cris.vub.be€¦ · web viewwhen facing the challenge of justifying investments in elite sport to...
TRANSCRIPT
Systematically mapping the Societal Potential of Elite Sport: a review and the
development of a conceptual model.
Authors:
Jens De Rycke, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, SASO (Sport and Society):
Veerle De Bosscher, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, SASO (Sport and Society)
Key words: elite sport; elite sport policy; elite sport societal outcomes; conceptual model;
mapping review # words: (max 3000)
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1960’s, governments started to grasp the cultural, political and
economic importance of elite sport, which has led to governmental intervention in the
form of financial investment, administrative support and regulation. Moreover, in the
early twenty-first century, sport and elite sport has become an increasing policy
priority (De Bosscher, De Knop, Van Bottenburg, & Shibli, 2006; Green, 2009). As
such, questions are raised concerning this policy arrangement (Girginov, 2012; Grix
& Carmichael, 2012b; Hogan & Norton, 2000). It is argued that the escalating costs
needed to achieve elite sport success causes governments to get entangled in an
unsustainable, upward competitive spiral leading to excessive spending (Houlihan &
Zheng, 2013). Moreover, elite sport investment does not guarantee success, which
means that public investment in elite sport carries a political risk (Houlihan & Zheng,
2013).
When facing the challenge of justifying investments in elite sport to their public, elite
sport policy makers increasingly tend to advocate for elite sport development by
stating that it will ‘trickle’ a wide range of societal benefits. The most referenced are
international prestige (Smith, 2005; Walker et al., 2013; Wicker, Hallmann et al.,
2012), diplomatic recognition (Merkel, 2013), a ‘feel good factor’ (Hallmann, Breuer,
& Kühnreich, 2013; Kavetsos & Szymanski, 2010), raised levels of sport participation
(De Bosscher, Sotiriadou, & van Bottenburg, 2013; Hindson, Gidlow, & Peebles,
1994; Storm, 2012; Veal, Toohey, & Frawley, 2012), to more concrete economic
impacts (Sant & Mason, 2015; Shipway, Kirkup, Saayman, & Saayman, 2012; Swart
& Bob, 2012; Zhang, Li, Ouyang, & Malone, 2013). This is in line with many
corporations and organizations (including the IOC and UN) who have recognized elite
sport as powerful in promoting education, culture, health, sustainable development
and peace. However, this ‘elite sport-plus’ train of thought (after Coalters ‘sport-plus’
concept (Coalter, 2013)), is being criticized by academics (Grix & Carmichael,
2012a). Pleading sport policy makers to ‘mature and become less ambitious and more
effective’ (Coalter, 2007), that there is a need to “demythologize” sport’ (Shilling &
Mellor, 2014) so that it is no longer understood as an intrinsically “good” thing
(Green, 2004). Inevitably, some have dishonest purposes or hidden agendas when
proposing elite sport investments (Gould & Williams, 2011; Reiche, 2014). An
astonishing case is that of Ken Livingstone, London’s former mayor who claims he
‘trapped’ the government by bidding for the Olympics. He reports he didn’t bid for
sports sake, but only “because it’s the only way to get the billions of pounds out of the
Government to develop the East End – to clean the soil, put in the infrastructure and
build the housing”(Barclay, 2009). Evidently, bid and event proponents
overemphasize positive outcomes, whereas negative legacies, such as overcrowding
and environmental damage are contested, concealed or turned a blind eye (Sant &
Mason, 2015). It aggravates academics that path dependency (Green & Collins, 2008)
and ‘deep-seated story lines’ (Fischer, 2003) –although not necessarily false- impacts
sport policy-making often more than the quality and quantity of the available evidence
(Houlihan, Bloyce, & Smith, 2009). Coalter (2007) hits the nail on the head when
proclaiming ‘there is a need to think more clearly, analytically and less emotionally
about sport and its potential’ (Coalter, 2007, p.7).
The state of the art literature on elite sport societal outcomes has succeeded in asking
the right questions, but has failed at giving robust answers that can inform and guide
policy. It is in this regard that Grix and Carmichaels’ (2012) question of ‘why nations
should care about winning medals, and therefore why they should invest in elite
sport’, remains mostly unanswered. Their plentiful cited contribution dissects the
reasons for prioritizing and investing in elite sport in great fashion, but does not offer
a thorough review of the relevant literature nor does it present a framework that can
advance knowledge and therefore be a potentially important influence on practitioner
and policy-makers’ decisions (Woodman, Thomas, & Dickson, 2012). Several
academics call for broader, intra- and inter-disciplinary theoretical conceptualisations
(Chalip, 2006; Muller, 2009). For example Houlihan et al. (2009) underscore the
urgent need of a holistic conceptualisation of the sport sector “as being an element of
welfare provision, a component of national cultural identity, a segment of the post-
industrial economy and a diplomatic resource” (Houlihan et al., 2009, p. 9). To date,
the current analysis of the state of the art in literature reveals that a theoretical model
framing the societal potential of elite sport does not yet exists. As such, the objective
of this paper is to systematically develop a conceptual framework mapping the
societal potential of elite sport based on a literature review. The following research
questions are posed:
Q1: What is the assumed potential – both positive and negative – of elite sport in
society?
Q2: To what extent are the assumptions of the societal potential of elite sport practices
supported by empirical research findings?
Q3: How can it be listed and classified in a logical and convenient way, in order to
holistically frame the societal potential of elite sport?
METHODs
This paper adopts a mapping review/systematic map in order to develop a conceptual
framework. This type of review has been developed to map out and categorize
existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from
which to commission further reviews and/or primary research (Grant & Booth, 2009).
It enables contextualization within broader literature, thus enabling a solid base to
develop a conceptual framework. As such it is a valuable tool in offering
policymakers, practitioners and researchers an explicit and transparent means of
identifying narrower policy and practice-relevant review questions (Grant & Booth,
2009) an is a building block of evidence based practice (Booth, 2003). Its value lies in
the recognition that practitioners find it almost impossible to make decisions based
upon the massive and increasing volume of research evidence (Sleep & Clark, 1999).
Accordingly, three different relevant electronic databases (SportDISCUS, Web of
Knowledge and Google Scholar) were used to discover the evidence-based research.
The Cochrane Collaboration recommendations to designate the search key words and
track down and interpret relevant studies (Higgins & Green, 2011) have guided the
literature review. One of the recommendations to find all relevant search keywords is
to brake down the research question into components, following the PICO – that is
Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison and Outcome - methodology. PICO is
appropriate for this systematic mapping review because, to be able to map the full
scope of elite sports societal potential, it was necessary to search on every possible
aspect. Important, because articles sometimes do not lend themselves well to
searching as concepts may not be well described in the title or abstract and are often
not well indexed with controlled vocabulary terms (Higgins & Green, 2011). As such,
the search terms were initially determined after a pre-exam of literature, which
enabled to detect several relevant frameworks and umbrella reviews in addition to
previously collected academic works. A total of 203 search keywords were included
(expanded with its synonyms an/or related terms) relating to elite sports societal
impact (appendix 1 Keywords used for inclusion).
Hence, in this review, we included empirical studies of any design that had
investigated one or more societal outcomes due to elite sport. The initial filtering was
undertaken based on the title of the literature source; a second filter was then based on
the content in the abstract, and then only the full text reviewed for those articles,
reports and papers that passed all inclusion criteria (see appendix 2 Flowchart for
overview of process). Additionally, the reference lists and bibliographies of all the
included articles and reviews were searched by hand. During the review, a maximum
of 50 ‘hits’ were considered from each search website for each keyword. Apart from
peer-reviewed, also edited books, research reports, and conference papers were
included. As in similar previous studies (McCartney et al., 2010), we included articles
starting from January 1978 up to now (June 2015). Also, studies that used a mix of
real and estimated data were included. Non empirical studies like for example media
portrayals and studies using exclusively estimated data, letters, commentaries,
editorials, expert opinions, abstracts and reviews without original data were excluded.
A mapping review does not include a quality assessment process, as its purpose is to
map out, detect gaps and categorize literature (Grant & Booth, 2009). Duplicates were
removed which ensured that evidence was not ‘double-counted’ through multiple
inclusions (Weed et al., 2015).
In order to answer research question 2 (‘To what extent are the assumptions of the
societal impact of elite sport practices supported by empirical research findings?’), the
weight of the available academic evidence was assessed. Note that in evidence-based
practice, the term ‘evidence’ is used deliberately instead of ‘proof’, which emphasizes
that evidence can be so weak that it is hardly convincing at all or so strong that no one
doubts its correctness. In determining the weight of the evidence, it is therefore
important to decide which research design and evidence is the most qualitative and
authoritative (Petticrew & Roberts, 2003) and to consider the quantity of the available
studies. Therefore, a 5-point scale was used: 5= solid empirical evidence, 4=
encouraging empirical evidence, 3= inconclusive empirical evidence, 2= lack of
empirical evidence, 1= no empirical evidence. Scores were given by two independent
researchers; if there was no consent, the results were discussed until consensus was
reached. In addition, the literature reviews of the included studies often give
statements of the weight of the evidence themselves.
The conceptual framework is the result of an extended continual process of model
building, critique, and revision by two researchers until consensus was reached. The
build-up of the model started from an author’s quote or a purified main result of
empirical academic research. Appendix 3 ‘Example Stimulation of Sport
Participation’ illustrates the first phase that was conducted to build the conceptual
frame. It shows results of empirical studies regarding the inspirational and
discouragement effect of elite sport on grassroots sport participation. From thereon
clusters were made, forming an expanding ‘web’ of grouped quotes. In a second
phase, overarching terms were given to the clustered groups. Appendix 4 ‘Unity’ is an
example of the ‘supercluster’ ‘Unity’ which consists of three ‘clusters’ ‘Social
Equity’, ‘Collectivity’ and ‘Values’. The ‘clusters’ contain respectively nine, eight
and 11 ‘subclusters’, who again, represent two or three subthemes, thus form the first
clustering of the web. Initially, the building process of the model started with a
proposal of seven clustered themes and more than 200 potential influence domains
evolved from the literature. Due to further interpreting, labelling and clustering - a
total of 109 detected ‘subclusters’, an outline of 11 broader, more abstract ‘clusters’
and three ‘super clusters’. Note that during this process, underlying mechanisms and
indirect influential factors were also detected, but not included in the development of
the model since this aims to exclusively frame the direct potential of elite sport in
society. In order to make a sound contribution with this model, previously developed
conceptual frameworks were explored, thus forming a starting point and source of
inspiration (see appendix 5 ‘previous frameworks’).
RESULTS
We focus explicitly on both the potential positive and negative outcomes of elite sport
and capture a holistic and inclusive range of evidence. A specific ‘Elite Sport Societal
Potential Model’ is articulated (see figure above), within which a number of
interactions - which can be influenced by policy - are proposed and the potential
mapped. The societal potential of elite sport was distilled down to three ‘super
clusters’ and 11 ‘cluster’ themes: A) unity; (a) social equity, (b) collectivity, (c)
values, (B) uniqueness; (d) feel good, (e) attraction, (f) showcase, (g) economic, (C)
upgrowth; (h) athlete development, (i) fans development (j) stakeholders development
(k) local development. ‘Unity’ describes the potential outcomes that arise when
networks between people, groups, organizations, and society come together in the
elite sport domain. It follows Simon and colleagues (2014) judgment that sport
provides common behavioral guidelines to generate shared experiences, values, and
beliefs through collective conscience. Through the clustering process, three main
themes were found. (a) social equity stands for elite sports function in bridging
different cultures & religions, thus stimulating cultural diversity and socio-economic
equality (e.g. social mobility), human rights and justice. Research in for example elite
football shows that patterns of overt and more institutional forms of discrimination
(e.g. subclusters sexism, exclusion, exploitation; subthemes racism, human
trafficking...) continue to shape the experiences of minorities and limit the parameters
of minority involvement in the game (Bradbury, 2013). ‘Collectivity’ is formed out of
the premise that no institution or organization in a community has a stronger influence
in bringing people together as a local sport team does (Anderson and Stone, 1981) and
that elite sport events are an ideal opportunity to build a preferred destination image
(Donaldson and Ferreira, 2007). In domestic politics, national sporting success can
contribute to nation building, achieving unity, national identity and pride (Reiche,
2014). Through shared experiences, ‘collective identities’ can be formed (Lee,
Cornwell, & Babiak, 2013, p. 27). Rivalry and community alienation are potential
negative by-products of elite sport. The cluster ‘values’ is formed out of Loland and
McNamee’s conjecture that, although elite sport is often associated with unethical
practices (subclusters corruption/crime, competitive trait, aggression/violence, doping,
unfair play and other deviant examples), “if practiced according to our norm of fair
play, we believe that sporting games can stand out as a paradigmatic practice of the
possibility of moral dialogue that is so important in our modern, pluralistic societies”
(Loland & McNamee, 2000, p. 76). Elite sport provides an international platform for
social debate and enables people to realize human needs and ideals in a powerful
symbolic form, containing nostalgic traditions and rituals (Lipsky, 1979).
The second ‘supercluster’, ‘Uniqueness’, arose out the ‘unique selling proposition of
elite sport’ as it can provide, a feel-good effect among ‘consumers’ and attracts
enormous media attention. Fans attending live sporting events derive enjoyment,
happiness and satisfaction (De Knop, Scheerder, & Vanreusel, 2002) by having an
opportunity to experience entertainment (Fredline, 2005), comradeship, aesthetics,
and socialize with other spectators (Wann et al., 2001). Mega-sporting events
encompass the entire globe and are nearly certain to attract a great deal of worldwide
media coverage (Dolles and Söderman, 2008). A professional sports team has the
potential to build ‘brand equity’ by capitalizing on the emotional relationship it shares
with its fans (Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). A ‘showcase effect’ sets in as sport
offers an arena for countries to compete with each other in a ‘global sporting arms
race’ to gain international prestige, recognition, political power and fame. Countries
bidding for major events sometimes strive for a powerful public stage for their
ideological battles (Merkel, 2013), but the most distinct feature is that it paves the
way for economic value: an economic boost, new transport and infrastructure,
tourism, consumption, employment. Although research confirms that an economic
legacy is not certain as a ‘hangover’ with regards to the decaying infrastructure and
limited noticeable positive outcomes for the community (Meyer, 2009) often
occurred.
The third ‘supercluster’ is called ‘upgrowth’; and constitutes of the potential
developmental and leveraging processes due to elite sport participation (athlete),
consumption (fans), association/partnership (stakeholders) or locality/hosting (local).
Indeed, by incorporating the personal, physical and mental influences, the full scope
of potential influence spheres associated with elite sport are captured. Positive
influences for athletes are clustered as: identity building, relationships, health,
education, quality of life and learning life skills. In contrary, several physical and
psychological challenges (e.g. injuries, social isolation, pressure to perform) may
impose risks to the elite athlete’s wellbeing (Steffen, Soligard, & Engebretsen, 2011).
As ‘idealized creations’, athletes provide inspiration, motivation direction and
meaning for people’s lives. The notion that co-experiencing an athlete’s achievement
– live or through media – would inspire to actively change behaviour and personal
characteristics (volunteering, character building, self-efficacy, hard work, risk
taking...) and for example trickle sport participation has been contested. Donnelly et
al. (2011) state that “It is now clear that increased participation is not an automatic
legacy of hosting major sporting events or winning medals, and that far more
deliberate interventions are necessary in order to increase participation in sport and
physical activity. Inspiration is simply not enough”. Possible negative spheres has led
some authors to theorize about a ‘discouraging effect’ and decreased body image as a
result of an experienced ‘competence gap’. The stakeholder development cluster
constitutes of a variety of stakeholders that are entangled within elite sport. People do
not go to games just to watch athletes play; eating, drinking, shopping, and socializing
are other options that people enjoy at sport venues (Wann et al., 2001). Partnerships
and sponsor deals lead to direct economic outcomes relating merchandise sales, TV
rights, jobs, sport industry assets (Couvelaere & Richelieu, 2005) and others outcomes
like stimulation of scientific research, innovation, and corporate social responsibility.
Undoubtedly, elite sport stimulates the economy through the interconnection of sport,
media and business. These parties utilize the big public interest in elite sport and
emotional bonds with sporting heroes, teams and clubs. Sporting organizations benefit
and thrive because of this affiliation (Tomlinson, 2011).
Finally, the cluster local development stands for outcomes due to financing of elite
sport development and the organization of elite sport events. Especially when hosting
mega-events, cities invest in for example public transportation, sport accommodation,
the environment, local infrastructure, sustainable development...where inhabitants can
benefit from. Major events often bring forth a disruption of the local lifestyle (noise,
vandalism, an increase in crime and overcrowding) and living conditions which may
let residents avoid event places or decide to leave the area entirely (Mules and Dwyer,
2005). Unfortunately, there are examples of events where example low-income
neighborhoods were torn down in order to build new venues and roads (Agha, Fairley,
& Gibson, 2012).
DISCUSSION
The literature review shows that societal value is reflected in the ways elite sport
influences and effects individuals, groups and society at large. Elite sport is unique as
it enthuses and inspires people to unite and progress. However, these effects do not
occur automatically. Whether and how they manifest themselves depends on the
social context and social conditions. Moreover, this evidence induces us to draw
nuanced conclusions that do justice to the context-dependent nature of the empirical
findings. It remains a challenge to examine the relationship between elite sport and
society due to the vast range of determinants and difficulties to isolate effects in
empirical studies. Because of the complicated nature of these influences, the available
research has not sufficiently succeeded in finding clear evidence for the full scope of
the 109 potential influence domains. Despite high expectations, the cumulative
evidence base for elite sport’s personal and societal impact remains incomplete. This
makes it difficult to ‘measure the balance’ between the positive and negative
outcomes of elite sport in society.
The scope of the proposed model is much broader than what is often considered,
especially with regard to elite sport specifically. In some cases the potential ascribes
increases or improvements, others are the product of decreases or reductions. The
model suggests not only that elite sport is a potential key driver of different types of
value formation, but that each cluster in turn influences both the elite sport ‘world’
and the other ‘clusters’. Thus, “forming a synergistic feedback network whose whole
is greater than the sum of its parts” (Bailey, Hillman, Arent, & Petitpas, 2013, p. 290).
Ultimately, the aim of the model is not to make definite categorical statements, but to
stimulate debate around this subject and give opportunity to map elite sport policy and
research. Policymakers need this knowledge to judge whether or not elite sport
funding can be the answer to a specific goal.
References Agha, N., Fairley, S., & Gibson, H. (2012). Considering legacy as a multi-
dimensional construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review, 15(1), 125-139. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2011.08.004
Bailey, R., Hillman, C., Arent, S., & Petitpas, A. (2013). Physical Activity: An Underestimated Investment in Human Capital? Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 10(3), 289-308.
Barclay, J. (2009). Predicting the Costs and Benefits of Mega-sporting Events: Misjudgement of Olympic Proportions? Economic affairs, 29(2), 62-66.
Booth, A. (2003). Bridging the Research-Practice Gap? The Role of Evidence Based Librarianship. New Review of Information and Library Research, 9(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1080/13614550410001687909
Bradbury, S. (2013). Institutional racism, whiteness and the under-representation of minorities in leadership positions in football in Europe. Soccer & Society, 14(3), 296-314.
Brown, A., & Massey, J. (2001). Literature Review: The Impact of Major Sporting Events.
The Sports Develompent Impact of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games: Initial Baseline Research.
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1-21.
Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: who's keeping the score? : Routledge.
Coalter, F. (2013). 'There is loads of relationships here': Developing a programme theory for sport-for-change programmes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(5), 594-612. doi: 10.1177/1012690212446143
Couvelaere, V., & Richelieu, A. (2005). Brand strategy in professional sports: The case of French soccer teams. European Sport Management Quartely, 5(1), 23-46.
De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P., Van Bottenburg, M., & Shibli, S. (2006). A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(2), 185-215.
De Bosscher, V., Sotiriadou, P., & van Bottenburg, M. (2013). Scrutinizing the sport pyramid metaphor: an examination of the relationship between elite success and mass participation in Flanders. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 5(3), 319-339. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2013.806340
De Knop, P., Scheerder, J., & Vanreusel, B. (2002). Sportsociologie: het spel en de spelers: Elsevier gezondheidszorg.
Fredline, E. (2005). Host and guest relations and sport tourism. Sport in Society, 8(2), 263-279.
Girginov, V. (2012). Governance of the London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(5), 543-558. doi: 10.1177/1012690211413966
Gould, D., & Williams, J. (2011). After Heysel: how Italy lost the football ‘peace’ (Vol. 12, pp. 586-601).
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Green, M. (2004). Changing policy priorities for sport in England: the emergence of elite sport development as a key policy concern. Leisure Studies, 23(4), 365-385. doi: 10.1080/0261436042000231646
Green, M. (2009). Podium or participation? Analysing policy priorities under changing modes of sport governance in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2), 121-144. doi: 10.1080/19406940902950697
Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012a). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(1), 73-90. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2011.627358
Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012b). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy, 4(1), 73-90.
Hallmann, K., Breuer, C., & Kühnreich, B. (2013). Happiness, pride and elite sporting success: What population segments gain most from national athletic achievements? Sport Management Review, 16(2), 226-235. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2012.07.001
Higgins, J., & Green, S. C. H. f. S. R. o. I. V. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 G. S (Ed.) The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
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 and recreation, 4(1), 16–31.
Hogan, K., & Norton, K. (2000). The 'Price' of Olympic Gold. Journal of Science and Medicine Sport, 3((2)), 203-218.
Houlihan, B., Bloyce, D., & Smith, A. (2009). Developing the research agenda in sport policy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1080/19406940802681186
Houlihan, B., & Zheng, J. (2013). The Olympics and Elite Sport Policy: Where Will It All End? The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(4), 338-355. doi: 10.1080/09523367.2013.765726
Kavetsos, G., & Szymanski, S. (2010). National well-being and international sports events. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(2), 158-171. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.11.005
Lee, S. P., Cornwell, T. B., & Babiak, K. (2013). Developing an Instrument to Measure the Social Impact of Sport: Social Capital, Collective Identities, Health Literacy, Weil-Being and Human Capital. Journal of Sport Management, 27(1), 24-42.
Loland, S., & McNamee, M. (2000). Fair Play and the Ethos of Sports: An Eclectic Philosophical Framework. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 27(1), 63.
McCartney, G., Thomas, S., Thomson, H., Scott, J., Hamilton, V., Hanlon, P., . . . Bond, L. (2010). The health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: systematic review (1978-2008). BMJ, 340, c2369. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2369
Merkel, U. (2013). Flags, Feuds and Frictions: North Korea and the London 2012 Olympics. International Journal of the History of Sport,
30(15), 1810-1822. doi: 10.1080/09523367.2013.796453 Muller, P. (2009). Sport : What is it Good for. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003). Evidence, hierarchies and typologies:
horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health(57), 527–529. Reiche, D. (2014). Investing in sporting success as a domestic and foreign
policy tool: the case of Qatar. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2014.966135
Sant, S.-L., & Mason, D. S. (2015). Framing Event Legacy in a Prospective Host City: Managing Vancouver's Olympic Bid. Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 42-56.
Shilling, C., & Mellor, P. A. (2014). Re-Conceptualizing Sport as a Sacred Phenomenon. Sociology of Sport Journal, 31(3), 349-376. doi: 10.1123/ssj.2013-0034
Shipway, R., Kirkup, N., Saayman, M., & Saayman, A. (2012). The economic impact of the Comrades Marathon. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 3(3), 220-235.
Simon, L. M., & Ward, D. C. (2014). Preparing for events for physically challenged athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep, 13(3), 163-168. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000058
Storm, R. K. (2012). he Discourse of the Trickle-Down Effect: An Assessment of the Consequences of Hegemonic Closure in Sport. Paper presented at the 20th EASM conference: “Sport Between Business and Civil Society”, Aalborg, Denmark.
Swart, K., & Bob, U. (2012). Mega sport event legacies and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation & Dance, 1-11.
Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity: Lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1-13.
Veal, A. J., Toohey, K., & Frawley, S. (2012). The sport participation legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and other international sporting events hosted in Australia. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(2), 155-184. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2012.662619
Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1-32. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2014.998695
Woodman, J., Thomas, J., & Dickson, K. (2012). How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions. Syst Rev, 1, 37. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-37
Zhang, M., Li, C., Ouyang, L., & Malone, C. (2013). Residents' Perceived Social-Economic Impact of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. ICHPER -- SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 8(2), 19-25.
Appendix 1
Keywords used for inclusion
Population
‘elite AND sport*’
‘high AND performance AND sport*’ ‘perform* AND sport*’ ‘elite AND athlete*’ ‘athlete*’ ‘elite AND sport AND policy’ ‘*olympic*’ OR ‘paralympic*’ ‘sport* AND *event*’ ‘*mega-event*’ ‘international* AND sport*’ ‘multination*AND sport*’ ‘international* AND event*’ ‘multination* AND event*’ ‘international* AND games*’ ‘multination* AND games*’ ‘multi-nation* AND games*’ ‘sport* AND franchise*’ ‘sport* AND team*’ ‘sport* AND star*’ ‘sport* AND celebrit*’ ‘achievement*' ‘sport* AND success*’ ‘victor*’ ‘medal*’ ‘win*’
AND
Exposure
‘society’ ‘sportsworld’ ‘inhabitant*’ ‘population*’ ‘consumer*’ ‘tourist*’ ‘attend*’ ‘*fan*’ ‘follow*’ ‘communit*’ ‘enthusiast*’ ‘enthousiast*’ ‘devot*’ ‘particip*’ ‘grassroot*’
AND
Outcome (ethics' OR 'fair' 'play' OR 'norms' OR 'values' OR 'standards' OR 'morality) AND 'sport*' (admission*' OR 'entry' 'ticket*' OR 'merchandis*' OR 'food' OR 'beverage*' AND
‘consumer*’ OR ‘tourist*’ OR ‘attend*’ OR ‘*fan*’ OR ‘follow*’)AND 'sport*' (negative' OR 'bad' 'public' 'figures' OR 'role' 'models' OR 'role' 'model*') AND 'sport' (family OR friends) AND impact AND negative ('anger' OR 'rage' OR 'aggression' AND 'sport' touris*' AND 'sport*' (self-esteem' OR 'self-respect')AND 'sport*' (sex' OR 'sexual') AND 'sport*'
(community' OR 'economic' OR 'entrepreneurship' OR 'industry) AND ('bad OR 'negative') AND 'sport*'
leadership' AND sport (alcohol' OR 'doping' OR 'steroids) AND 'sport*' (technological' OR 'knowledge) AND 'sport*' ('differences' OR 'awareness') AND 'sport*' AND ( 'disab*' OR 'para*' or 'special' ) ('boredom) AND 'sport*' (brings' 'down' 'enthusiasm') OR 'passion ('excitement' OR 'satisfaction) AND sport* ('anxiety' OR 'fear' OR 'confusion') AND sport* ('bullying' OR 'sledging' OR 'verbal' 'abuse' OR 'intimidat*) AND sport* ('enthusiasm' OR 'energy' OR 'passion') AND sport* ('safeness' OR 'trust' OR 'faith) AND sport* ('exploitation' OR 'human rights') AND sport* ('charity' OR 'fundraising') AND sport* ('social' AND 'norms ) AND sport* ('school' OR scholar* OR academic*) AND elite sport* 'communit*' AND 'host*' 'peace' AND 'sport*' communit* AND (negative OR bad) AND 'sport*' (skill* OR competenc* ) AND ( difference OR 'gap' ) AND elite ('venue*' OR 'facilit*' OR 'accommodat*' OR 'PPP' ) AND sport ('social' 'inclusion' OR 'acceptanc*' 'OR' 'minorit* OR disadvant*) AND ('elite' OR 'sport'
OR 'athletes') 'public order' AND ( 'elite' OR 'sport') 'crime' AND ( 'sport' OR 'elite' ) volunteer* AND ( 'elite' Or 'sport*') character' OR 'resilience' OR 'persistency' AND 'sport*' ('addiction' OR 'fanaticism' OR 'obsession' OR '' 'gambling ) AND sport* discourag* AND ( 'elite' OR 'sport*' ) ('competitive' AND ('trait' OR 'character*') ) AND ('elite' OR 'sport*') ('discipline' OR 'self-control ) AND ('elite' OR 'sport*') 'disappoint*' AND ('elite' OR 'sport*') smoking AND (‘venue' OR 'stadi*' OR 'attend*’ OR ‘*fan*’ OR ‘follow*’ OR
‘communit*’) AND ('sport*' OR 'elite') (sleep OR 'sleep pattern*) AND (‘attend*’ OR ‘*fan*’ OR ‘follow*’ OR
‘communit*’)AND sport* 'media' AND 'innovation' 'social*' AND 'sport*' AND ('awareness' OR 'engagement') doping (eating OR eat ) AND elite injur* AND elite ('social' AND 'skills') OR 'socializing') AND sport* ('marketing' AND 'city') AND sport* ('social' AND 'mobility) AND (sport* OR 'elite') (embarrass*' OR 'shameful*' OR 'incident*) AND (sport* OR 'elite') (employment' OR 'job') AND ('athlete*' OR 'elite') empowerment' AND ('elite' OR 'sport' OR 'consumption) hard work AND ('elite' OR 'sport') authorit* AND elite rebellion' 'sacrific*' AND ('elite' OR 'athlete*') ('striv* OR 'goal' OR 'aim*') AND ('achievements' OR 'success) AND elite (communit* AND harmon*) AND sport ('cultural*' AND (value OR apprec*) ) AND ( elite OR event OR sport) (‘health' OR 'fitness) AND 'elite' ('heroism' OR 'bravery' OR 'courage) AND 'sport*' 'legac*' AND ( sport OR event ) AND ('commun*' OR 'social*') 'engagement' AND 'sport*' ('physical' AND 'decline') AND ('age*' OR 'old*' OR 'post*' OR 'ex*') AND ( 'elite' OR
'athlete*' OR 'sport*') (feel* AND good*' AND 'factor*') OR 'enjoy*' OR 'fun*') AND ( watch* OR 'attend*'
OR 'fan*' OR 'touris*') 'ritual*' AND 'sport*' (outcast* OR 'belong*) AND 'sport*' ('leisure' AND 'time') AND ('sport*' OR 'fan' OR 'spectat*' OR attend*) ('famous' OR 'fame' OR 'recogniz*') AND sport* ('hate' OR 'unpopular*' OR 'critics*) AND sport* ('government*' OR 'public' AND ('spending OR 'fund*) ) AND sport* (gross' AND 'domestic' AND 'product) AND sport* 'hooligan*' OR 'vandal*' hospitalit* AND sport* 'identit*' AND elite* AND sport* ('scien* AND 'innov*) AND sport* ('awareness' AND ('health' OR 'care') ) AND sport* 'transport*' AND ('legac*' OR 'sport*' OR 'event' OR 'host*') ('national' AND 'identity) AND sport* 'pride' AND sport* 'nationalism' AND sport* 'social' AND ('elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*' OR 'host' OR 'event') 'wellbeing AND ( 'elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*' OR 'host' OR 'event') 'equity' AND ('sport' OR 'elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*' OR 'host' OR 'event') ('inequity' OR discrimin* OR 'inequalit*) AND ('sport' OR 'elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*'
OR 'host' OR 'event') (econom*' OR 'commercial') AND ('sport' OR 'elite' OR 'communit*' OR 'host' OR
'event') ( sedentary OR 'lifestyle') AND ('elite' OR 'communit*' OR 'fan' OR 'watching') AND
sport ('disable*' OR 'para*' OR disabilit*) AND ('equit*' OR 'aware*' ) AND ( 'sport' AND
'elite' ) racial* AND 'sport' ('selfish*' OR 'ego') AND 'sport*' ('social' AND 'network*') AND 'sport*' ('honest*' OR 'integrit*) AND 'sport*' 'religion*' AND 'sport*' ('soci*' AND 'economic*') OR 'status') AND ('sport*' AND 'elite') ('brain' AND 'structure') OR ('cognitive' AND 'function') OR 'concussion* ) AND ('sport*'
AND 'elite') ('homophobia' OR 'gay' OR 'lesbian') AND 'sport*' 'war' AND 'sport*' ('dishonesty' OR 'corruption) AND 'sport*' ('mortality' OR 'suicide ) AND sport* ('negative' OR 'bad') AND ('body' AND 'image') OR ('physique' AND 'anxiety) AND
sport* 'infrastructure* AND 'sport*' ('prestige' OR 'reputation' OR 'honor') AND 'sport*' (invest* OR 'fund*') AND ('legitim*' OR 'explanation*' OR 'advoca*') AND 'sport*' ('consumption' OR 'consuming') AND 'sport*' ('healthcare' AND 'costs') AND 'sport*' ('job' AND ('absenteeism' OR 'productivity' OR 'performance' OR 'commitment')AND
'sport*' ('overtraining' OR 'overpressure') AND 'sport*' 'manufactur*' AND 'sport*' ('prejudice*' Or 'stereotyp*') AND 'sport*' 'media' AND 'sport*' ('mental' OR 'psychological') AND ( 'sport*' AND (athlete*' OR 'elite') ) relationship* AND ( 'sport*' AND 'elite' ) ('responsibility' OR 'respect) AND ('sport*' AND 'elite') 'moral*' AND ( 'sport*' AND 'elite' ) 'patriot*' AND 'sport*'
(‘personal' AND 'development' ) AND ( 'sport*' AND 'elite' ) ('perception*' OR 'critics' OR 'opinion') AND 'host*' 'emotion*' AND ( ('fan' OR attend* OR 'follower*') AND 'sport' ) ('addiction' OR 'fanaticism' OR 'obsession' OR '' 'gambling') AND 'sport' (‘collaboration' OR 'teamwork') AND 'sport' 'integration' AND 'sport' 'drug*' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'ethnic' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'gender' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'justice' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('inclusion' OR ('minority' AND 'groups) ) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('relaxation' OR 'entertainment' OR 'liveliness) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('stress' OR 'depression') AND ('sport' AND ('elite') ) (('motor' AND 'skills') OR 'dexterity' OR 'skillfulness' OR 'ability' OR 'prowess') AND
('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('physical' AND 'appearance' OR 'beauty' OR 'aesthetics’) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR
athlete)) ('citizen*' OR 'citizenship' ) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'reinvestment*' AND ( 'sport' OR 'elite' OR athlete)) 'retail*' AND 'sport' ('retirement' OR 'career') AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'athlete')) 'stakeholders' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'athlete')) ('environment' OR 'green' OR 'urban') AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'event')) (smug* OR 'trafficking') AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'event')) ((special' OR 'unique' AND 'brand') OR ('marketable' AND 'value) ) AND ( sport AND
('athlete' OR 'elite') ('wage*' OR 'salar*') AND (sport AND ('athlete' OR 'elite' ) ('diet*' OR 'nutrition*') AND 'elite' ('educational' AND ('attainment' OR 'engagement' OR 'performance)) AND ('sport' OR
'elite') ('self-efficacy' OR 'ambition' OR ('goal' AND 'setting) ) AND ('sport' AND 'elite') ('sport' OR 'participation') AND legac* ('participation' AND 'sport' ) AND ('success' OR 'win' OR 'medal' OR 'victor') ('participation' AND 'sport') AND ('elite' OR 'professional' AND ('equipment' 'and'
'facilities')) (‘participation' AND 'sport') AND ('professional' AND 'structur*) (('specific' OR 'group') AND 'polic* ) AND ('participation' AND 'sport' ) 'demonstration' AND ('participation' AND 'sport') ('rule*' OR 'regulation*') AND (elite AND sport) (television' AND ('rights OR 'payment*')) AND sport ('debate' OR 'revolution) AND sport ('volunteer*' AND ('skills' OR 'life')) AND sport (illegal AND ticketing') OR ('black AND market') ( sexual AND (abuse OR harassment)) AND sport
Appendix 2
Eligibi
lity832 full-text articles retrieved for review
To date exclusion, or directly or indirectly unrelated to topic/non-
applied to elite sport
Identif
ication25958 records excluded on the basis of initial filtering: title and
reference type, duplicated references, generic reference, non-
English language papers
30450 articles where initially identified from database searches
3660 excluded on the basis of title and abstract, unrelated to topic,
unable to be sourced from reference
4492 records screenedScreen
ing
To date on going process of including final articles in review
Inclu
ded
Appendix 3
Capital 9: ‘Fans development’, cluster 9.2. ‘Sport participation’
9.2.1. Positive
1992 OG Barcelona impact on sport participation in New Zealand: 15 out of 35 sport clubs (43%) reported a positive effect on club membership (Hindson et al., 1994)
Membership rise Liatoppsprinten: correlation between OG/WC medals and registered athletes was: r = .60 (p < .05), between OG/WC medals and participants was: r = 0.75 (p < .01), between top fifteen WC places and registered athletes: r = 0.69 (p < .05), between the top fifteen WC places and participants was: r = 0.63 (p < .05 (Hanstad & Skille, 2010)
Growth of population participating in sport at least once a week: from 36% in 1983 to 47% in 1989 to 51% in 1995 (Truno, 1995 ).
OG London 2012 Legacy: Workplace Challenge Programme (WCP): increase in overall amount of physical activity’ [r= .43, n = 185, p<.000] and participation in new sports and leisure activities’ [r= .21, n = 184, p<.005] (Chen & Henry, 2012)
Positive significant correlation with tennis members (r 1⁄4 0.749) and courts (0.858); adjusted R Square: 38.2% of the total registered members explained by tennis success (V. De Bosscher, De Bosscher, De Knop, & Heyndels, 2003)
Increase participation; side/indirect effects related to programmes, increased resources and staff, increased exposure, identification (Frawley & Cush, 2011)
Manchester Commonwealth Games of 2002: increased participation of 7% in adults in the UK and 19% among 6 to 15-year-olds in the North West (Faber Maunsell, 2004)
An increasing number of rugby players in Australia in the first two years after organizing the 2003 World Cup (Veal & Frawley, 2009)
6% of respondents claimed that overall UK sporting success had resulted in them doing more sport (Sporting Motivations Survey; TNS, 2004)
9.2.1. Mixed
OG Sydney: Post-Games increases in participation in seven Olympic sports, declines in nine others, and a general increase in recreational and non-Olympic activities (Veal, 2003)
Curling OG success: raise in memberships but only 4% of the new curlers cited GB team success as the main reason for their participation (EdComs, 2007 , p. 43)
Australia: Sydney OG, Inconsistent results: only 4% had changed their participation (Veal, Toohey, & Frawley, 2012)
Growth in club membership due to successes of Dutch athletes, but only in a few sports: WC & OG Judo (in the early 1960s), the successful hosting of men’s and women’s hockey WC in 1998, and darts’ WC victories (1998, 1999) Van Bottenburg (2002, 2003)
Membership figures comparison: Flanders vs. Netherlands: Analysis across 20
sports revealed no consistent relationship. Positive correlations were notable in Flanders in four of the eight sports in which elite Flemish competitors achieved significant international successes during the study period (athletics, gymnastics, judo and tennis) (Veerle De Bosscher et al., 2013)
Elite sport success positive only for people (32%) already engaged in sport, for lapsed participants to re-engage (35%) and for activity switching. 32% of sub-criterion participants (participating between 2/month and 2x30/week) that are not club members are highly responsive to a demonstration effect for outcomes increasing participation frequency. 35% of lapsed participants (participating between 1/year and 1/month) are highly responsive to a demonstration effect for outcomes that re-engage former participants (M. Weed, 2009)
Capital 9: Fans development, cluster 9.9. ‘discouragement
Limited effect on club membership in the six sports; related to the lack of marketing and promotion in sports clubs; Demonstrations of sporting excellence by top-level athletes may hinder, rather than foster, attempts to promote sporting participation at the grassroots level (Hindson, Gidlow, & Peebles, 1994)
No positive effects of increasing elite sport success and elite sport spending: an increased sedentary adult population, as well as overweight (Hogan & Norton, 2000)
Participation rates for individuals over 16 years old remained the same for the years 2005–2006 and 2007–2008 and had decreased in the vicinity of the 2012 Olympic Park in East London (London Assembly, 2009).
No positive effects of ‘success interventions victory Boris Becker Wimbledon 1985’; decline in tennis membership figures after 1990: the strong growth of membership decreased by about 5,2%, still implying an absolute positive growth of 2,3% annually. Thus, there was a general trend towards reduced membership growth in German sports associations (Feddersen, Jacobsen, & Maennig, 2009)
No trickle down effect after Australian swimming successes at the 2000 Sydney Olympics (Toohey, 2008)
A lack of trickle down effect is not only applicable to organized sports (membership figures), but also to people’s exercise behaviour in general (Murphy & Bauman, 2007)
Appendix 4
1.
SOCIAL
EQUITY
+ 1.1. Integration of different cultures & religions
1.1.1. Bridging cultural differences
1.1.2. Bridging people with different religion
1.1.3. Stimulates cultural diversity
1.2. Social equality
1.2.1. Promotion racial equality
1.2.2. Promotion ethnic equality
1.3. Inclusion
1.3.1. Inclusion/recognition of people with mental disablilities (special
olympics)
1.3.2. Inclusion/recognition of people with physical disabilities
(paralympics)
1.3.3. Bridging age differences
1.4. Social Justice
1.4.1. Promotion of children rights
1.4.2. Platform for fighting for equal rights
1.5. Socio-economic equality
1.5.1. Chance for social mobility
1.5.2. Bridging people with different SES
- 1.6. Sexism
1.6.1. Sexual stereotyping
1.6.2. Under-representation of sportswoman
1.6.3. Sexual orientation/gender identity
1.7. Exclusion
1.7.1. Exclusion on the basis of physical characteristics
1.7.2. Exclusion on the basis of SES
1.8. Exploitation
1.8.1. Human trafficking
1.8.2. Deprivation
1.9. Discrimination
1.9.1. Racism
1.9.2. Nationality
2. + 2.1. Community image
2.1.1. Revitalize community image
2.1.2. City marketing tool
Appendix 5
Previous frameworks
The main legitimization for the development of our model lies in the point of fact that
there is rich literature suggesting and measuring the ways in which (mainly
grassroots) sport contributes to society, but no broad, encompassing conceptual map
has been developed for elite sport. Indeed, most frameworks give a valuable but
limited ‘slice’ of the evidence, but are less useful if they give only a partial picture
(Woodman et al., 2012). In the groundwork for mapping the social impact of sport,
there have been quit some frameworks but little agreement on how to approach it and
what core criteria should be installed (Lee et al., 2013). Indeed, there is an elite-sport
oriented framework of Zhang, Pease, and Hui (1996) on the perceptions of value
contributed to communities from professional sports. Their scale of items are solely
oriented to the value dimensions professional sport can bring to the community (Lee
et al., 2013). Their measurement includes eight dimensions: (a) community solidarity,
(b) public behavior, (c) pastime ecstasy, (d) excellence pursuit, (e) social equity, (f)
health awareness, (g) individual quality, and (h) business opportunity. In the case of
examining events, Horne and Manzenreiter (2006: 9) construe that ‘the legacies of
sports mega-events’ are the greatest attraction of hosting, but also form part of the
‘known unknowns’, as they classify it in (a) social, (b) cultural, (c) environmental, (d)
political, (e) economic and (f) sporting themes. According Brown & Massey (Brown
& Massey, 2001), is research concerning hallmark or major-events more or less
centered around six main subject areas: (a) Sports Participation and development, (b)
Social Impact (c) Legacies, (d) Urban Regeneration, (e) Tourism, (f) Economic
Impact (Brown & Massey, 2001). As the authors mention themselves, some of these
overlap considerably – issues of ‘social impact’ and ‘legacies’; issues of ‘economic
impact’ and ‘urban regeneration’, for instance. Even more, Henry (2012) concludes in
his meta-evaluation that previous evaluations of mega-events identified a range of
impacts and legacies, but all included: (a) economic; (b) social and (c) environmental.
Others regularly included are: (d) improvements in governance capacity; (f)
promoting national and/or regional identities; (g) the development of employment and
skills; (h) building up of social capital; (i) place marketing, reputation management
and branding; (j) Inclusion and well-being. The most comprehensive framework is
that of RAND Europe, who identified 13 key policy themes (in essence potential
families of impact) for mega-events to take into account: health; volunteering;
employment; governance and accountability; economic development; tourism;
transport; regeneration; land use; environment; civic engagement; multiculturalism;
and security. In addition, a none elite sport nor major event related framework of
Lawson (2005) has suggested that the broad base of sport and physical education can
contribute to 1) social networks, 2) collective identities, 3) health and health-
enhancing environment, 4) well-being and 5) human capital. On Chalip, Johnson, and
Stachura (1996) and Chalip (2006) outlined five legitimations for sport: health,
salubrious socialization, economic development, community development, and
national identity. Lee and colleagues (Lee et al., 2013) proposed a ‘Social Impact of
Sport Scale’ which include the dimensions of (a) social capital, (b) collective
identities, (c) health literacy, (d) well-being and (e) human capital.