The Olympic Games Management and Legacy

Kristine Toohey
Griffith University
Queensland
Australia

As the Olympic Games are the largest and most popular multisport event in the world
and have been in existence for over a hundred years, it stands to reason that there
should be a wealth of practitioner knowledge and vast corpus of academic research
about: their management; the complex web of organisations associated with their
planning and celebration; the impact they make, both in the community where they
are staged and also more globally; and the legacy they leave behind in these
communities. Yet, despite their global prominence, until recently ‘mega events’, such
as the Olympic Games, have attracted relatively little research attention relative to
other fields of study. This may be because ‘as a cultural phenomenon they appear to
fall within and between a number of distinct and unrelated disciplines and areas’
(Roche, 2000: 5). However, since Roche’s comment, there has been a growth in sport
and event scholarship in general and particularly regarding the Olympic Games. This
increase in academic attention has grown both in terms of its quantity and scope. In
all of these research areas, but especially in terms of the latter, recent academic
emphasis has broadened the variety of disciplines and perspectives of the scholarship
that now examines the Olympic Movement (see Warning, Toohey and Zakus, 2008).

Disciplines provide an accepted means of categorising research on the Olympic

Games and they have largely determined the range of topics selected for study, the
theoretical frameworks brought to bear on a topic and the research methodologies
used (Toohey and Veal, 2007). According to Toohey and Veal, (2007) most
humanities and social science disciplines and sub-disciplines, including history
(arguably the first area of Olympic scholarly enquiry), economics, philosophy,
politics and sociology, have contributed to better understandings about the Olympic
Games. For example, economic analyses of the Games have become increasingly
common and are now used by many cities to determine the feasibility of bidding for
Games and as one, but by no means the only, means of evaluating their impact and
legacy. Sociological research on the Olympics has examined the relationship between
the media and the Games, the place of women in the Olympic Movement, as well as
many other areas, especially within critical and cultural studies frameworks.
Examining the legacy of the Games in a host city has incorporated historical,
economic, sociological, urban studies, management and political analyses.

Another discipline that has evidenced an increase in scholars examining the Games is
sport management, itself a fairly recent discipline. However, it is one that is growing
in stature and now has a corpus of sound scholarship that can inform Olympic
practitioners and academics alike. These links between academe and Olympic
managers is important for the former to have real world relevance and the latter to
advance practice. Part of the growth of sport management research on the Games can
also be attributed to event management literature. These two areas of scholarship
overlap, even though both can exist independently. Indeed, the boundaries between
many of the disciplines that investigate the Games are blurred. This is not problematic
per se, but does mean that scholars may need to broaden their Olympic gaze beyond
their home disciplines to be able to be cognisant of the range of relevant and recent
work in areas other than their own.

Following the brief provided by the International Olympic Committee, Centre for
Olympic Studies, this paper seeks to examine recent research on the topics of
Olympic Games Management and Legacy by: analysing the topic: providing a review
of relevant literature: and discussing three different and developing Olympic
management research streams (risk management, knowledge management and legacy
management). It will focus on some of the latest research in these areas, specifically
looking at alternative and emerging studies, rather than more established and well
known approaches. By doing this it seeks to anticipate future research directions.

This approach to moving knowledge forward can be explained by the information

transfer cycle, which is depicted in Figure 1 below. According to this model,
information and knowledge are created from the application of new techniques, new
insights, and/or new research to existing information and knowledge (Warning,
2007). It is predicated on links, acceptance and/or rejection of past practice and may
result in paradigm shifts.

Scholarship advances based on previous works and paradigm shifts in Olympic

scholarship have meant that even these relatively new research streams are
evidencing changes in their theoretical approaches. It is these changes that firstly
create tensions with accepted research and practice, but can ultimately lead to new
research directions as well as innovative, reflexive and responsive management. This,
to me, is the potential of Olympic studies: not just a broadening of the disciplines that
examine it, but conceptual alternatives leading to advances within these disciplines
that can be applied to the management of the Games by various stakeholders.
 Use
Create

Deliver
Coll
ect

Acce
ss

Organise

Store

Figure One: The Information Transfer Cycle: Choy, 1996 in Warning, 2007

Sport management
Sport management is a new and multidisciplinary field that integrates the principles
of management to the sport industry (Lussier and Kimball, 2004; Covell et al, 2003).
Research on more generalised management, although older, is still relatively new in
terms of comparison to established academic disciplines. Management only became a
generally accepted area of scholarly enquiry in the twentieth century. Central to much
of the early management research was the examination of the functions of
management and the roles of those who perform this. For example, in his seminal
work, Henri Fayol suggested that the five functions of a manager are to plan,
organize, command, coordinate and control to ensure organizational success (Fayol,
1949). Henry Mintzberg (1980) suggested that instead of conceptualizing
management by functions it could be better understood by analysing the roles that
managers perform. He determined that there were ten roles of a manager. These were:
figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur,
disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiator (Covell et al, 2007). Even in
the relatively short period since this influential research was conducted, our
understanding of management and sport management has advanced and is now much
broader in scope. The external and internal environments in which sport organizations
exist have also altered. In terms of the former, Covell et al (2007) suggest that the
most significant change is that contemporary sport organizations are too complex to
be managed by managers alone and that responsibility is now more diffused
throughout organizations. The Olympic Movement provides many practical examples
of this, such as the management philosophy of the Sydney Olympic Games, which
was to devolve many decisions down to operational units.

In terms of the external environment, the forces of globalization that have accelerated
in the last twenty years have meant that effective sport management has to be
strategic and plan for changes on both global and local levels, not merely be reactive
to events. Thus, contemporary sport management commonly involves the application
of techniques and strategies that are also used in other commercial businesses as well
as in government and non-profit organizations. Sport managers must employ strategic
planning, manage human resources and deal a range of interconnected stakeholders.
The strategic management process involves an overlap between preparation and
opportunity (Hoye et al, 2006). ‘In strategic planning, management develops a
mission and long-term objectives and determines in advance how they will be
accomplished’ (Lussier and Kimball: 2004, p. 82). ‘However there are some aspects
of strategic management, organizational structure, human resource management,
leadership, organizational culture, governance and performance management… are
unique to the management of sport organizations’ (Hoye et al: 2006, p.11). This is
why sport management can stand alone as an academic discipline and why effective
sport managers must understand the unique environment of sport.

Although sport management research has advanced and expanded its subject matter,
Pitts (2001, p.1) argues that sport management needs to open out its dominant
paradigms, “beyond the passive acceptance of constructed definitions and positions
about sport management and its content without question. Thus, it is both necessary
and prudent to view sport management beyond the traditional view of managing
sports”.

The Olympic Games not only utilise sport management principles in their operations,
but from an academic perspective, they also have a strong nexus to the discipline. For
example, Frisby (2005 p.7) notes how the Olympic Games can provide rich insights
into sport management research. ‘This involves questioning taken-for-granted
knowledge and examining the complex relationships between local forms of
domination and the broader contexts in which they are situated. This requires an
understanding of how material and economic arrangements are enforced by contracts
and reward systems.’ Similarly, Rosner and Shropshire (2004, p. 204) note that, ‘the
business of the Olympics is a combination of organizations… each wields a certain
degree of power and all must, sometimes with difficulty, work together to stage the
Olympics’ (Rosner and Shropshire, p. 204). This is important as the Olympic Games
involve the combination of a complex web of organisations that need to work
together effectively. Thus, stakeholder theory, which will be mentioned in greater
detail later, is an applicable theory that Olympic managers can utilise to ensure more
effective outcomes.

While the work of the IOC and other many organisations within the Olympic
Movement is ongoing, Olympic sport competition management and operations (such
as that practiced by OCOGs) can be thought of in terms of beyond sport management.
It can also be categorised as ‘event’ management. Some sport events are run by
governing bodies themselves and in other cases by organisations formed specifically
for that purpose, but with strong links to the parent body, which still has the final
signoff. The Olympic Games fall into the latter category. Toffler (1990) called event
organisations ‘pulsating organisations’ because their structures grow then shrink.
Hanlon and Jago (2000, p. 96) described their organisational characteristics as:
 ‘flexible
 flat, with a horizontal emphasis in terms of differentiation
 highly formalised
 decentralised, particularly during the peak stage of the event
 having teams of people in functional units: managers, operators and external
support personnel
 innovative within a complex environment
 regularly transforming the internal structure
 needing to satisfy personnel.’

Thus, sport management and also event management are both areas of study that are
growing in stature and scope, can overlap in their content, and provide understandings
to Olympic practitioners on how the Games can be best organised to meet the needs
of the 21st century. In both discipline areas, current scholarship is focussing on
strategic rather than reactive management of the event and also looking at alternative
and innovative solutions to long standing problems. This does not imply that all
current practices are not working. Rather, it suggests that we can advance knowledge
by innovation and building on previous best practice, as demonstrated by the
information transfer cycle. By examining emerging research, Olympic Games
knowledge can be advanced by investigating and implementing some innovative
approaches to solve long-standing issues in Olympic Games management.

The first of these areas to be considered here is the area of risk management, in this
case, specifically as it relates to terrorism. The majority of research and practice in
this area has looked at technology as providing the only solution to Olympic security;
however alternatives viewpoints demonstrate that understanding the context and
cultural values of the host city and Olympic spectators is also necessary to achieve a
balance between ensuring security for the Olympic family and enjoyment for those
attending the Games. This view is intended to supplement the technologically driven
approach rather than replace it.

Risk Management
Risk is concerned with the dangers that we identify, confront and control (Giddens:
1998). In recent decades, risk has become notorious as a litigious concept and one
that has greatly affected management practices and approaches. Currently, effective
management assumes that risk management strategies are incorporated into an
organisation’s planning and operations. A comprehensive risk management plan
includes: administrative issues; the identification of risks; approaches to managing
identified risks; a continual evaluation and review of risk management practices
(Miller: 1997, p. 259).

Risks can be managed in a way to reduce the likelihood of their occurrence. ‘Four
approaches are (1) transfer, (2) reduction, (3) retention, and (4)
elimination/avoidance. These are referred to as risk management approaches versus
control approaches, as it is unlikely that management will be in a position to control
loss. Rather, the aim is to manage risk and reduced associated losses’ (Miller, 1997:
p. 263-4).
 Risk management, although practised by the nonsport industry for
decades became an increasingly essential requirement and directly
related to the solvency and success of any sport business in the last
two decades… Risk management has recently become an integral
facet of sport business management for three primary reasons.
First, the recognition of governmental immunity as a viable
defence has diminished…. Consequently public entities… became
more exposed to litigation. Risk management serves as a viable
way to retain costs and better management product quality.
Second, sport-related litigation continues to escalate… third,
insurance coverage became prohibitive (Miller: 1997 p. 257).

More specifically, in terms of security management of sport events, as a form of risk

management, ‘safety and security have always been a key function of stadium and
arena management, with venue managers needing to keep their venues safe and
secure within a broad risk management perspective’ (Sweaney: 2005. p. 22).
However, since 11 September 2001 (9/11) the threat of terrorism has brought risk
management to the forefront of mega sport event planning. While there has been
considerable scholarly enquiry into the causes and effects of terrorism, as it relates to
tourism and events in general (cf Hall, Timothy & Duval, 2003) there has less
research in terms of terrorism, risk management and the Olympic Games (Toohey and
Taylor, 2008).

Terrorist-based risk associated with sport is not without substance, as there were 168
terrorist attacks related to sport between 1972 and 2004 (Clark, 2004; Kennelly,
2005). Academic inquiry into sport violence has mostly overlooked this. Instead it has
primarily investigated the causes and effects of violence perpetrated by players and
spectators, especially hooligans (Atkinson & Young, 2002). Moreover, most of these
studies have been located in discourses of sport sociology and/or psychology and
criminology, investigating the cognitive, affective and overt behavioural aspects of
violence. Implications drawn for sport management have primarily been associated
with crowd control, risk management and athlete management (cf Whisenant, 2003;
Kennelly, 2004; Rubin, 2004; Toohey and Taylor, 2008). However, as Elliot,
Frosdick and Smith (1999, p.26) note, ‘the stadia industry has something to learn…
from the research that has been carried out by academics in the areas of safety culture
and crisis management’ One aspect of this is to begin understanding ‘risk as a
multitude of perceptions about the source and level of threat or danger’ (Frosdick,
1999, p. 38), rather than assuming all spectators react to perceived security risks in
the same way.

After the Black September group’s attack on Israeli athletes and officials at 1972
Munich Games, terrorism has affected the management of all subsequent Olympic
Games. Johnson (2001) claims the Munich attack was the defining moment in the
growth of modern terrorism. The international attention achieved by the attack
demonstrated that terrorism could be an effective tactic in challenging governments
or raising international awareness of a cause (Johnson, 2001).

From Munich on, the Games have instigated ever increasing sophisticated security
planning; however, while this may have prevented some attacks, it has also resulted
in some Draconian effects for athletes, officials and spectators. For example, the 1976
Games security was so intrusive that the ‘Village might well have been a prison
camp’ (McIntosh, 1984, p. 26). Despite this, the security framework developed for
these Games has provided the paradigm for all ensuing Olympic operations
(Kennelly, 2005).

Yet, regardless of these measures, terrorists have continued to target the Games. The
most serious of these, post Munich, was at the 1996 Atlanta Games where a bomb,
planted in Centennial Park by an American, anti-abortion extremist, killed one
spectator, resulted in a journalist who was covering the event dying of a heart attack,
and over 100 more spectators being injured. These instances demonstrated that
terrorism at a sporting event did not have to occur within the confines of Olympic
venues to impact on the Games (Toohey, 2008).

Since the 11 September 2001 (9/11) terrorism attacks in the United States, the risk
management implications of terrorism at mega sporting events has meant Olympic
organizers have had to spend considerably more on security, making the hosting of
the Games less appealing to or possible for many nations. Also the perceived risk of
terrorism has been cited as a reason for low spectator numbers at the 2004 Olympics,
thus affecting revenue from ticket sales, and it also negatively influenced the
experiences of those who attended (Cashman, 2004; Taylor and Toohey, 2006).

The Games’ management challenge is to consider the different needs of Olympic

spectators, the safety of the event, ensuring that the experience lives up to spectators’
expectations. While it may be difficult to achieve this balance there may be some
positive outcomes from these circumstances. As Faulkner (2001, p. 137) noted, crises
can have transformational connotations and may lead to innovation and the
recognition of additional markets.

Thus, from an Olympic sport management perspective, studies that look at the effects
of Olympic security on Games management, specifically relating to spectator, official
and athlete experiences add a new dimension to the more traditional research that has
been conducted on technical solutions to security.

Information and Knowledge Management

Another innovation in sport event management practice and research has been in the
area of knowledge management. Knowledge management has emerged from a variety
of other disciplines, such as human resource management, information technology,
information management and communications, to become an entity in its own right.

Information and knowledge are core management resources necessary for

organisational success, for example in proving results instantaneously at the event and
disseminating information to the public in a timely manner. Thus they must be part of
strategic planning (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, 2002). The management of
sport by necessity includes sophisticated uses of information, but information
management is rarely recognized as a formal component of sport and event
management. Sporting events include many information actions and processes. There
is however another dimension; that of knowledge. Sport like any business is operating
in a complex and global market. Sport management needs to be adaptive to change,
effectively manage risk, integrate technology advances and build stakeholder
intimacy. Knowledge management can assist in achieving these goals. It is a multi
disciplinary approach that assists organizations to achieve operational excellence in
complex environments (Halbwirth and Toohey, 2005).

Sports organisations which manage events need to use knowledge to operate

proficiently. An example of how this can occur will be explained in greater detail in
section four. There are many challenges that such sporting organisations are facing in
our contemporary global sporting environment characterised by:
 unpredictability and rapid change
 information overload
 demands for accountability and transparency in decision making
 financial reliance on sponsor and broadcast organisations
 growth in contract and short term employment patterns
 increased flexibility and power of information technology
 interconnectivity and reliance between organisations
 efforts to improve efficiency and decrease complexity (Halbwirth and Toohey,
2001).

For reasons such as these, many other organisations, regardless of the industry and
community sector in which they operate, are recognising the importance of
information, knowledge and learning as key strategic and operational resources and
processes. However, for these capabilities to effectively contribute to goals and
objectives of an organisation, they need to be actively and professionally managed.
This includes utilizing the information that is stored in systems (electronic as well as
hard copy), as well as the knowledge that is reflected in people and their networks
within the organization. It also involves leveraging knowledge in the internal and
external business environments for strategic advantage and financial outcomes. Since
the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee has
embraced knowledge management. It has transferred information from one Games to
the next, so that organising committees have not had to ‘reinvent the wheel’, but can
learn effectively from the successes and failures of previous Games. Similarly, the
IOC itself had looked internally to improve its own knowledge and successfully
restructured its organisation to acknowledge how important knowledge management
is to its own operations.

According to Halbwirth (2008):

Each Games organiser works within a specific information
environment effected by regulations and legislation, national culture,
strategic goals, resourcing levels and availability of technology. There
is therefore no ‘right way’ to manage information and knowledge.
Each Games will bring a unique approach.
There are, however some common themes:
- Establishment of a central coordinating information and knowledge
management unit/department operational through the Games lifecycle
from Candidature to Dissolution.
- While technologies enable the management and distribution of
information it is the effective coordination and management of, not
just the information technology, but also of people, culture, processes
and content, that allows the organisation to fully leverage its
information and knowledge assets.
 - The information and knowledge environment of the Organiser is
characterised by exponential growth, constant change and diversity in
a much shorter time frame than a normal business. Therefore, it is
essential that information and knowledge management decisions and
implementations reflect the short, intensive nature and legacy
opportunities of the Games.

Legacy
Effective organisation of any sporting event does not culminate at the conclusion of
the competition. There is the need for a well-planned wrap up phase and there should
also be questions about the benefits, if any, that the event has left the host community
that should be investigated by various stakeholders. This section looks at this latter
aspect. Specifically, it raises the issue of when and how these benefits should
planned. Recent advances in scholarship have gone beyond the current benchmark of
post event economic evaluations to champion the triple bottom line impacts. The
latest innovation has introduced an even more proactive strategy, advocated by Chalip
and O’Brien (2007), that of leveraging.

Despite these academic advances, the issue of legacy has only fairly recently been
brought to academic and practitioner attention. This is a necessary and overdue
addition to Olympic Studies scholarship and Olympic Games practice. In the more
generalised events and sport literature the concept of investigating legacy has more
commonly been termed ‘impact’. The majority of early studies of impact focussed
primarily on its economic aspects.
However, the impacts of mega and hallmark events are now typically
measured on a multitude of indices including economic, tourism,
commercial, physical, socio-cultural, psychological and political
impacts. To completely assess an event’s impacts should require more
than evaluating their short and medium-term economic and cultural
benefits. It also requires a long-term evaluation, possibly even 10
years on or more, of the sustainability and durability, in other words
the success, [sic] of the regeneration and legacies that were created as
a result of staging the event’ (Faulkner & Raybould, 1995).

To date, use of a long term review has not been common practice in Olympic cities.
Moragas et al, The Keys to Success (10 years on) stands as an exemplar to other
Olympic cities as to what can be done.

The IOC has implemented the Olympic Games Global Impact study. Its principle
objectives are:
‘to measure the overall impact of the Olympic Games; to assist
bidding cities and future Olympic Games Organisers, through the
transfer of strategic direction obtained from past and present
Olympic Games, to identify potential legacies and thereby
maximise the benefits of their Olympic Games; and to create a
comparable benchmark across all future Olympic Games… For
every OCOG the OGGI study covers a period of 11 years. The
study commences when a city’s official Olympic candidacy is
announced by the National Olympic Committee (NOC), two years
 prior to when an Olympiad is awarded to a Candidate City, and
concludes two years after the staging of the Olympic Games.
Throughout the 11-year time-frame, the OGGI study requires an
OCOG to collect data at specified intervals and to produce four
OGGI reports’ (Olympic Review: 2006,
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1077.pdf).

The question of who should consider legacy and take responsibility for it has not been
settled. However, through the OGGI and other initiatives that the IOC has recently
begun to suggest to OCOGS (and even to prospective candidature cities) the
imperative for host communities to consider and proactively prepare, from early in
their existence, and certainly long before the Games are even held, a long-term
sustainable, post-Olympic legacy for their community. This is a change from previous
IOC and OCOG’s strategies, where the Games were the focus of an OCOG’s
preparations and little thought was given to wrapping up after athletes and officials
had left. As a consequence, post Games planning has been, at best, ad-hoc and
perceived as optional, rather than essential. In some cases, for example, Montreal
after the 1976 Olympic Games, host cities have been left with large financial debts to
repay or underused facilities to maintain. Their post Games planning has been
focused on repayments or ensuring that they are not left with white elephants, rather
than implementing more positive legacy outcomes (Toohey, 2008).

As a function of this new IOC approach, planning for a legacy is now also a
requirement of the Host City Contract that the successful Bid city must sign with the
IOC after being awarded the Games. Part of the rationale behind the IOC’s advocacy
of greater legacy planning by Games organisers has been to offset the Games’
escalating cost, size and complexity. Also, as staging an Olympics comes at a
significant cost to the governments that host them, it makes sense that host
communities will want to maximize their return of investment. One logical strategy to
achieve this is ensuring that an Olympic ‘legacy’ remains in a host city long after the
event (Cashman, et al 2004: Toohey, 2008).

Even without much planning each Olympic city gains a material legacy through
Olympic related construction of new and remodeled buildings and sports facilities, as
well as museums, archives, repositories, souvenirs, memorabilia and monographs.
But there is also an intangible legacy that Cashman refers to as an ‘Olympism’
legacy. This consists of the Games’ staff and volunteers’ intellectual capital
produced, the memories that the population has experienced because of the Games
and the physical skills of the Games’ athletes. He argues that, together the tangible
and intangible legacies represent a substantial asset, and can provide educational,
sporting and humanising benefits for the host nation. One practical way that the
Olympism legacy has been implemented is by the Games’ workforce onselling its
knowledge, products and services to future mega-events organizers, as discussed in
the previous section.

The promise of legacy has now become heavily featured in applicant city bid
documents, despite the fact that not all legacy promises will translate into outcomes.
It also is an important argument used to win local support for cities as they, in turn,
seek to win the votes of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) members. But,
in the successful host cities the legacy issue tends to recede into the background in the
years before the Games, amid the more immediate preoccupations with budgeting,
planning and organising the event itself (see Cashman et al, 2005). After the event,
the question of the legacy once again becomes an issue for the host community,
especially when it is realised that some of the expected Olympic benefits have not
materialised and, additionally, that not all related expenditures cease with the
extinguishing of the Olympic Flame. To date, there is no single successful formula
for event legacy planning (Cashman, 1998).

The IOC has also engaged seriously with legacy in an academic way, beginning with
a ‘legacy symposium’ in Lausanne in 2002 (Cashman et al, 2004). The conclusions of
the 2002 IOC International Symposium on Legacy of the Olympic Games, 1894-
2000, stated:
After hearing papers talking about different experiences from games
and cities, the idea emerged that the effects of the legacy have many
aspects and dimensions, ranging from the more commonly recognized
aspects – architecture, urban planning, city marketing, sports
infrastructures, economic and tourist development– to others that are
just as, if not more important, but that are less recognised. In
particular, it is necessary to point out the importance of so called
intangible legacies, such as production of ideas and cultural values,
intercultural and non-exclusionary experiences (based on gender,
ethnicity or physical abilities), popular memory, education, archives,
collective effort and voluntarism, new sport practioners, notoriety on a
global scale, experience and know-how, etc. These intangible legacies
also act as a motor for the tangible ones to develop a long-term legacy
(IOC, 2004: p.2).

Cashman (1998) offered a more condensed categorisation of seven main

categories of Olympic legacy. These are as follows:
Economic (direct & indirect)
Built environment (non-sporting)
Information & education
Public life, politics & culture
Sport
- Elite performance
- Mass participation - the 'trickle down' effect
- Financial support
Built sporting infrastructure
Sporting symbols, memory, history.

When thinking about these categories, it is clear that it is not the Games organisers
who stand to benefit or lose from an Olympic legacy. Similarly, the perspective on a
legacy’s success depends on who is making the assessment. As the Olympic Games
involve a complex web of stakeholders then each of these may have a different
perspective. Essentially, a stakeholder is any organisation or person has something to
gain or lose through a relationship and thus can affect or is affected by others
involved (Kennelly, Toohey and Zakus, 2007). Stakeholder theory is based on the
premise that an organisation’s ability to best achieve its goals and thus endure is
determined by how it adapts to and influences the changing needs, goals, motivations
and perceptions of the parties with which it interacts internally and externally
(Freeman). Stakeholder theory is based on two premises: that stakeholders have
legitimate interests and that the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value. The
theory has been applied in a variety of research contexts, including sport
management. Applications of stakeholder theory to sporting organisations have
revealed that there is often a complex network of contiguous stakeholders and an
even more convoluted grid of those whose link is more distal (Hoye and Cuskelly).
The Olympic Games has multiple stakeholders and can advance or be constrained by
their agendas

The use of a stakeholder approach is relevant in the context of examining the legacy
of the Olympic Games, just as it is for other aspects of Olympic management. For
example, a host city and nation’s tourism industry has been a major potential
beneficiary of staging the Olympic Games. The event is seen to be a catalyst for
driving tourism before, during and after the Games. However, according to
Masterman (2004, p. 84), ‘while some authors agree that tourism is a benefit of
events (Getz, 1997) and that every destination should formulate an event tourism plan
to enable it to contribute to the national economy (Keller, 1999), others doubt
whether the growth levels achieved in the short-term out of event tourism are
sustainable over the long term (Hughes, 1993) and that tourism therefore cannot be
viewed as a potential event legacy’.

Taking a slightly different perspective, Graham Brown notes the difficulty of

assessing legacy effects of tourism in relation to the Sydney Olympic Games:
Accurate measures of the impact of the Sydney Olympic Games on
tourism are not available as little research to specifically examine this
issue has been conducted. As with the case with most major events,
considerable effort was spent to gain support for and justify the bid
and to ensure that the event could be staged successfully. However
impact analysis received less attention as people with relevant
knowledge move on to work on the next event (Brown, 2000, p. 149).

For any Olympic legacy, tourism or otherwise to occur, strategies need to be

implemented appropriately during the event planning stage. This is not just the
responsibility of Games organisers but should be planned by every stakeholder who
will benefit. What is problematic for estimating Olympic legacy is that an Organising
Committee of an Olympic Games (OCOG) disbands two years after the Games.
Many of its stakeholders have a more permanent tenure and are thus more able to
influence longer term public perceptions. This is especially apposite as an
organisation’s stakeholders can also include parties with which the organisation may
not necessarily want to deal, such as the groups who oppose the Olympic Games, or
in the case of Sydney’s Olympic legacy, its critics, such as those disagree with
spending additional money to ensure the legacy is ongoing (Toohey, 2008).

Even with careful planning successful legacy in all areas is not guaranteed. For
example during the Sydney Olympic Games, tourism authorities implemented a well
funded, proactive and long term tourism plan to leverage from the 2000 Games.
However, the effects of 9/11 and the SARS panic, neither of which had an Olympic
connection, both negatively impacted international travel and meant that the predicted
number of inbound tourist to Australia did not eventuate. Legacy assessments are
frequently influenced by the perceptions of those who make them. There is also the
likelihood of insufficient time having passed when the pronouncements are made to
make any meaningful judgment. There may also be question of objectivity depending
on the stakeholder relationship (Toohey, 2008).

In general terms, evaluating legacy has until recently been focussed on economic
benefits. Yet event impacts extend beyond economic ones. ‘A growing body of
literature explores sport event leveraging…. However, the overwhelming majority of
this work focuses on leveraging for economic development, particularly through
tourism and destination branding. What remains less understood is how sport events
might also be leveraged for the development of social and environmental benefits for
their host communities (O’Brien and Chalip, 2007, p. 319).

According to Fredline, Raybould and Jago, (2005, p.3), ‘in more recent times,
however, there has been recognition that the evaluation of events must be more
broadly-based and consider a range of perspectives. Triple bottom line [TBL]
reporting, which considers the economic, social and environmental domains, has
become a well-recognised term in the business environment. However, little has been
done as yet to apply the principles of triple bottom line reporting to the events sector.’
Hede (2005) notes that there is a relationship between TBL and Stakeholder Theory
‘predicated on the fact that the impacts of special events are pertinent to their
stakeholders. By focusing on the social, environmental and economic outcomes of
events within the context of Stakeholder Theory, it is proposed that special events can
then be managed to enhance the outcomes for their stakeholders’ (Hede, 2005, p. 14).

In terms of conducting event evaluations Chalip (2004, 2006) argues for the need to
shift the traditional ex post focus to an ex ante focus. In other words changing the
current preoccupation with looking back at event outcomes (i.e. legacy and impact
evaluation), to a more strategic approach that looks forward to planning how a host
community can derive benefits from sport events (O’Brien and Chalip, 2007, p. 319).
One of the challenges of this approach is the ability to identify exactly what are
leveragable assets.
‘An event leveraging perspective represents a shift from the traditional
impact-driven, outcomes orientation, to a more strategic and analytic
focus. Event leveraging has an inherent learning aspect, where impact is
pertinent primarily as a tool for evaluating leveraging strategies, rather
than an event evaluation tool per se. The event is evaluated by capacity
to leverage and by quality and outcomes of applied leveraging. Thus,
rather than the traditional ‘build it and they [benefits] will come’
approach to sport events, the purpose of event leveraging is to be
proactive in planning for the creation of specific event benefit types for
the host community, and taking strategic measures to make those events
sustainable.’ (O’Brien and Chalip, 2007, p. 320)

O’Brien and Gardiner (2006) have demonstrated that pre Olympic training of
visiting teams can be one such asset (Kellett, P., Hede, A & Chalip, L. 2008).
According to Masterman (2004, p. 47), ‘it is essential that any potential long-term
benefits intended as attributable to the event be comprehensively covered by
strategies that ensure that long term success’. This is a good example of strategic
sport event management.
Research
Future directions
Skinner and Edwards (2005, p. 416) note, ‘sport management researchers should be
encouraged to take more methodological risks and embrace more eclectic research
approaches. Zakus utilizes this approach when he suggests that historical analyses can
inform Olympic sport management. He calls for ‘a detailed theoretical analysis of the
Olympic Charter. A thorough content analysis of different versions of the Charter,
and changes implemented throughout the 108-year history of the Olympic movement,
will help inform the current knowledge of global sports administration and
development. ‘A document such as the Olympic Charter is important for
understanding the IOC as an organization, as well as its history, and its ability to
remain a leading force in global sports management’ (Zakus, 2005, p. 13). Such
research is useful because as Masterman (2004, p. 24-25) notes, there are ‘several
areas of concern for the future of sport events. One is the development of some sports
at the expense of others… the drive for success and commercial gain is having an
effect on the integrity of sport.’

In terms of future Olympic risk management research as it pertains to terrorism,

Toohey and Taylor’s 2005 study of the Athens 2004 Olympic spectators’ perceptions
of the balance between safety and security provided respondents’ suggestions for
‘best-practice’ in sport event safety and security management under five categories:
Visibility e.g. ‘Security needs to be seen’; Resilience e.g. ‘Be tough on terrorists’;
Communication e.g. ‘brief spectators in advance’ and ‘ensure the [host] language plus
English is understood by security’; Restraint/caution e.g. ‘Don't judge spectators by
their ethnic appearance’; and Minimalism e.g. ‘security is too much’, and ‘too
intrusive’. This list is reflective of the different expectations and perceptions of risk
and safety of event attendees that need to be considered to ensure that Olympic events
are both secure and enjoyable.

Therefore, the choice of safety and security methods to be used at mega sporting
events, especially at the Olympic Games, is open to reconceptualization and
repositioning. While there is a legitimate and central place for technological solutions
as part of risk management in sport event management, organizers also need to
understand the range of emotional responses by consumers to these solutions and the
reasons for both positive and negative reactions. As Doodie (2004) argues, too much
reliance on technical solutions can actually heighten the sense of risk. Yet, perhaps
sport can offer one of the best sites of resistance to risk society’s confines if event
organizers are more aware of how to strike an acceptable balance between the risk
management necessities created by and through the precautionary principle and the
cycle of cynicism and disengagement created by the culture of fear. This proposition
requires more field- based research to explore these issues across different events,
countries and contexts. Frosdick (1999, p. 138) suggests that, “cultural analysis has an
important role to play in the study of management in general, including the
management of public safety and order”. One aspect of understanding the context and
culture of terrorist risk at sport events is to begin understanding “risk as a multitude
of perceptions about the source and level of threat or danger”.

There are a number of ways that empirical research in the Olympic Games can be
used to develop better event operational procedures, as well as enhancing macro level
strategies in the current terrorism- alert risk society. Firstly, there is the value of using
theory that emanates from another discipline, such as overviewed here, to better
understand sport event attendance. There is also a concomitant need to develop a
sport-focused research agenda in this area (Chalip, 2006) that is, uncovering theory
that is specifically grounded in the sport phenomena, but may also then have
relevance to other industries (such as tourism). Olympic organizers can then work
towards ensuring that spectators have positive and safe experiences. These
experiences should be imbedded in understanding the cultural contexts of the
consumers as well as the host city and nation. The management of risk should not be
exclusively based on technological solutions that may ultimately exacerbate
spectators’ perception of risk and decrease their desire to attend the Games.

In terms of future legacy research, according to Cashman (2006 p. 273), ‘the post-
Games period is as fertile a field for Olympic research as the pre-Games period or the
Games themselves… there has been a dearth of post-Games analysis’. The value of
research conducted by academics is that it can be conducted past the Olympic Games
Global Impact (OGGI) studies commissioned by the IOC which conclude two years
after the Games. While research can add value to understanding the Olympic
Movement in this period, ‘the majority of event planning theory recommends the use
of post-event planning and yet in practice event managers are all too quick to move
on and not commit funds or time to this important undertaking. There is also in
practice a perception that there is only one form of evaluation, that which is
conducted post-event’ (Masterman, 2004, p. 220). Yet, as Masterman (2004, p. 220)
notes, there can be three phases of evaluation, pre-event research and feasibility,
iterative evaluation and the monitoring of an event in progress, and post event
evaluation’. Ignoring any one of these can result in hosting an event that is
unsuccessful or the provision of a legacy that does not reach its potential.
‘It is essential that any potential long-term benefits intended as attributable to the
event be comprehensively covered by strategies that ensure that long term success’
(Masterman, 2004, p. 47). Because of their importance, cost and ability to transcend
the everyday, it is imperative that all Games stakeholders work together to achieve
their potential.

References
Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). London:
Sage Publications.
Brown, G., 2008. ‘The Games of the XXVII Olympiad in Sydney (2000)’. In Olympic
Tourism, M. Weed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 137-152.
Cashman R., 1998, ‘Olympic legacy in an Olympic City: monuments, museums and
memory’ in Barney R. et al Global and Cultural critique: problematizing the
Olympic Games. University of Western Ontario, pp 107-114.
Cashman, R., 2005. ‘Athens 2004: the no show game’, National forum online; Online
opinion. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au
Cashman, R., 2006. The Bitter-sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000
Olympic Games. Sydney: Walla Wall Press.
Cashman, R., K. Toohey, S. Darcy, C. Symons, and B. Stewart, 2004. ‘When the
Carnival Is Over: Evaluating the Outcomes of Mega Sporting Events in
Australia’. Sporting Traditions 21:1, pp. 1-32.
Cashman, R., 2003, ‘What is Olympic legacy?’, in Moragas, M., Kennett, C. and
Puig, N. eds. The legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000, Lausanne,
International Olympic Committee, pp 31-42.
Chalip, L. ‘Towards a distinctive sport management discipline’, Sport Management
Review, 20 (1), pp. 1-21.
Chalip, L. and O’Brien, D. 2007, ‘Executive training exercise in sport event leverage’,
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1 (4), pp.
296-304.
Choy, F.,1996. ‘Educating the new para-professionals for library & information
services’. Singapore Libraries, 25(1), pp. 24-37.
Clark, K. (2004, June 14). ‘Targeting the Olympics’. US News and World Report, p.
34.
Covell, D., Walker, S., Siciliano, J. and Hess, P. 2003, Managing sport
organizations: responsibility for performance. Mason, Ohio: Thomson.
Cronin, A. 2003. Behind the curve. Globalization and international terrorism.
International Security, 27 (3) pp. 30-58.
Elliot, D., Frosdick , S. and Smith, D. (1999) The failure of ‘legislation by crisis’. In
S. Frosdick & L. Walley (Eds.), Sport and safety management. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann, pp.11-30.
Essex, Stephen and Chalkley, Brian, 2003, ‘The Infrastructural legacy of the Summer
and Winter Olympic Games. A comparative analysis’ in Moragas, M. Kennett,
C. and Puig, N. eds. The legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000, Lausanne,
International Olympic Committee, pp. 94-100.
Faukner, B., 2001. ‘Towards a framework for tourism disaster management’, Tourism
Management, 22, pp. 135-147.
Faulkner, B., & Raybould, M. 1995. Monitoring visitor expenditure associated with
attendance at sporting events: An experimental assessment of the diary and
recall methods. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 3, pp 73-81.
Fayol, H., 1949. General and industrial administration. New York: Putnam
Frisby, W., 2005. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management
research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), pp.1-12.
Frosdick, S., 1999. Beyond football hooliganism. In S. Frosdick & L. Walley (Eds.),
Sport and safety management. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 3-10.
Frosdick, S., & Walley, L., 1999. Sport and safety management: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Furedi, F., 2002. Culture of fear. London: Continuum.
Garland, D., 2003. Risk and morality. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Giddens, A., 1998. ‘Risk society: The context of British politics’. In J. Franklin (Ed.),
The politics of risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Halbwirth, S., 2008. ‘Information and knowledge management and Olympic Games
organisation: coordination, connection and contribution’, Retrieved 26th
December, 2008 from
http://www.iasi.org/publications/newsletter/IASI_2008-
37_eng.html#HALBWIRTH.
Halbwirth, S. and Toohey, K., 2001. ‘The Olympic Games and knowledge
management’, European Sport Management Quarterly, 1(2), pp. 91-111.
Halbwirth, S. and Toohey K., 2005.‘Leveraging Knowledge: sport and success’, The
12th International Association for Sport Information Proceedings, Beijing,
p.278-285.
Hall, C.M., Timothy, D.J., & Duval, D.T., 2003. Safety and security in tourism:
Relationships, management, and marketing. New York: Haworth Hospitality
Press.
Hanlon, C and Jago, L., 2000, ‘Pulsating sporting events: an organisational structure
to optimise performance’, in Events beyond 2000: setting the agenda.
Proceedings of the conference on event evaluation, research and education, in
Allen. J., Harris, R., Jago, L. and Veal, A. (eds). Sydney: Australian Centre for
Event Management, UTS, pp. 93- 104.
Haynes, J., 1998. ‘Documentation of sports information – the challenges and
opportunities bought by new technologies’, Retrieved 26th December, 2008
from http://www.blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/pdf/OD014_eng.pdf
Hoye, R., Smith, A., Westerbeek, H., Stewart, B. and Nicholson, M. 2006, Sport
Management Principles and applications. London: Elsevier.
International Olympic Committee, 2002, ‘IOC celebrates launch of Olympic Games
Knowledge Services’, press release, 19 February. Retrieved 26th December,
2008 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/passion/museum/studies/archives_uk.asp
Johnson, L. (2001). The future of terrorism. American Behavioural Scientist, 44, pp.
894-913.
Kennelly, M., 2005. 'Business as usual': How elite Australian athletes frame
terrorism post 9/11. Unpublished bachelor honours thesis, University of
Technology, Sydney.
Kennelly, M., Toohey, K. and Zakus, D., 2007. ‘An investigation of the relationship
between an Australia National Sport Organisation and a private tour operator’,
in Sport Events and Sustainable Development: Proceedings of the 15th EASM
Congress, Turin, pp. 84-86.
Lussier, R. and Kimball, D. 2004, Sport Management Principles, Applications, Skill
Development. Mason, Ohio: Thomson.
McIntosh, M. J.,1984. Security measures at the summer Olympics. Unpublished
paper, University of Toronto, Canada.
Magnay, J., 2001, Aussies In $8m Bid To Sell Olympic Nous, Sydney Morning
Herald, 7 November, p 22.
Masterman, G. 2004, Strategic Sport Event Management: an International
Approach, Oxford: Elsevier.
Miller, L. 1997, Sport Business Management. Aithersburg, Maryland: Aspen.
Mintzberg, H., 1980. The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Miquel de Moragas and Miquel Botella, eds, 1995. The Keys to Success: The Social,
Sporting, Economic and Communications Impact of Barcelona ’92, Barcelona:
Centre d’Estudis Olympics I de l’Esport.
Moragas, M., Kennett, C and Puig, N. eds., 2003. The legacy of the Olympic Games
1984-2000. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.
Olympic Television Archive Bureau, www.otab.com/home/default/sps.
Pitts, 2001 ‘Sport Management at the Millennium: A Defining Moment’ Journal of
sport management, 15(1), pp1-9.
Roche, M.,2000. Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of
global culture, London: Routledge.
Rossner, S. and Shropshire, K., 2004, The business of Sports. Sudbury, Mass: Jones
and Bartlett.
Rubin, A. (2004). ‘Safety, security, and preparing for disaster at sporting events’.
Current sports medicine reports [1537-890X] (3) 3, pp. 141 -145.
Searle, Glen, 2003. ‘The urban legacy of the Sydney Olympic Games’, in Moragas,
M., Kennett, C. and Puig, N. eds. The legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000,
Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, pp 118-126.
Shone, A. and Parry, B., 2004. Successful Event Management (2nd edition), London:
Thomson Learning.
Skinner, J. and Edwards, A., 2005. ‘Inventive Pathways: Fresh Visions of Sport
Management Research’. Journal of Sport Management. (19) 4, 404-421.
Sweaney, K., 2005, ‘Ready for anything’, Australasian Leisure Management No 53,
pp. 22, 24.
Tarlow, P. E., 2002. Event Risk Management and Safety: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Taylor, T. and Toohey, K., 2006. ‘Impacts of terrorism related safety and security
measures at a major sport event’, Event Management, 9 (4) pp. 199-209.
Toffler, A.,1990. Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books.
Toohey, K., 2008, ‘Terrorism, Sport and Public Policy in the Risk Society’, Sport in
Society 11 (4), pp. 429-442.
Toohey, K., 2008, ‘The Sydney Olympics: striving for legacies- overcoming short
term disappointments and long term deficiencies’, The International Journal of
the History of Sport, Vol. 25, No. 14, December, 2098–2116.
Toohey K. and Halbwirth,S. 2002. 'Information and documentation in the Olympic
Games', Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona,
www.blues.uab.es/olympic.studies.
Toohey, K. and Taylor, T. 2008, ‘Mega events, fear and risk: Terrorism at the
Olympic Games’, Journal of Sport Management 22 (4), pp. 451-469.
Toohey, K. and Veal, A. J., 2007. The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective,
2nd edition, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.
Toohey, K., Taylor, T., Lee, C. 2003. The FIFA World Cup 2002: The effects of
terrorism on sport tourists Journal of Sport Tourism 8 (3) pp. 186-196.
Toohey, K., 2001, Official Report of the Games of the XXVII Olympiad. Sydney:
Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.
Veal, A.J., Toohey, K. and Frawley, S., 2006. ‘‘Sport for All’ and the Legacy of the
Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.’ Paper presented at the 13th Commonwealth
International Sport Conference, Melbourne, Australia, March.
Warning, P., 2007. ‘Mapping Olympic Studies: Analysis of Olympic Studies
Scholarship’ Unpublished Doctoral Confirmation, Griffith University.
Weed, M., 2008. Olympic Tourism, M. Weed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Warning ,P., Toohey, K. and Zakus, D. 2008, 'The Content and Foundations of
Olympic Studies: Subject Profile Analysis of a Decade of Olympika', in
Pathways: Critiques and Discourse in Olympic Research, International Centre
for Olympic Studies, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
pp.223-234.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W., 2002. Cultivating communities of
practice: a guide to managing knowledge, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.