
between 1969 and 1980 (Preuss, 2008).

2. One of the first heavily sponsored international events was the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic
Games, 39 years after WWII. Previously the games had been publically financed; however, the
huge deficit of the 1976 Montreal Games caused the people of Los Angeles to vote against
public financing of the 1984 Games (Preuss, 2008). In 1980, the International Olympic
Committee began embracing commercialisation, through television rights, sponsorship and
rights to use the Olympic Logo (Budd, 2001; Smart, 2007). Consequently, the organisers of the
Los Angeles Games secured financial independence for the Olympic Movement for the first time
by selling sponsorship and television rights (Preuss, 2008). Whilst investment into infrastructure
and facilities was limited, in the face of a history of financial problems with the Olympic
Movement from 1896, incredibly, the 1984 Games turned a profit of US$335m (Preuss, 2008, p.
420).
The 1984 Games exploited the Olympics as one of the biggest global advertising opportunities:
The Games are watched by 92.5% of the global population with access to a television, with
intense media attention in the weeks and months prior (Preuss, 2008, p. 425). This is an
outstanding global reach for sponsors and broadcasters who can then make a profit from
advertising based on this exposure. As the only bidder for the burdened Games in 1984, this
provided a successful blueprint for future games prompting a wider growth in corporate
sponsorship (Getz, 2007). Its success reinvigorated bids for hosting such events and saw the
introduction of the TOP tiered sponsor programme (IOC, 2015). Today, the Olympic Movement
is entirely privately funded, with 48% of total revenue sources from broadcasting rights and 35%
from sponsorship (IOC, 2015).
1984 was immediately followed by a rise in Olympic bids, with each host city led by their own
business values for hosting such an event including: regenerative benefits for Barcelona, 1992;

3. successful destination marketing for Sydney, 2000 and; proving global economic strength for
Beijing, 2008 (Preuss, 2008). In this case, the drive of international events appears to be the
result of macro-economic benefits including international trade and/or travel. These are impacts
of economic changes including globalisation and capitalism (Budd, 2001).
A macro-economic theory can be applied to argue the impacts of such aggregate economic
changes on the international event industry. It highlights the acceleration of international events
as a result of the major economic shifts to capitalism and globalisation. This is analysed within
events through three processes: commodification, commercialisation and professionalisation,
ultimately resulting in the bourgeoisification of events for profit.
According to Marx referenced in Cohen (2003), economics form the base of society. Historically,
events have been an expression of celebrations in society (Bowdin, et al., 2006). Consequently,
macro-economic analysis can be used to observe how economic change has impacted the
nature of events. The two most notable socio-economic changes addressed include the
Industrial Revolution between 1820 and 1840 and the evolution of a globalised capitalist
economy between 1870 and 1914 (Comninel, 2000; Abdelal & Ruggie, 2009).
Prior to capitalism, within a feudalist society, events were religious rituals or ceremonial
celebrations amongst communities (Cohen, 2003; Bowdin, et al., 2006). Following the industrial
revolution, organisations became privatised for profit, creating commercial enterprise (Gilpin,
2000; Comninel, 2000). People sold their labour-power to such organisations and consequently
people had less time and energy to celebrate (Comninel, 2000; Cohen, 2003; Bowdin, et al.,
2006). As people moved to urbanised areas, community celebrations declined and whole
populations began celebrating in similar ways (Picard & Robinson, 2006; Getz, 2007).
Consequently, an event industry evolved (Bowdin, et al., 2006).

4. Following a boom or bust cycle of capitalist economies, beginning from 1870, prior to WWII, the
first triumph of global capitalism was not until the end of the Cold War in 1989. Improved
international relations, eased trade restrictions and booming American production allowed
capital to flow across borders, giving rise to international trade and a global economic system,
known as globalisation (Gilpin, 2000). Abdelal & Ruggie (2009) identify the first era of
globalisation between 1870 and 1914. This was destroyed by the 1930’s Great Depression and
more formally liberated and promoted post-WWII – a key event in the title statement (Abdelal &
Ruggie, 2009).
Theorising the initial introduction to globalisation, this has arisen as a result of:
internationalisation of cross-border resource movements demonstrated through travel and
trade; liberalisation of any restrictions on this exchange and; universalisation towards a global
culture demonstrated through global celebrations (Scholte, 2000). Consequently, events have
become internationalised and an international event industry has developed (Weed, 2005;
Picard & Robinson, 2006; Getz, 2007).
Internationalisation meant that people and spending began to move across borders (Scholte,
2000). Subsequently, travel and tourism began to boom after WWII (Weed, 2005). As travel and
tourism was recognised as bringing external money into local economies, local/national
businesses and governments began promoting destinations, often using international events as
a commodified marketing platform (Weed, 2005). This increased national rivalry is central to the
growth of capitalism (Budd, 2001; Weed, 2005). This in turn has promoted a strong political and
local business involvement in hosting and profiting from international events (Senn, 1999; Getz,
2007; Merkel, 2014). This demonstrates that it is not only the sponsors who seek capitalist gains;
the social benefits are reaped by the State, which Budd (2001) refers to as the aggregate

5. capitalist. Whilst politics form another driving factor of international events, this has clear links
to capitalism. For this reason, events have been commoditised and professionalised to achieve
such business values (Smart, 2007). It would appear that an international event industry has
arisen from a capitalist culture.
This was facilitated by the rise of global media after WWII, providing a platform to reach and
impact tourist perceptions of host destinations, using commodified events (McDonnell & Moir,
2014). It also inspired international business decisions to sponsor events for its reach to global
audiences (Weed, 2005; Andrews & Leopold, 2013). Commercialisation of events was rapidly
accelerated as a result of the relationship between globalisation, universalisation and the media:
As developing countries began to adopt Western capitalism and modernity, many coveted
Western products, opening a new profitable market for trade (Weed, 2005). The coverage of
international events gave sponsors access to these markets (Weed, 2005). Consequently,
sponsorship is argued as the most powerful media within marketing communications, resulting
in omnipresent commercialisation of international events (McDonnell & Moir, 2014).
Sponsorship increased most notably since the 1970s, when UK sponsorship expenditure rose
from £4M in 1970 to £35M in 1980 and £288M by 1990; today the spend stands at $48 billion
worldwide (McDonnell & Moir, 2014). Advertisers and sponsors have long seen the advantages
of association with events, however, commercialisation has accelerated in modern times, with
globalisation giving access to a global consumer market through events and the media (Budd,
2001; Smart, 2007). As a result, it was remarked in 1990 that professional sport, the media and
corporate sponsorship had formed a golden triangle for mutual profit; a concept later supported
by FIFA President Sepp Blatter in 2006 as the World Cup followed a similar process of
commercialisation alongside the Olympics (Aris, 1990 in Smart, 2007).

6. The last century has seen an explosion of sporting events and music festivals (Getz, 2007; Smart,
2007; Stone, 2009). As events have become commoditised and commercialised, with the
potential to turn a profit themselves (Smart, 2007), they have developed as a professionalised
industry, most notably since WWII. It is the integration of commodification, commercialisation
and professionalisation within a capitalist economy that has led to the bourgeoisification of such
events: slowly adopting and taking over an event with commercial benefit to sell to a more
affluent section of society in order to increase profits (Fürtjes, 2014). This capitalist logic, despite
the loss of the original essence of the event, provides financial security and commercial interest
in hosting international events (Budd, 2001; Slack, 2004; Stone, 2009). This has arguably caused
the increased frequency of international events, particularly post-WWII, explicitly supporting the
title statement.
Despite its modern developments and perception as a new communications tool, sponsorship in
fact dates back to one of the biggest event spectacles of ancient history: gladiatorial events,
2,000-3,000 years ago (Masterman, 2007; McDonnell & Moir, 2014). Gladiatorial fights were
huge entertainment hosted in purpose built venues for up to 60,000 people and organised by an
early form of event manager (Masterman, 2007). Research shows such events to be as reliant on
sponsorship as events today (McDonnell & Moir, 2014). Wealthy nobility funded both venues
and professional gladiators as a demonstration of wealth and power. By associating oneself with
the entertainment capital of the popular event, benefactors could gain improved prestige,
reputation and social standing (Masterman, 2007; Getz, 2007; McDonnell & Moir, 2014).
Sponsorship was also commonly used as a political tool to entertain, promote ideologies and
distract from socio-political discontent and revolution (Tomlinson, 2002; McDonnell & Moir,
2014). The stadiums were surrounded by commercial activity, including: posters marketing the

7. event to the city and surrounding areas; concession stands selling food, drink and souvenirs and;
sculptors and poets marketing their work (McDonnell & Moir, 2014).
The two above case studies are separated by thousands of years; nevertheless, whilst the
content has drastically changed, the essence surrounding the event bears many similarities.
Thus, by taking a configurational theory with a longer-term perspective, the title statement is
fundamentally flawed. Configurational theory appreciates that civilisation in an ongoing process
with historical developments in human behaviour (Elias & Jephcott, 1982; Elias, 2008).
Therefore, this essay also examines the earliest emergence of sponsorship demonstrated in the
former gladiatorial case study prior to capitalism.
Although these were local and national events, they already show traits of early macro-
economic development. The commodification of events by sponsors is evident, used as a show
of power and wealth and as a political ‘bread and circuses’ tool for appeasement and distraction
(Eisinger, 2000). This is evidence of social and political agendas other than the need to make
profit driving events. The commercialisation surrounding the event is demonstrated through
pre-event marketing, concession stands and artists. Professional gladiators and event managers
even show early signs of professionalisation, creating an event industry before capitalism was
born.
By taking a configurational approach to analysis, it would appear that this was not a historical
anomaly. Gladiatorial fights are the earliest known examples of commodification,
commercialisation and professionalisation. Although generally referred to as philanthropy, the
mutual benefits to the individual benefactor are more reflective of the earlier sponsorship
definition. Giving a history of sponsorship, Skinner & Rukavina (2003) noted this to continue as
“patronage” of the arts from 1600 B.C. This form of sponsorship continued into the Middle Ages,

8. with The Church and aristocracy as philanthropic benefactors (Masterman, 2007; Getz, 2007). As
with gladiatorial sponsors, these philanthropists benefited power and political stead over
working class by using entertainment and events as a commodity. Commodification for political
value and power is still argued as a driving force of international events today, disputing the sole
capitalist influence of the title statement (Senn, 1999; Getz, 2007; Merkel, 2014).
Commercialisation continued in 1631, when advertising came into existence as a means to gain
commercial exposure through publications (Skinner & Rukavina, 2003). To give a brief timeline
of latter commercial activity, by 1860, sporting stars began fronting corporate endorsements;
1861 saw the earliest known event sponsorship of a cricket event; in 1898, high-profile football
team, Nottingham Forrest signed a sponsorship contract with beverage company, Bovril; in
1941, the first commercial advert was shown in the ad-break of a baseball game (Gratton &
Taylor, 2000; Smart, 2007; Masterman, 2007). This supports capitalist tendencies and
commercialisation in and around sporting events, but prior to WWII, disputing the time-frame of
the title statement.
The internationalisation of events can be traced back to a similar time in the late 19th century.
This was driven by the codification of folk games and their subsequent internationalisation
through colonial relations, commercial relations and cultural trade within the British Empire
(Gilpin, 2000; Smart, 2007). The first major international event was the first Modern Olympics,
1896 in Athens (Gilpin, 2000; Smart, 2007). Notably, this event already had advertising present;
by 1928, Coca-Cola was awarded product sampling rights for the Amsterdam Olympic Games
(Smart, 2007). It is therefore proven that the evolution of international events and global
commercialisation combined began long before WWII and before the 1989 success of
capitalism, fundamentally contradicting the title statement.

9. This essay has so far discussed the evolution of capitalist tendencies in events through
sponsorship, exemplified through the case studies. This has proved to dispute the timeframe of
the title statement. The accelerated development of international events (particularly since the
1970s) is clearly an economic consequence of capitalism in events through sponsorship,
however, sponsorship dates back to gladiatorial events (Slack, 2004). Thus, other factors
including politics and cultural change have arisen as the potential driving forces of events.
Politics has already been touched upon with the State as the aggregate capitalist of events, but
also as a supporter for gained power and political stead. This is not a new phenomenon,
demonstrated in gladiatorial times, through the Middle Ages and still today with State
involvement in the Olympics, World Cups and World Expositions (Merkel, 2014). Events are a
means to achieve soft power: that is the ability to entice and encourage people to do what they
otherwise would not have done, rather than through force or pressure (Nye, 2004). Touched on
as the notion of ‘bread and circuses’, events can also be used as a shallow tool for distraction,
entertainment or immediate satisfaction for the people in order to remain in power (Eisinger,
2000). However, Eisinger (2000) argues that this notion of the circus has instead become a focus
of building a city for the visitor, supporting the capitalist ideal of tourism and events (Eisinger,
2000). Politically, mega-events are often sold to the public as a means to achieve more jobs, new
infrastructure, civic pride, regeneration, etc. (Getz, 2007). Whilst these have economic
foundations, their seeming purpose is for social good (Preuss, 2008; Robertson, 2009; Grix,
2012; Foley, et al., 2012). Still, there are commonly other underlying political motivations to
reinforce political values; promote party propaganda and/or; to be re-elected (Getz, 2007).
Whilst this is not a direct result of capitalism, Whitson & Macintosh (1996) argue that the end
outcome – the profits from such events - are concentrated to private gains despite public costs,
representative of a capitalist society. This demonstrates that there are many branches behind

10. the politics of events, both including and excluding aggregate capitalist gains. Given that many
international events are partially if not solely publically funded, politics is clearly another
fundamental driving factor that extends beyond capitalism (Preuss, 2008).
McDonnell & Moir (2014) argue that today, almost all public special events are sponsored. Budd
(2001) applied this industry wide, arguing that today, events are an expression of the capitalist
society surrounding them. However, it is important to note that events can also exist without
sponsorship, strictly contradicting the argument for capitalist influence. Examples include the
Beautiful Days event and Green Man festival (Stone, 2009). Despite the fact that many festivals
are set to lose money each summer, the managing director of Green Man felt that a smaller
profit is an acceptable price to pay to avoid their event having any sort of corporate feel
(Atkinson, 2010). This implies that an alternative motive for the event exists other than profit.
Both festivals are still going strong for 2016, continuing without sponsorship (Green Man, 2016;
Beautiful Days, 2016).
Of course, there is also an increasing demand for international events and festivals, which is not
driven by attendees seeking profits, but by consumer culture. This essay has touched upon social
change at various points. Gladiatorial games and the spectacle of death as entertainment were a
reflection of the norms and values of the period (Kyle, 1998). The event spectacle became a
distraction from everyday life, as they were post-industrialisation when leisure time was limited
(Eisinger, 2000). It is clear from this essay that social change has evolved sporting events from
gladiatorial to folk games to international sport. Today, consumer culture has been exaggerated
with the development of modernity, experiential consumption and Disneyisation (Pine &
Gilmore, 2011; Bryman, 2004). This has created the increasing demand for new and spectacular
experiences and thus new events (Schmitt, 1999; Grundey, 2008; Wood & Masterman, 2008).

11. International events often provide a culturally “new experience” (Wood & Masterman, 2008).
Whilst this is fuelled by consumer culture, it can also be linked back to the commodification of
events by destinations as a tourism platform, as supported by Zukin (1995, p. 2) who noted that
“culture is more and more the business of cities.” This has developed alongside globalisation as
discussed previously in that consumers now have more money and more access to international
events, fuelling demand. From an economic perspective, in 2000 the leisure industry accounted
for over one quarter of all consumer spending, 10% of employment in the UK and brings in over
£20 billion per annum in foreign exchange (Gratton & Taylor, 2000, p. 3). Whilst the staging of
events may be for capitalist gains, this would not be achievable without demand, arguably
developed from consumer culture. This forms another driving force of international events and
festivals. As with Marx’s theory, this may still be an impact of the changes in economics and
globalisation as the base of society, however, this has been a process of evolution both before
and during capitalism.
Consumer culture could also be argued as the driving force behind sponsorship. The 1984
Games were likely to have been so successful selling sponsorship and broadcasting rights due to
the fact that 92.5% of the global population with access to a television watched them (Preuss,
2008, p. 425). From a commercial perspective, a 2003 valuation attributed over two-thirds of
global sponsorship to sporting events (Smart, 2007). This is likely as a result of the consumer
culture of sport. In Smart (2007, p. 114) the Nike Founder was quote as labelling sport as
increasingly becoming “the culture of the world”. It is this shared interest in spectator
consumption of sport that has opened up a global market for sponsors. Although the purpose of
sponsorship is predominantly due to economic benefits, it is driven by consumer culture.

12. In summary, this essay has defined capitalism, providing pretext to its economic evolution
alongside globalisation, analysing the impacts on society and more specifically, events. This was
applied to events through the capitalist tendencies of modern day sponsorship and analysed
within a macro-economic framework. This was then compared to its evolution using a
configurational approach. Having considered the evidence above, the title statement is
fundamentally flawed and many gaps for discussion arose.
Modern day sponsorship is arguably an economic consequence of capitalism in events, with
sponsors reaping the profits of global exposure. Similarly, public financing is also an economic
consequence with destinations showcased for tourism and trade as a result of globalisation. This
was facilitated by the rise of global media after WWII. As the economic basis for events, this
increased commercial and political interest and funding has made the staging of events
financially secure and often profitable as seen with the 1984 Games. This appears to support the
development of international events after WWII due to the logic of capitalism. This statement is
exemplified through the modern phenomenon of event bourgeoisification, purely for profit.
However, sponsorship is not an influence of capitalism. Using the gladiatorial case study as an
example, it dates back to ancient history, evolving through the Middle Ages and so on.
Sponsorship was instead used for political and social benefits. This is still argued today beyond
capitalist gains. It was also acknowledged that many events exist without sponsorship despite
the negative impact on profits, therefore their existence must be driven by an alternative
motivation. This was analysed with the social change of consumer culture. Another driving
factor besides capitalism was this consumer culture, both for the entertainment spectacles of
gladiatorial and Olympic events. This mass consumption can also be argued as the driving force
of sponsorship, providing the exposure. This evolution is consumer culture has left consumers

13. today increasingly seeking new and spectacular experiences, accessible internationally.
Nevertheless, under Marx theory, all societal changes are as a result of economic changes in the
first instance.
To conclude, capitalism has clearly accelerated the development of international events,
particularly from the 1970s, yet their development dates back before capitalism and before
WWII. It is therefore arguably fuelled by other influences including politics, social change and
consumer culture.

14. Bibliography
Abdelal, R. & Ruggie, J. G., 2009. The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social
Legitimacy and Global Capitalism. In: D. Moss & J. Cisternino, eds. New
Perspectives on Regulation. Cambridge: The Tobin Project, pp. 151-161.
Andrews, H. & Leopold, T., 2013. Events and The Social Sciences. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Aris, S., 1990. Sportsbiz: Inside The Sports Business. London: Hutchinson in
Smart, B., 2007. Not Playing Around: Global Capitalism, Modern Sport and
Consumer Culture. Global Networks, 7(2), pp. 113-134.
Atkinson, S., 2010. Festivals shunning sponsors' cash. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10120490
[Accessed 8 January 2016].
Beautiful Days, 2016. Beautiful Days. [Online]
Available at: http://www.beautifuldays.org/
[Accessed 8 January 2016].
Bowdin, G. A. et al., 2006. Events Management. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
Bryman, A., 2004. The Disneyization of Society. London: SAGE Publications.
Budd, A., 2001. Capitalism, Sport and Resistance: Reflections. Culture, Sport,
Society, 4(1), pp. 1-18.
Cohen, I. J., 2003. The Juggernaut of Capitalist Modernity: The Revolutionary
Bourgeoisie, the End of Tradition, and New Social Powers. In: R. J. Antonio, ed.
Marx and Modernity: Key Readings and Commentary. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
pp. 75-78.
Comninel, G. C., 2000. English Feudalism and the Orgins of Capitalism. The Journal
of Peasant Studies, 27(4), pp. 1-53.

15. Eisinger, P., 2000. The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the
Visitor Class. Urban Affairs Review, 35(3), pp. 316-333.
Elias, N., 2008. Power and Civilisation. Journal of Power, 1(2), pp. 135-142.
Elias, N. & Jephcott, E., 1982. The Civilizing Process. 2nd ed. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Foley, M., McGillvray, D. & McPherson, G., 2012. Event policy: from theory to
strategy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fürtjes, O., 2014. Football and its continuity as a classless mass phenomenon in
Germany and England: rethinking the bourgeoisification of football crowds. Soccer
& Society, pp. 1-22.
Getz, D., 2007. Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy For Planned Events.
London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gilpin, R., 2000. The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the
21st Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gratton, C. & Taylor, P., 2000. The Economics of Sport and Recreation. London:
Spon Press.
Green Man, 2016. Green Man 2016. [Online]
Available at: http://www.greenman.net/
[Accessed 8 January 2016].
Grix, J., 2012. ‘Image’ leveraging and sports mega-events: Germany and the 2006
FIFA World Cup. The Journal of Sport Tourism, 17(4), pp. 289-312.
Grundey, D., 2008. Experiential Marketing vs. Traditional Marketing: Creating
Rational and Emotional Liaisons with Consumers. The Romanian Economic Journal,
29(3), pp. 133-151.
IOC, 2015. Revenue Sources and Distribution. [Online]
Available at: http://www.olympic.org/ioc-financing-revenue-sources-

16. distribution?tab=sources
[Accessed 23 December 2015].
Kyle, D. G., 1998. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.
Masterman, G., 2007. Sponsorship: for a return on investment. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
McDonnell, I. & Moir, M., 2014. Event Sponsorship. London: Routledge.
Merkel, U., 2014. Power, politics and international events: socio-cultural analyses
of festivals and spectacles. London: Routledge.
Nye, J. S., 2004. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York:
Public Affairs.
Picard, D. & Robinson, M., 2006. Festivals, Tourism and Social Change: Remaking
worlds. Buffalo: Channel View Pub.
Pine, J. B. & Gilmore, J. H., 2011. The Experience Economy. 2nd ed. Boston:
Harvard Business.
Preuss, H., 2008. The Olympic Games: Winners and Losers. In: B. Houlihan, ed.
Sport and Society: A Student Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.
415-435.
Robertson, M., 2009. Destination, Image and Development. In: J. Ali-Knight, M.
Robertson, A. Fyall & A. Ladkin, eds. International Perspectives of Festivals and
Events: Paradigms of Analysis. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 1-94.
Schmitt, B., 1999. Experiential Marketing. Journal of Marketing Management,
15(1), pp. 53-67.
Scholte, J. A., 2000. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Senn, A. E., 1999. Power, politics, and the Olympic Games. Leeds: Human Kinetics.
Skinner, B. E. & Rukavina, V., 2003. Event Sponsorship. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc..
Slack, T., 2004. The Commercialisation of Sport. London: Routledge.

17. Smart, B., 2007. Not Playing Around: Global Capitalism, Modern Sport and
Consumer Culture. Global Networks, 7(2), pp. 113-134.
Stone, C., 2009. The British Pop Music Festival Phenomenon. In: J. Ali-Knight, M.
Robertson, A. Fyall & A. Ladkin, eds. International Perspectives of Festivals and
Events: Paradigms of Analysis. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 205-224.
Tomlinson, A., 2002. Theorising spectacle: Beyond Debord. In: A. Tomlinson & J.
Sugden, eds. Power games: A critical sociology of sport. London: Routledge, pp.
44-60.
Weed, M., 2005. Sports Sponsorship and Tourism Flows. In: J. M. Amis & T. B.
Cornwell, eds. Global Sport Sponsorship. Oxford: Berg, pp. 107-126.
Whitson, D. & Macintosh, D., 1996. The Global Circus: International Sport, Tourism
and The Marketing of Cities. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20(3), pp. 278-
295.
Wood, E. & Masterman, G., 2008. Event Marketing: Measuring an experience?.
Venice, 7th International Marketing Trends Congress.
Zukin, S., 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.