2021

10th INTERNATIONALSPORT BUSINESSSYMPOSIUM
ABSTRACTS

26. August 2021
DigitalEdited by Prof. Dr. Holger Preuss &Maike Weitzmann

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM
Dear Colleagues,
Dear Friends of Sport and Sport Science,"Discover Tomorrow"
This is the official slogan for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo. The sustainability concept of the Games is: "Be
better, together - For the planet and the people". The Olympic and Paralympic Games are among the world's
largest sporting events. This impact is not limited to sport, but also on society, the economy and theenvironment. We aim with this symposium to emphasize the impact on the environment.
Sustainability is specifically manifested in Olympic Agenda 2020 by Recommendation 4: Include sustainability
in all aspects of the Olympic Games. This is about the IOC taking a more proactive lead in ensuring thatsustainability is properly factored into the planning and staging and legacy of the Olympic Games. The
important distinction here will be what the IOC can do itself to make the Olympic Games a more sustainable
event, recognising that many aspects will be under the control of the respective host cities and Organising
Committees of the Olympic Games.
Recommendation 5: Include sustainability within the Olympic Movement’s daily operations. This
recommendation has three main elements. Firstly, for the IOC to develop its own corporate sustainability
programme – in effect, “walking the talk”. Secondly, it is about reaching out to the wider Olympic Movement
to provide assistance and means of sharing best practices. Thirdly, there is a role of “representation andadvocacy” on behalf of the Olympic Movement, to ensure sport has a credible and effective voice in global
sustainability dialogue, and to leverage key partnerships.
IOC president Dr. Thomas Bach said: “Building on Olympic Agenda 2020 and developed in close cooperation
with many stakeholders and partners, the IOC Sustainability Strategy will fundamentally shape the working
practices of the IOC, the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement. From the design and construction ofsport facilities and the way we manage resources, to valuing the natural environment and health and wellbeing of our people, all of our decisions will be informed by the sustainability principles that are highlighted
here.”The Symposium Spirit
The Greek symposium, dated back on 416 B.C., was a key social institution in ancient Hellenic culture andprovided a platform for debate and celebration with others. This is also what we are striving for! Since 2006 it
has become a tradition that Olympic scholars from all over the world come together for a symposium during
the Olympic Games as well as other Olympic events to exchange thoughts, present their Olympic research andhave a great time together. The next occasion will be Tuesday, August 4, 2020.
Context and Venue
The Olympic Games are the most prestigious sport event in the world and provide extraordinary opportunities
in regards to sports, social and cultural life as well as for the environment of the host city, region and country.
The host must undertake tremendous efforts to not only fulfil the requirements for staging the Games, butalso to maximize the economic, social, environmental, political, and structural benefits which come along withthe event.
This demand will lead to a tremendous ecological impact and negative footprint. Hosting Olympic Games inJapan, an extremely developed country induce chances to be environmentally sustainable.
Tokyo 2020 set the sustainability concept of the Games as "Be better, together - For the planet and the people".
The Organizing Committee wants to take the initiative to meet its responsibility to deliver sustainable Gamesand showcase solution models of global sustainability challenges to people in Japan and around the world.

0Organisers of the 10th International Sport Business Symposium
Prof. Dr. Holger Preuss, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, GER
Prof. Dr. Hisashi Sanada, Tsukuba University, Tokyo, JPN
Associate Prof. Dr. Yoshio Takahashi, Tsukuba University, Tokyo, JPN

Scientific Committee
Prof. Dr. Wladimir Andreff
Prof. Dr. Laurence Chalip, Professor of Sport Management, University of Illinois, USA
Prof. Dr. Lamartine DaCosta, Professor for Sport History and Sport Management, State University of Rio de Janeiro, BRA
Prof. Dr. Hallgeir Gammelsaeter, Professor in Social Sciences, Organization and Management and Formal Institution,
Molde University College – Specialized University in Logistics (NOR)
Prof. Dr. Vassil Girginov, Professor of Sport Management, Brunel University, GBR
Prof. Dr. Jean-Jacques Gouguet, Professor of Economics, Centre de Droit et d'economie du Sport (CDES), University of
Limoges, FRA
Prof. Dr. Harry Hiller, Professor of Urban Sociology and Sport, University of Calgary, CAN
Prof. Dr. Seok-Pyo Hong, Professor, Chair, Division of Sport Science, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, KOR
Director, Olympic studies Center (OSC), Kangwon National University
Prof. Dr. Robert Kaspar, Professor for Sport Management, Private University Schloss Seeburg, AUT
Prof. Dr. Jörg Königstorfer, Professor for Sport and Health Management, Technical University Munich, GER
Prof. Dr. Markus Kurscheidt, Professor of Sport Governance and Event Management, University of Bayreuth, GER
Prof. Dr. Milena Parent, Professor of Sport Management, University of Ottawa, CAN
Prof. Dr. Alberto Reppold, Professor of Sport Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, BRA
Asst. Prof. Dr. Christiana Schallhorn, Assistant professor of Sport Sociology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, GER
Prof. Dr. Martin Schnitzer, Senior lecturer and researcher in Sport Management, University Innsbruck, AUT
Dr. Norbert Schütte, Senior lecturer and researcher in Sport Management, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, GER
Prof. Dr. Holger Schunk, Professor of Media Management, RheinMain University of Applied Sciences, GER
Prof. Dr. Benoît Séguin, Professor of Sport Management, University of Ottawa, CAN
Prof. Dr. Berit Skirstad, Professor of Sport Management, Norwegian School of Sport Science, NOR
Prof. Dr. Harry Arne Solberg, Professor of Sport Economics, Trondheim Business School, NOR
Prof. Dr. Yoshio Takahashi, Professor for Sport Sociology, Tsukuba University, JPN

Coordinator of Scientific Committee
Maike Weitzmann, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, GER

Full University Partners of the
Symposium

Supporting Partners

Academic Main and Hosting Partners

Content
Key Note: Environment and Modern Pentathlon ...........................................................6
Key Note: Environment and Sustainability – an IOC Perspective ....................................8
Law & Ethics ............................................................................................................... 15
A new trend towards Human Right Protection in Sport Mega Events ...........................16
Regulation on Ambush Marketing Behavior of Olympic Symbols in China ....................18
Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 21
Sustainable Development Goals and Opportunities beyond sport: A Case Study thatexamines the degree of incidence of the Pan American Games Lima 2019 ..................22
Sport events and climate vulnerability: Implications for how we manage natural
resources .........................................................................................................................23
The Application of Realist Evaluation and Contribution Analysis to Tokyo 2020 Olympic
Education Programmes ...................................................................................................25
Economics................................................................................................................... 27
The development of world records in Olympic sports. Lessons for other fields ofhuman activity .................................................................................................................28
Legacy......................................................................................................................... 31
Olympic Legacy for National Sport Federations .............................................................32
Olympics Legacy Tokyo 2020 ..........................................................................................35
Application of the Triple Helix Model for the Olympic Games' Legacy ..........................37
Ranking the Stars. The Legacy of the Cold War Summer Olympic Games .....................39
Olympic Reform .......................................................................................................... 40
The governance challenges of co-hosting major sport events .......................................41
Temporary Venues and the Olympic Games: How and why such structures can benefit
the Olympic Movement ..................................................................................................43
Co-hosting the Olympic Games: stakeholders’ perspective ...........................................45
Towards a New Typology of Sports Events Considering Polycentric Event Context ......49
Marketing I ................................................................................................................. 52
Understanding Olympic Sponsorship in Caribbean National Olympic Committees .......53
The Future of Olympic Digital Marketing Engagement...................................................55
Olympic Hospitality in Tokyo: The Legal and Sports Development Legacies..................58
Marketing II & Olympic Education ............................................................................... 60
How can Olympic sponsors comply with international corruption law? ........................61
Nation branding and the Olympic Games: The case of Israel .........................................63

Olympic Ideals and Values Education and the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympic andParalympic Games: Do Educational Inputs for Athletes, Coaches and Spectators
Directly Lead to Broader Understanding and Impact of Olympism and Olympic Ideals
and Values? .....................................................................................................................65

Key Note: Environment andModern Pentathlon
Key Note: Dr h.c. Klaus Schormann (GER)

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

7

Environment and Modern Pentathlon
Klaus Schormann (GER), President of Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne (UIPM)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Prof. Dr. Preuß,It is my pleasure to speak to you about the Environment and Modern Pentathlon.
I am sure you know Baron Pierre de Coubertin created Modern Pentathlon as a special multidiscipline sport for the Olympic Games. In Stockholm in 1912 the movement started as apermanent core sport in the Olympic Summer Games sporting programme.
For 60 years it was a sport dominated by officers in military and police. After Munich 1972 more
and more students stared to train for Modern Pentathlon at schools. And here the rapid evolutionof Modern Pentathlon began.
Let me start with the Riding discipline, which UIPM changed from cross-country to a show-jumping
test. The reasons for this transition included:-

Protection of the natural environment-

Simplification of horse selection-

Use of existing facilities.

The next step was to change the cross-country running. To have a more compact combination of
disciplines, we shortened the running from 4000m to 3000m for each gender. We used the areaaround the riding facilities, or a golf course, or public areas.
Since Beijing 2008 the running has taken place inside a stadium. You could see this year in Tokyo
all five disciplines in one stadium for the first time in the Olympic Games. Again, we are protecting
the environment by no longer competing in natural terrain like forests.
The biggest step was taken in 1994, when the Shooting discipline changed from fire pistols to air
pistols. They had been already used since 1972 in all youth competitions.
We were then able to combine Fencing and Shooting in one indoor facility (1996 to 2008).
Another important step was to establish Laser Shooting. At the 1st Youth Olympic Summer Games
Singapore 2010, this new concept was presented with the combination of running that we know
today as Laser Run.
For the first time in London 2012 the Laser Run closed the Olympic Modern Pentathlon
competition. Laser Run is an environmentally friendly discipline. It is absolutely safe andtransferable from venue to venue with no impact on nature.
Looking back over all the changes that were made by UIPM over the past 30 years, Modern
Pentathlon is guided always by innovation and the following key goals:-

To present an exciting multi-discipline sport-

To protect and respect nature.

Environment and sustainability are priorities of our movement.

Key Note: Environment andSustainability – an IOC
Perspective
Key Note: Richard W. Pound (CAN)910th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Environment and Sustainability – an IOC Perspective
Richard W. Pound (CAN), IOC member, former President World Anti-Doping Agency,
rpound@stikeman.com
Environment and sustainability are broad topics with broad and flexible meanings and manydifferent perspectives regarding responsibilities, goals and measurements.
Apart from chronic ritual deniers, most agree that the environment is vitally important to the futureof the planet and that, with a few exceptions, it has not been well managed. It is also generally
agreed that meaningful progress in protecting the environment requires a concerted effort acrossthe entire spectrum of human conduct, political, industrial and social. Climate change isaccelerating and with that change increasingly extreme conditions are experienced throughout theworld.
It is also acknowledged that human-initiated development has a significant impact on theenvironment that must be continually monitored and be kept as minimal as possible, hence the
sharper focus on sustainable development. Uncontrolled development, that is to say development
which occurs with no attention paid to sustainability, increases the pressures on the environment
and accelerates the rate of climate change. Pollution of air and water, the use of fossil fuels,
deforestation, and urbanization are all examples of outcomes derived from or attributable todevelopment and are all traceable to human conduct.
My focus today will be to examine the perspective of an organization that does not itself engage inunsustainable development, but which is regularly identified with major high-profile events thatengage worldwide consideration of such conduct.
International Olympic Committee
I speak of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a private non-governmental organization
established under Swiss law and headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. It has a maximum
membership of 115 individuals scattered throughout the world, who meet formally once per year
and a staff of a few hundred employees working mainly from Switzerland. A majority of themembers are chosen on the basis of their personal characteristics, including their skill sets. A
maximum of 45 of the IOC members are selected from three different categories: 15 active
athletes, 15 persons having responsibility among international sports federations (IFs), and 15
persons having meaningful connections with national Olympic committees (NOCs). Every memberof the IOC (including those from the constituencies mentioned above), is elected by a secret ballot
among the IOC members themselves.
The philosophical mental set regarding IOC membership is quite different from the considerations
relating to most organizations, in which the members are representatives of their particularcountries or constituencies and are expected to advance their policies within the organization. The
IOC is the converse of that position: IOC members are not representatives of their countries oraffiliations, but rather representatives of the IOC in their countries or organizations. They cannot
be removed by governments. The 45 members mentioned cease to be IOC members when they nolonger retain their positions within the particular IF or NOC or, in the case of athlete members,
when they no longer qualify as active athletes.
It would be a fair question to ask what makes this small organization at all important in the context
of such fundamental matters as the environment and sustainability.
The answer to the question is that the IOC is the organization which determines the choice of cities
or countries that host the Olympic Games (both Summer and Winter), the format of those Games,

10

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

the sports that are on the programme of each Games and approves the technical aspects of each
sport, including the size and scope of the facilities used for competition and training.
The Olympics are the largest international sporting event in the world today. There are some 206
NOCs and in the order of 40 sports and disciplines. A summer Games attracts approximately 11,000
athletes, plus supporting team officials, coaches and medical personnel. The Winter Games are
considerably smaller but are the ultimate international event for the sports on the Winter program.
Both Games attract viewership reaching into the billions from around the world. They also attract
broadcast, sponsor, individual and political attention on a level that matches or exceeds that of any
other activity.
The IOC Role in Environment and Sustainable Development
Over the last three-plus decades, the IOC has recognized that its event (the Olympic Games)
involves many elements that are relevant to the environment and sustainability. Even though the
IOC itself does not conduct the Games-related developments, it is nevertheless in a unique position
to influence certain aspects of them and to use the Olympics as models or examples of conductthat embraces both the environment and sustainability.
It began to articulate its role shortly after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, at which it had participatedto present the Olympic Movement’s policy. Following the Summit recommendations, the IOC called
upon the International Federations (IFs) and national Olympic committees (NOCs) to sign an Earth
Pledge to help make the Earth a secure and hospitable home for the present and future
generations. It also worked in collaboration with the Norwegian hosts of the 1994 Olympic WinterGames in Lillehammer during their preparations for those Games.
Lillehammer 1994 – Pilot Project
The Lillehammer organizational experience had begun with the usual confrontations between
environmental groups and the Olympic Organizing Committee (OCOG), but evolved fairly smoothly
thereafter into a cooperative effort that included the Norwegian governmental authorities(centered on the Ministry of the Environment) and the adoption of a program aimed at presenting
Green Games. This was part of a larger (OCOG) objective, articulated in 1992, of hoping to be avaluable partner of the IOC in forging the Olympic Movement’s environmental dimension for the
future. 1 The following year, the OCOG reported on continued work in cooperation withenvironmental groups and the Norwegian government, including with respect to energy saving andwaste disposal, as well as the construction of facilities, including, for example, cutting only
necessary trees for venue construction, supplemented by a post-Games program to replace treesthat had been cut.2
Although the size and scope of Winter Games are much less than for Summer Games, neverthelessthe creation of ski runs, cross-country trails, biathlon courses and the construction of above-groundvenues such as ski jumps and bobsleigh and luge tracks often involve extensive clearing operations,the cutting of trees and clearing areas for access, parking and spectators. They are normally
extremely visible. The energy costs of freezing tracks, speedskating ovals, rinks, and iced bob andluge runs are significant, as is maintenance of the facilities. The financial impacts in communities
normally much smaller than host cities for Summer Games can lead to unwelcome recurring costs
for facilities that may only be used for portions of each year and some for use by experts only.
These considerations had led to extensive discussion in the context of the Lillehammer Games,

1
2

99th IOC Session, February 1992, Courchevel, p. 23.
101st IOC Session, September 1993, Monaco, pp. 28-29.

11

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

which was the first time there had been such active collaboration by both “sides” of theenvironmental issues.
The level of cooperation was successful enough that the Lillehammer OCOG included Olav Myrholt,
head of the “Environment-Friendly Olympic Project” as part of its delegation to the IOC Session to
speak immediately prior to the 1994 Games. He described the initial aim, which had been to reduce
environmental damage from staging the Games, but that this had evolved into planningenvironmentally sustainable development. The overall results had been fairly good, with only
moderate damage to the environment. Clean-up operations were planned to commence
immediately following the Games. They had chosen sponsors and suppliers with pro-environmental
attitudes and had largely achieved their goals.3 In the course of its final report to the IOC, the OCOG
reiterated its primary focus on environmental protection, which had involved creating the rightmental attitude in the people working within the organization. They had started a process they
hoped the IOC would continue and they stated they were very happy to have been presented witha United Nations award for their work in relation to their project.4
The Lillehammer experience, led by the Norwegians, had provided valuable guidance to the IOC
and opened the huge potential for the IOC to continue to draw worldwide attention to the pressing
issues of environmental protection and sustainable development. Assessment of these matters
continued within the IOC Executive Board as it considered the most effective means to maximize
its impact on matters that were assuming an increasing role on the international agenda. Building
on an observation by former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, that a country(organization) cannot have a foreign policy unless it first has a domestic policy, the IOC began the
study of the elements that should be part of its own policy.
Elevating the IOC Environmental Profile
In 1994, the IOC signed a cooperation agreement with the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) to develop joint initiatives. Later the same year, at the Centennial Congress in Paris, the IOC
dedicated an entire segment of the Congress to the relationship between sport and theenvironment. In July, 1995 the IOC organized the first World Conference on Sport and theEnvironment with the cooperation of UNEP.
This was followed by establishing a new IOC Commission, the Sport and Environment Commission,
to work on a general policy for the IOC and the Olympic Movement regarding protection of theenvironment. Its first report to the IOC Session was in Atlanta, preceding the Centennial Games in
1996.5 There was to be a new set of minimum environmental requirements for bidding cities andan environmental expert appointed to the IOC Coordination Commissions (the first of which had
been created in relation to the Atlanta Games) and to Evaluation Commissions, under the thencurrent process that preceded the election of host cities for the Games.6

3

102nd IOC Session, February 19954, Lillehammer, pp. 3-4. Myrholt would later be appointed adviser onenvironmental affairs, monitoring compliance with the IOC’s environmental requirements by candidate and hostcities for both the Evaluation and Coordination Commissions.
4103rd IOC Session, April 1994, Paris, pp. 26-27.
5105th IOC Session, July 1996, Atlanta, pp. 29-30 and Annex 25.
6
Prior to the Atlanta Games, there had been a multiplicity of commissions dealing with the Organizing Committees(OCOGs). The IOC had its own, the IFs had their own and the NOCs had theirs. The various commissions had no legal
authority to require certain actions on the part of the OCOGs and much time and money was wasted by all parties. A
single coordination commission, combining IOC, IFs, NOCs, athletes and subject-matter experts was established for
Atlanta and all subsequent Games, with the power to make decisions. With the new process now in place forselecting hosts, the Evaluation Commissions mechanism will not be necessary, since the former “competitions” bycandidate cities have been replaced with a discussion/negotiation model.

12

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

At the September 1997 IOC Session in Lausanne, reference was made to the IOC President’s
statement that environment was effectively a fourth pillar of the Olympic Movement, along withsport, culture and education, a statement which had already been responded to by the 2004
candidate cities and the three OCOGs then in operation. The Commission had also produced aManual of Sport and the Environment, available on the Internet. One of its recommendations had
been to organize annual sport and environment seminars for NOCs in different regions, incooperation with UNEP, the first of which had already been held in Bridgetown, Barbados and asubsequent one to be held in Oceania in December, 1997. The Commission welcomed the supportof its initiatives by GAIFS and WOA.
The Commission noted that its Chairman had spoken at the 25 th anniversary of the Stockholm
Conference on Sustainable Development and that an IOC delegation had also attended the United
Nations General Assembly Special Session to review the implementation of Agenda 21 and Earth
Summit +5 in New York from 23-27 June, 1997, five years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,
where the heads of delegations of many member states had mentioned sport in their addresses to
the General Assembly.
Ongoing cooperation with UNEP was continued, with the IOC being invited to attend the 19 th
Session of the UNEP Governing Council held in Nairobi, Kenya during February, 1997. During themeetings, there were several joint working sessions and agreement was reached for cooperationon all projects related to sport and the environment to be undertaken by the IOC and the Olympic
Movement. It was noted that the Second World Conference on Sport and the Environment would
be held on November 1-2, 1997 in Kuwait City, in cooperation with the Olympic Council of Asia andthe Kuwait NOC, to assess the progress made by the Olympic Movement.7
Reporting to the 1998 IOC Session in Nagano, the Commission commented on the success of theSecond World Conference in Kuwait City, which had attracted some 200 participants, including
representatives of several international organizations such as UNEP, the World Health Organizationand the World Federation of Sporting Goods Industries. 48 NOCs had already entered into
cooperation with the Commission for some environmental activities. The Oceania seminar had
been held in Apia, Samoa in December, 1997. The World Confederation of Underwater Activities
was reported as having established an environmental prize. 1998 was declared “Year of the Ocean”
by the United Nations. Athens, host city for the 2004 Olympic Games had organized a conference
entitled “The Olympics, the City and the Environment,” a promising start to its role as organizer of
the Games. Regional seminars would be held in Nagano, the Commission was invited to have its
1998 meeting in Curitiba, Brazil, and the European Olympic Committees had offered to organize aregional seminar in Rome during June, inviting all 48 NOCs.8
Two of the three IOC Sessions held in 1999, the 108th Session and the 110th Session, were devoted
to the fallout from the Salt Lake City bidding scandal. The 108 th Session in March dealt with theexpulsion or forced resignation of IOC members implicated in the scandal and the 110 th Session
dealt with the structural and other aspects of the IOC governance on a going forward basis. The
Session that was closest to a routine Session was the 109th Session, held in Seoul during June.9 This
Session provided an opportunity for the Commission to report on a number of activities that had
continued despite the chaos created by the scandal, as well as to observe some of the practicalchallenges of translating good intentions, mainly inspirational and dependent on the conduct ofother parties, into effective action.

7

106th IOC Session, September 1997, Lausanne, pp. 20-21 and Annex 25.
107th IOC Session, February 1998, Nagano, pp. 14-15, Annex 11.
9109th IOC Session, June 1999, Seoul, pp. 16-17, Annex 14.
8

13

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

With respect to the OCOGs currently preparing their editions of the Games, Sydney’senvironmental targets were ambitious, but the Commission considered that however well it
succeeded in meeting the targets, it would leave a powerful environmental legacy in a number ofareas. Salt Lake City had been the first city to have environmental criteria included in the evaluation
process when bidding for the Games. Athens had been selected despite several major
environmental problems, but the OCOG had committed to address these, particularly air pollution,transport, water quality, environmental protection areas and energy efficiency. If these were dealt
with, the Games would have a huge positive impact and put the city firmly on the path towardsustainable development. All of the candidate cities for 2006 had included carefully preparedenvironmental sections in their candidatures.
The Commission’s third meeting had taken place in Curitiba, Brazil om May 12, 1998, immediately
before a South American Seminar on Sport and the Environment in the same city. The Commission
recommended that a draft of the agenda for Agenda 21 for the Olympic Movement be prepared
for the Session in Seoul and, if adopted, presented for possible adoption at the scheduled World
Conference on Sport and the Environment in the autumn of 1999.10 This Agenda 21 for the Olympic
Movement would draw its inspiration from the values of Olympism, proposing rules and guidelines
for action so that the Olympic Movement could be active within the areas of international
cooperation, combatting exclusion (and thus poverty), changing consumer habits, healthprotection, habitat and human settlements, integrating the concept of sustainable development
into sports policy. In areas of conservation and resource management, the content was based on
the considerable work already done by the IOC in this area.
The Commission’s fourth meeting was held in Lausanne on March 23, 1999, where the main topics
were the same Agenda 21 for the Olympic Movement and the III World Conference on Sport andthe Environment in Rio de Janeiro. There were, in addition, considerations regarding othermeetings. One was the June 1998 European Seminar at the CONI headquarters in Rome, attended
by 37 NOCs with more than 150 participants. A particular result of the seminar was setting up aEuropean Sport and Environment Working Group to assist all European NOCs with matters relating
to the environment. Those NOCs that still did not have a Sport and Environment Commission wereasked to form one.
The first African regional seminar, held in Nairobi, Kenya from November 24-27 had been organizedfor English-speaking African NOCs. 23 were invited and 20 sent 70 representatives. On the first day,the meeting was held in the UNEP headquarters where a Children’s Conference for theenvironment was also being held with more than 400 children from various countries. During theseminar, participants visited the Mathare Youth Sports Association (MYSA), which is described as asplendid example of what sport can do to improve the livelihood of children in hostileenvironments. Mathare is one of the largest slums in Africa, with sordid living and hygiene
conditions. Through football and a sophisticated task allocation system built upon it, local young
people, girls and boys, have managed not only to improve their environment and to attend school,
but also to win several championships, on both local and international levels. The thought was

10

Agenda 21 had been adopted during the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development heldin Rio de Janeiro. It addressed the pressing problems of the day and aimed to prepare the world for the challenges of
the next century by promoting the concept of sustainable development. While its implementation was to be theresponsibility of governments, other international, regional and sub-regional organizations (including nongovernmental organizations) were called upon to contribute to the effort. As part of that initiative, the Olympic
Movement would implement its own Agenda 21, an action program allowing the Olympic Movement to participate in
the global program of sustainable development and to define the responsibilities of its different members and offer
governing bodies of the sports movement ways to incorporate sustainable development into their political strategies.

14

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

expressed that this experience could perhaps be extrapolated elsewhere in the developing
countries.
Seminars for French-speaking African NOCs and another for East-Asian NOCs were envisioned forthe end of the year or early the following year.
The Commission noted that while damage to the environment resulting from staging the Olympic
Games is well known and documented, the still relatively modest, but nonetheless real positiveeffects were totally unknown. These result mainly from technological innovations and newprocesses in the field of environment generated for and by the Games. The Commission establisheda working group to collect information on the positive contribution of the Olympic Games to theenvironment, covering all Games from 1992. Results were to be posted on the IOC website andmade available to all prospective organizers of sports events.
Some Conclusions from a Work in Progress
I hope you will forgive a somewhat granular approach in this paper, but I thought it worthwhile togive some idea of the initiatives available to the IOC and the Olympic Movement in this importantseries of challenges to the world at large. It has been an attractive opportunity for the IOC to put
sport at the greater service of mankind. The IOC has been an equally attractive partner for theUnited Nations, not only because of the high profile of the Olympic Games, but also its ability toreach into all countries and communities within them, opportunities not generally available toUnited Nations organizations, and to implement projects powered by members of thosecommunities that demonstrate what can be possible when those communities become engaged.
With its worldwide network of NOCs and national federations and with the support of IFs, the IOC
can stimulate action and understanding of the related issues at a visceral level not accessible tointernational organizations and governments.
Even though governments recognize their responsibility for development and sustainability on aninternational scale, they have thus far demonstrated that they are unable to deliver on that
responsibility. To go back to Prime Minister Trudeau’s observation: without a domestic policy,
there can be no foreign policy.

Law & Ethics
Papers:• Ishido (JPN) A new trend towards Human Right Protection in Sport Mega Events• Li & Ji (CHN) Regulation on Ambush Marketing Behavior of Olympic Symbols in China

16

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

A new trend towards Human Right Protection in Sport Mega Events
Norihide Ishido, Chukyo University, n-ishido@mecl.chukyo-u.ac.jp
Introduction
In June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the “Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights: Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework（
hereinafter referred to as UNGPs) led by Professor John Ruggie of Harvard University. UNGPs
requires global enterprises to create a structure that prevents human rights violations throughout
their supply chain.
In a sport mega event, recently, more attention to human rights as social sustainability has been
paid. In 2017 the IOC adopted a new procedure and made changes to the Host City Contract 2024,
which includes provisions protecting human rights, in a manner consistent with all internationallyrecognized human rights standards and UNGPs. Likewise, FIFA adapted Human rights policy for the
sport mega events.
In the same line, the Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
2020(TOCOG) has established the Tokyo 2020 Sustainable Sourcing Code and set the standards forsustainability in the fields of Environment, Human rights and Labor. The Sourcing Code requires
suppliers and licensees to set up Human Right Due Diligence and the Grievance Mechanism toensure the respect for human rights in the entire range of supply chains. Such attempt will be thefirst test case in Olympic games and it is expected to be intangible legacy of Tokyo Olympic Games.
Research question
This paper is based on the contention on that there are two types of the human rights violation in
relation to the sport mega events. One is the human rights violation related to host the sport mega
events, such as the issues of forced labor of foreign workers and the eviction in constructing a
stadium. Another human rights violation relates to the global business activities of sponsor
companies and suppliers, such as child labor and forced labor in the developing countries. Although
the latter issues are basically liable for a parent company, but in the case of mega sport events theorganizing committee shall take over the both issues under the host city contract. For theorganizing committee, however, this kind of a dispute resolution in business is unknown area.
Furthermore, as International Trade Union estimates that 4000 workers have died due to thehazardous working condition in preparing the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, the human rights
violations in sport context are also bothersome for the organizing committee. This paper outlines
the global movement towards human rights protection and explores for clues about these difficult
and unsolved human rights violations in the sport business context.
Research methods
The approach adopted in the research is twofold. First, research on the leading cases and practice
regarding the human rights protection in the global business. Since UNGP requires states andcorporations to provide access to remedy for victims of human rights violations and the Modern
Slavery Act in UK requires companies to report the human rights violations, many global companies
have advanced more than sport organizations. This paper examines the effectiveness andlimitations of remedy provided by these private sectors. Second, this paper adapts theoretical
approach. There are many literature on “business and human rights”, for example, Wettstein(2019) and Gotzmann (2019), but a few in the sport context. Heerdt (2018), for example, discuss
the possibility of using the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the field of “business and humanrights”. This paper explores the theoretical foundation in sport through the discussion of “business17

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

and human rights”, because there is the intrinsic natures of sport to distinguish the logic of business
context from sport context.
Results and findings
This paper examines the practice of human rights due diligence and the grievance mechanism insport and business context and then it makes a clear the limitation and issues of framework of
UNGP. This paper examines the effective dispute resolution in sport business context. This paper
provides theoretical and practical analysis for prevention and resolution of the human rightviolations in sport.
References
Amis, L. & Morrison, J. (2017). Mega-Sporting Events and Human Rights—A Time for More Teamwork?
Business and Human Rights Journal, 2(1), 135-141.
Corrarino, M. (2014). ‘‘Law Exclusion Zones’’: Mega-Events as Sites of Procedural and Substantive Human
Rights Violations. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 17(1), 180-204.
Götzmann, N. (2019). Handbook on Human Rights Impact Assessment. Edward Elgar Pub.
Heerdt, D. (2018). Tapping the potential of human rights provisions in mega-sporting events' bidding andhosting agreements. International Sports Law Journal, 17, 170-185.
Wettstein, F., Giuliani, E., Santangelo, G. D. & Stahl, G. K. (2019). International business and human rights:
A Research Agenda. Journal of World Business, 54(1), 54-65.

Norihide Ishido is a professor at Chukyo University, where he also earned his bachelor's, master's,and doctoral degrees in law. Norihide Ishido has published numerous academic articles on legal
aspects in sports. Furthermore, he is a board member of Asian Sports Law Association and JapanSports Law Association. Other volunteer activities include being vice commissioner of legal affair
commission in Japan Olympic Academy and being a member of the editorial board of “Journal of
Human Sport and Exercise” of University of Alicante, Spain.

18

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Regulation on Ambush Marketing Behavior of Olympic Symbols in China
Zhi Li, Fuzhou University, lizhi1998@126.com
Chenxi Ji, Fuzhou University, 15705957283@163.com
According to the definition in the Brand Technology Protection Manual from IOC, the term ofambush marketing includes all intentional and unintentional attempts to create a false or
unauthorized commercial association with the Olympic Movement or the Olympic Games (IOC,2018). There are mainly two forms. One is contact marketing. That is, the unofficial sponsors use
the Olympic symbols for marketing without authorization. For instance, at the 1988 Calgary WinterOlympics, Wendy's Restaurant ambushed the official sponsor-McDonald's, by decorating its chain
stores with symbols similar to the five rings and using the Olympic story as an advertisement. The
other one is invasive marketing. Some others do not use the Olympic logo directly, but publicize
around the event to improve the exposure of the brand, so that consumers mistake them assponsors. For example, Xinri Electric Vehicle was not an Olympic sponsor of the 2008 Beijing
Olympic Games, but the brand awareness was improved by providing electric vehicle services for
the Olympic Village and competition venues and stations.
In 2018, the Regulations on the Protection of Olympic Symbols was revised in China to provide
regulation on the use of Olympic Symbols and ambush marketing, with the legislative idea ofbalancing fair use and private exclusive rights. It provides the subjective and objective criteria for
the identification whether ambush marketing constitutes infringement. Thereinto, Article 4 takes"profit-making purpose" as the subjective element. At the same time, the Regulations and AntiUnfair Competition Law list the objective ways of behavior, including direct manufacturing andsales of Olympic symbols by ambushers, the use of Olympic symbols in commodity packaging andservice items, advertising and other commercial activities, reflecting the new progress of China in
the protection of Olympic symbols. However, due to the diversity and concealment of ambush
marketing, it is necessary to refine judgment criteria, accurate application and protection methods
in the specific application of the Regulations, mainly considering the following ways:
Firstly, refining the recognition standards of ambush marketing. According to the Regulations,"similar signs" and "utilization of relevant elements" are important factors to constitutemisconduct. Among them, "similar logo" can refer to the concept of " trademark similarity ", takecomposition similarity and public confusion as the judgment standard (Yao Hehui, 2015).
"Utilization of relevant elements" is an important factor of "misleading enough". Secondly, unifying
the tort identification standard of ambush marketing. In China, the identification standard of
trademark infringement has gradually changed to "likelihood of confusion", that is, to judge
whether it constitutes a recessive marketing infringement by referring to the confusion standard.
This possibility refers to the great probability with reasonable expectation. We can judge whether
the specific behavior constitutes hidden marketing infringement by comprehensively consideringfactors such as trademark similarity, trademark strength, consumer awareness, and subjective
intentions of the infringer. Such as the White Toothpaste case. Thirdly, improving the way of
responsibility identification and handling. Combining the subjective purpose and objective
behavior of the perpetrator, we can judge whether the using of the Olympic logo or similar logo isfor commercial purpose in marketing. What’s more, protecting the Olympic symbols as traditional
intellectual property rights. According to the current Chinese laws and international treaties, theOlympic symbols are not fully integrated in the public domain. According to the listing in Article 2of the regulations about the scope of the signs, and the provisions of the general provisions of the
Civil Law on the scope of intellectual property rights, the Olympic marks conforming to "intellectual

1910th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

products" can be determined. They can be used as traditional intellectual property rights anddirectly apply to China's intellectual property law. Olympic signs that do not meet the above criteria
may be appropriately removed as common logo for public use. Finally, strengthening international
protection cooperation. To promote the protection of Olympic intellectual property rights ininternational law, we should not only unify the protection rules of the symbols, but reach the basisof joint action. At the same time, we should also learn beneficial systems from each other. For
example, the protection of unified signs can be strengthened within certain range refer to the
Nairobi treaty for the protection of the Olympic Emblem. In the case of implicit marketing to hinder
the "reasonable use", Australia has the "reasonable person system" (Zhang Yuchao, 2014), and theUnited States has the expression of "reasonable behavior", which lists the ways of reasonable use
in the U.S. Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which stipulates the recognized standard of "likelihoodof confusion" (McCarthy, 2008).
References
Binling, S. & Dan. T. (2016). Research on typification of the specific anti-ambush marketing legislation, China
Sport Science, 36(3), 25-33.
Ellis, D., Gauthie, M.-E. & Séguin, B. (2011). Ambush marketing, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act andCanadian national sports organisations: Awareness, perceptions and impacts”, Journal ofSponsorship,4(3), 253-272.
Handong, W. (2015). Intellectual Property Law (pp.265-267). Beijing:Law Press.
Hehui, Y. (2015). On the Confusion Standard of trademark infringement: The explanation to the Article 57(2)of Trademark Law in our country, The Jurist ,6, 51-63.
IOC (2018). Technical Manual on Brand Protection. http://www.Gamesmonitor.Org.uk/files/TechnicalManual-on-Brand-Protection.pdf. 2018-10-22.
James, M. & Osborn, G. (2011). London 2012 and the Impact of the UK’s Olympic and Paralympic Legislation:
Protecting Commerce or Preserving Culture, The Modern Law Review, 74(3), 410-429.
Johnson, P. (2008). Look out! Its an ambush!. International Sports Law Review,2(3), 24-29.
Louw, A. M. (2014). Ambush Marketing and the Mega－Event Monopoly (pp.295-301), Hague, T.M.C. Asser
Institute.
McCarthy (2008). McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(pp.267-284), New York:Clark Boardman
Callaghan.
Wei, L. & Kretschmer, M. (2004). Ambushing Marketing: a Study of Strategies and Legal Responses,
International Sports Law Review,5(3), 456-468.
Yang, Z. & Guangzhao, Y. (2015). A Legal Analysis on Legalization of Ambush Marketing in Major Sports
Events, Journal of Nanjing Sport Institute,29(1), 64-68.
Yuchao, Z. & Sizhe, S. (2014). Evaluation and Enlightenment of Australian Olympic Intellectual Property
Protection System, Journal of Hebei institue of physical education, 28(6), 23-25.

Zhi Li earned his B.A. (1993) and LLM (2001) in East China University of Political Science and Law,
and obtained his PhD of International Law (2006) at Law School in Xiamen University. He
researched at Law School in Wuhan University for postdoctoral Studies from Sept. 2008 to July
2010, and worked as a visiting scholar in University of Houston Law School from Aug. 2010 toAug. 2011, and from Aug. 2015 to Aug. 2016 and in Hamburg University Law School from Oct.
2013 to Dec. 2013.
Li Zhi is a professor of international law and the director of International Law Institute, Fuzhou
University. His major research fields cover International Private Law, International Sports law,International Arbitration Law. He is the standing director of Chinese Society of International
Private Law, and he is an arbitrator and senior lawyer as well. He is an arbitrator of the Court of

20

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Arbitration for Sports (CAS).
Chenxi Ji was born in August 1995 and is co-author of regulation on ambush marketing behaviorof Olympic symbols in China. She obtained JM from Fuzhou University in July 2020. At present,
she works in the People's Procuratorate and is mainly responsible for handling ecologicalprocuratorial and administrative procuratorial cases.

Sustainability
Papers:• Cordova (ECU) Sustainable Development Goals and Opportunities beyond sport: A Case
Study that examines the degree of incidence of the Pan American Games Lima 2019
• Knott (ZAF) & Maralack (ZAF) Sport events and climate vulnerability: Implications for
how we manage natural resources• Hwang (JPN) & Henry (GBR) The Application of Realist Evaluation and Contribution
Analysis to Tokyo 2020 Olympic Education Programmes

22

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Sustainable Development Goals and Opportunities beyond sport: A Case Studythat examines the degree of incidence of the Pan American Games Lima 2019
Mauricio Córdova, University of Valencia, maucorpa@alumni.uv.es
The potential of international sport events to create awareness on current global challenges isundeniable and has already showcased advocacy in different social contexts, for example global
warning, racism, respect to workers right, sustainability among others. At the moment one of themost serious points in the social agenda is the Human Mobility crisis that countries like Venezuela,
Honduras, Syria and Libya, are facing with the largest accounted exodus since World War II, in the
search of protection and livelihoods. In Latin America, the case of Venezuela is particularly
shocking with more than 4 million people forced to abandon their country. The importance of thisproblem is such that the International Olympic Committee agreed in 2016 the creation of an
Olympic Refugee team.
Beyond the social responsibility commitments expected from international sport mega events, interms of advocacy mainly, a clear connection between a sports property and a social cause may
also bring interesting opportunities in terms of sponsorship outcomes. Within the context of socialand financial sustainability, social theory and collaborative value creation, this research sought toexamine the linkages between the 2019 Pan-American Games, Lima 2019, and the Venezuelan
crisis, touching in addition the level of awareness of UN´s 2000 Sustainable Development Goals(SDG) and its potential outcomes
Through the use of content analysis, surveys to local spectators and the use of Adapted news
reports during the Games, it could be noted that the Human Mobility situation of Venezuela is lesssensitive than other issues such as global warming, peace, gender equity and the prevention ofdrugs. The results are also consistent with the level of resonance that this topic had in traditional
media. Another interesting insight was to note there is a positive connection between international
sport events and SDG. What’s is more, it may have a direct effect on the overall image, and thesubsequent consecution of new collaborative partnerships, especially in those actions oriented to
the Dimensions Planet and Peace
This academic exercise seeks to shed managerial light to practitioners in humanitarian sectors andof brands willing to invest in sport from a social perspective. In in addition this is one of the firstresearch that connects SDG with the field of sport.
Mauricio Córdova is doctoral candidate in Physical Activity and Sport, University of Valencia, Spain.
His research line is "Financial sustainability in sport non-governmental development organizations
using sport”. Mauricio Córdova is a postgraduate lecturer at the faculty of education, PontificalCatholic University Ecuador. Prior to his doctoral studies he gained a Master of Sciences in SportManagement at Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln, Germany. In academics he is focused on academic
production and methodological adaptations on topics related to sport for development, education,
sustainability and Social Responsibility. Besides his scientific interests, he is interests in table tennis
and is a Level II certified coach of International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) and is aninternational consultant to ITTF Foundation: Spirit Project (Erasmus+Programme) and Interact
project (TAFISA). He is currently responsible for advocacy, communication and sports development
projects at the Ecuadorian NGO FUDELA.

23

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Sport events and climate vulnerability: Implications for how we manage natural
resources
Brendon Knott (ZAF), Cape Peninsula University of Technology, knottb@cput.ac.za
David Maralack (ZAF), University of Cape Town
Background, aim and context:
There is an increased global awareness by policy makers, event organisers and academics on theimpact of global climate change and the sustainability of events (Collins & Potoglou, 2019),
confirming the IOC’s expressed desire to develop a sustainability strategy. This paper draws on
findings from a study on sport events in a climate-vulnerable and previous Olympic candidate city,
Cape Town, in order to mitigate negative environmental impacts, develop consequence
management plans, adaptation mechanisms, and mitigation strategies for sport events.
The events strategy for Cape Town and its provincial region, Western Cape, contends that largesocial, environmental and economic benefits, including employment, accrues to the region as aresult of event hosting (PGWC, 2017). Highlighting the strategic importance of events for the city,
Cape Town was recognised as the ‘World’s Leading Festival and Events Destination' at the 2018
World Travel Awards. However, recent environmental challenges such as an extended drought
period, significant water shortages, unseasonal high winds and fires affected event operations
severely in the past 5 years. These factors significantly influenced the safety, comfort and overall
well-being of participants and visitors (Giddy, 2017; Steyn, 2012) and have resulted in event
cancellations and numerous ad hoc mitigation measures. Consequently, organisers of events andgovernment institutions are increasingly re-examining their climate vulnerability, analysing risks
and seeking to develop new management tools.
This paper is based on study commissioned by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape toanalyse the measures taken by events and government in the Western Cape to mitigate negativeenvironmental impacts, develop consequence management plans, adaptation mechanisms, andmitigation strategies.
Methodology:
The study featured an online assessment of environmental strategies among 21 events in theregion, including community events, annual hallmark events and major international events. The
researchers accessed the Provincial Government Impact Assessment Report for events for theperiod 2015-2019 to obtain data of environmental activities, strategies and achievements of sport
events. The analysis led to the formulation of a questionnaire distributed online to the event
management representatives in the Western Cape (n=21).
Findings and contribution:
The findings show that although the organisations that were examined for this study had thestatutory environmental plans in place (EIA, greening policy, waste mitigation, waste recycling andwater usage plan), the events and government are not well positioned to minimise theirvulnerability, or plan for the organisational capacity and resources needed to address climaterelated risks. However, selected examples from events highlight successful learnings andadaptation strategies used by events, particularly in the area of water-saving measures and raisingawareness of environmental sustainability through the events. The paper applies the findings to
the context of mega-events and the Olympic Games, suggesting key insights for the mitigation,
adaption and strategic resource mobilisation needed for sustainable events.

24

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Brendon Knott lectures and conducts research into aspects of sport event marketing, especiallyrelating to event sponsorship, place branding, sport tourism and mega-event legacy. Prof Knottcompleted his PhD study at Bournemouth University, UK. Prof Knott has 12 publications in peerreviewed journals, 3 peer reviewed conference proceedings, 13 book chapters, along with 23
presentations at academic conferences at numerous national and international conferences. He
has supervised multiple Masters and Doctoral full-thesis projects. He has a South African National
Research Foundation rating. He serves as a member of the editorial board for the Journal of
Destination Marketing and Management and as Associate Editor for the Journal of LeisureResearch. Prof Knott has taught at various universities internationally, including a sport event
module at the JAMK Summer School, Finland (2017-2019). He serves as external examiner andmoderator for event management courses of postgraduate qualifications at other South African
universities. Prof Knott leads the curriculum design process of the department as the Curriculum
Officer and serves on the Business Faculty’s Research Ethics Committee. He serves as theConference Chair of the 5th International Conference on Events (2020).
David Maralack is Senior Lecturer and Convenor of Sport Management in Applied Management(Sport Management) at the University of Cape Town.
He holds degrees from the University of Minnesota, University College of London and UCT. He is anactive member of the Institute of Directors of South Africa (IoDSA) and Society for South African
Geographers. David Maralack is involved in social action and serves / served as a Director andTrustee on various Boards in sports, housing, community development and empowerment groups.
He is active in social action in various school and communities in working class Cape Town,
contributing to food and nutrition programmes, scholarships and youth sports.
He has worked in the private sector, the public sector and consults to local, national andinternational organisations, such as City of Cape Town, Western Cape Provincial Government, SA
Sports Commission, Active Communities Network and Breaking Barriers (UK). His research interests
are socio-economic development, events, sport policy, sport governance and democracy, impact
studies, sport in development, and youth development in marginalized communities.
David Maralack is integrally involved in various mega-events in Cape Town, coordinating
volunteers, engaging tertiary students to become involved in the sports industry and promoting
research as a foundation to development. He completed consulting work for Western Cape
Provincial Government (developing a methodology for M&E for mega sport and culture events);
the City of Cape Town (evaluation of youth leadership camp), an event and socio-economic impact
study of the Two Oceans Marathon, sports facilities planning and strategic planning.
He was involved in various Boards and Trusts, contributing to governance processes of the Western
Province Sports Council, Western Province Sports Confederation, Western Province Athletics, Two
Oceans Marathon Board of Directors, and various youth, community and housing development
Trusts. He remains an active runner and athletic club member.

25

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

The Application of Realist Evaluation and Contribution Analysis to Tokyo 2020
Olympic Education Programmes
Bora Hwang, University of Tsukuba, bora.hwang.oe@gmail.com
Ian Henry, Loughborough University
The role and significance of Olympic education initiatives has become increasingly evident in theactivities of host and candidate cities since Müller’s (1977) promotion of the term in the 1970s.
Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) are now required to provide a plan for the
implementation of an official Olympic education programme to be run in schools throughout thehost nation during the four years of an Olympiad (IOC, 2015), and in compliance with the IOC’s
requirements, various Olympic education programmes and initiatives have been introduced fromAthens 2004 to the coming event Tokyo 2020. Key to this phenomenon are claims relating to thecontribution education can make to the promotion or realisation of Olympic values among young
people, athletes and their entourage, and thus to the IOC’s mission as declared in the preface to
the Olympic Charter.
A systematic review of the English language literature on Olympic education undertaken by one of
the authors (Hwang, 2018), suggests that a small but growing number of papers addressing Olympic
education relate to evaluation studies. Such studies suffer from three principal shortcomings: first,
they tend to assess Olympic education programmes by focusing on immediate outputs and impacts
rather than on outcomes, or the achievement of policy and programme goals; second they tend
not to consider how the success of outcomes may be mediated by contextual factors; and third,
even if positive outcomes can be identified, they fail to assess the contribution to achieving
outcomes which can be attributed to the project(s) under consideration.
This paper has three principal aims relating to ways to address these weaknesses. First, it will seek
to demonstrate how an analytic logic model approach can clarify goals and the means of achieving
them. Second, it will highlight, drawing on the realist evaluation approach (Pawson & Tilley, 1997),
how the impacts of different contexts on causal mechanisms can be accommodated inmodifications to the logic model adopted. Third, drawing on contribution analysis developed by
Mayne (2001) as an approach to identifying the contribution a development intervention has madeto a change or set of changes, the paper will highlight the ways in which evidence concerning thecontribution of projects / programmes to the achievement of outcomes can be assessed.
The data on which this paper draws, relate to Olympic education programmes organised by actors
and agencies involved in Tokyo 2020, namely TOCOG, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, JapanSports Agency, and Japanese Olympic Committee. The data were collected through document
analysis and semi-structured interviews with key policy makers in the organisations directly
engaged in the development and delivery of Olympic education programmes for Tokyo 2020 overa 6-month period in 2017/18. The paper outlines a framework for evaluation of the contribution of
the programmes investigated to the achievement of their intended outcomes within their specificpolitical, cultural, institutional and organisational contexts.
References
Hwang, B. (2018). A meta-narrative review of Olympic education and its implications for realist evaluationof programmes for Tokyo 2020. PhD Thesis, Loughborough University.
IOC. (2015). Host city contract operational requirements September 2015. Lausanne: IOC.

26

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Mayne, J, J. (2011). Contribution Analysis: Addressing Cause and Effect. In: SCHWARTZ, R., FORSS, K. &MARRA, M. (eds.) Evaluating the Complex. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Müller, N. (1977). The Olympic idea of Pierre de Coubertin and Carl Diem and its materialisation in the IOA.
In Report of the 16th Session of the IOA (pp.94-100). Athens: IOA.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.

Bora Hwang earned her PhD in 2019 from Loughborough University. Since then, she has been a
research fellow at the University of Tsukuba, Japan. In 2017, she won the PhD Students research
grant program from the Olympic Studies Centre. Her research focus is on Olympic education.
Ian Henry Ian Henry is Emeritus Professor in the School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences at
Loughborough University. His principal research interests lie in the fields of: Olympic policy andmanagement; sport and interculturalism (and in particular the role of sport in social integration of
refugees and asylum seekers); athlete lifestyle and dual careers; and policy innovation, policy
analysis, and policy evaluation. He has undertaken commissioned research for a range ofinternational, continental and national bodies, including the IOC, UNESCO, the European
Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, UK Sport, Sport England and anumber of UK government departments, and foreign national governments. He was a member ofthe European Commission’s expert group on Athlete Dual Careers, and in 2013-14 he was Expert
Advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games.
Ian Henry has published widely in journals, books (authored, co-authored and edited) in the fieldof sport management, as well as producing a range of government reports. He has held positions
as a Visiting Academic and/or Visiting Professor at l’Université de la Méditerranée, Aix-Marseille II,
2003; Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, 1998, 2003 and 2008; University of Technology Sydney, 1994,
2008, Taiwan National Sport University, 2009 and 2011, Renmin University (Beijing) 2013, Tsing
Hua University (Beijing) 2018.

Economics
Papers:• Maennig (GER) The development of world records in Olympic sports. Lessons for otherfields of human activity

28

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

The development of world records in Olympic sports. Lessons for other fields ofhuman activity
Wolfgang Maennig, Hamburg University, Wolfgang.Maennig@uni-hamburg.de
Economic productivity growth in leading countries has significantly decreased in recent decades. In
the US/OECD/Euro Area, average productivity growth was at +2.7%/2.0%/1.3%, respectively, from2000 to 2007 and decreased to +1.1%/0.8%/0.5%, respectively, from 2008 to 2017 (OECD and Euro
Area: 2008 – 2012).
This surprising development would induce fulminant changes in economic perspectives and thepotentials of politics if found to not be a cyclical but a permanent phenomenon, as argued by(Fernald 2014). Analysis of the causes is in full swing, ranging from the argument of amismeasurement problem of price indices and of several welfare-increasing goods (Byrne et al.
2016; Syverson 2017) to the argument that the number of innovations – that might lead tomeasurable productivity growth – is low (Cowen 2011). For a systematic overview of the debate on
lowering economic productivity growth see (Feldstein 2017).
We wonder whether low(er) economic productivity growth may be less surprising and may appear
to be a natural development when compared to other fields of human activity, such as Olympic
competition sports. Our analysis of the development of the performance in central Olympic sports
is of relevance to the debate on economic productivity because athletic performance/productivityis (also) driven by technical know-how (e.g., in nutrition science, psychology, exercise science, biodynamics, and medicine) and technical innovations in sports equipment. Further, the relevant
capital and funding, as well as evolutionary progress in mankind, are relevant determinants (Lippiet al. 2008; Zamparo et al. 2012).
We contribute to the debate by analysing world record developments on the broadest available
basis of sporting disciplines with growth estimation methods from different academic disciplines.
Our descriptive analysis finds athletic productivity growth rates that are substantially lower thaneven the recent economic productivity growth rates; indeed they are close to zero. New world
records have become less frequent (IAAF 2019).
It is occasionally argued that world records set in the 1990s and before may result from doping andcan barely be broken by today’s athletes who are under more effective doping control. The athletic
productivity of earlier decades may be – as in the case of economic growth - mismeasured, andathletic productivity in recent times relative to earlier times is biased downward. However, doping(innovations) may be regarded as a (illegitimate) form of an advance in a specific know-how, and it
may be argued that the economic productivity growth of earlier decades was, among others, theresult of an illegitimate misuse of natural resources and unsustainable international economic
structures (Lane and Tornell 1996; van der Ploeg 2011). In addition, even before the Ben Johnson
scandal of 1988, which is often regarded as the starting point of today’s more effective antidoping
control, athletic progress, measured in world records, was far below the economic productivity
rates deemed to be normal up to the start of the 21st century.
We collect a database of world records for all disciplines that use official world records from therelevant websites (International Association of Athletics Federations (2017), Fédération
Internationale de natation (2017), International Skating Union (2017) and Union Cycliste
Internationale (2017)). We measure world records by speed in meters per second (m/s). We dismiss
a discipline if there was no officially validated world record (e.g., triathlon). We restrict the sample
to 1980-2019, due to the availability of time series, and exclude disciplines that experienced
significant changes in regulations. For disciplines with both indoor and outdoor records, we focus
on the indoor records. We use swimming data from the Olympic long course (50 meters) data set,

29

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

which is historically older than the short track (25 meters). In several disciplines in swimming andwalking, women’s world record time series do not start before in the mid-90s and have to be
excluded. In sum, we use 46 men’s and 21 women’s disciplines. If the records showed multiple
observations for one discipline in one year, we use the fastest of all the observations in that year.
We analyze men’s and women’s world records in separate analyses to account for the issue of agender gap of sporting performance differences and its potential future disappearance, implying
different productivity growth rates (Whipp and Ward 1992; Sparling et al. 1998; Cheuvront et al.
2005; Nevill and Whyte 2005).
We suggest to estimate the sporting productivity growth rates by two methods: Fractional
polynomials (Box and Tidwell 1962) (Royston and Altman 1994) (Royston and Sauerbrei 2008) andby a Gompertz (1825) following (Kuper and Sterken 2007). We use alternate “exogeneous”
variables which are of potential importance to both, economic and athletic performance. We will
also search for alternate endogenous variables to measure performance.
The analysis of the world records in Olympic sports may be of an interest in itself. In addition, if
athletic performances are accepted as a mirror of human capabilities, technological progress andcapital endowment, the message of our analysis may go beyond; other faculties might find morereasons to adapt their expectations to lower productivity growth rates in other areas of humanactivity.
References
Box, G.E.P. & Tidwell, P. W. (1962). Transformation of the Independent Variables. Technometrics 4 (4), pp.
531–550.
Byrne, D. M., Fernald, J. G. & Reinsdorf, M. B. (2016). Does the United States have a productivity slowdown
or a measurement problem? Brookings Papers of Economic Activity Spring, pp. 109–157.
Cowen, T. (2011). The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got
Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better. New York.
Feldstein, M. (2017). Underestimating the Real Growth of GDP, Personal Income, and Productivity. Journalof Economic Perspectives, 31(2), pp. 145–164.
Fernald, J. G. (2014). Productivity and Potential Output Before, During, and After the Great Recession. NBER
Working Paper 20248.
FINA(2017).
Swimming
records.
Editedby
FINA.
Available
onlineat
http://www.fina.org/content/swimming-records.
IAAF (2019). World Records. IAAF. Available online at https://www.iaaf.org/records/by-category/worldrecords, checked on 7/16/2019.
ISU (2017). Biographies and Statistics. ISU. Available online at http://www.isu.org/inside-speedskating/entries-results-speed/biographiesstatistics#PageID%3D103004&SportID%3D103&SeasonID%3D-1&ClassID%3D1&GenderID%3D1&TaalCode%3D2&StyleID%3D0&Cache%3D2.html?967998.
Kuper, G. & Sterken, E. (2007). Modelling the development of world records in running. In Jim Albert & Ruud
H. Koning (Eds.). Statistical Thinking in Sports. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 7–32.
Lane, P. R. & Tornell, A. (1996). Power, Growth, and the Voracity Effect. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 213–
241.
Lippi, G., Banfi, G., Favaloro, E. J., Rittweger, J. & Maffulli, N. (2008). Updates on improvement of humanathletic performance: focus on world records in athletics. British Medical Bulletin, 87(1), 7–15.
Syverson, C. (2017). Challenges to Mismeasurement Explanations for the US Productivity Slowdown. Journalof Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 165–186.
UCI (2017). World records. Edited by UCI. Available online at http://www.uci.ch/track/news/article/worldrecords/.
van der Ploeg, F. (2011). Natural Resources: Curse or Blessing. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 366–
420.

30

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Zamparo, P., Gatta, G. & Di Prampero, P. E. (2012). The determinants of performance in master swimmers:
an analysis of master world records. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(10), 3511–3518.

Wolfgang Maennig is professor at the Department of Economics of Hamburg University. He was avisiting scholar at the UC Berkeley, at MIT, at the American University in Dubai, and at Universityof Stellenbosch (South Africa), among others. He was also visiting scholar at International Monetary
Fund in Washington, D.C., and at Deutsche Bundesbank in Frankfurt. His research concentrates on
spatial economics and sport economics and has been published in numerous leading academic
journals, including International Journal of Sport Finance, Journal of Sports Economics, Journal of
Economic Geography, Journal of Urban Economics, Labour Economics, Economic Letters, Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Journal Of International Money And Finance, Environment andPlanning A, Transportation, Real Estate Economics, Regional Studies, Regional Science and Urban
Economics, Urban Studies, and Review of World Economics. He is co-editor of the International
Handbook on the Economics of Mega Sporting Events. Wolfgang Maennig was Olympic Champion(rowing, eight with coxwain) at the Olympics 1988 in Seoul and president of the German Rowing
Federation, 1995-2001. In 2000 he received the Olympic Order.

Legacy
Papers:• Girginov (GBR) & Preuss (GER) Olympic Legacy for National Sport Federations• Moreno (PER) Olympics Legacy Tokyo 2020
• Pena (BRA), DaCosta (BRA) & Papadimitriou (GRE) Application of the Triple Helix
Model for the Olympic Games' Legacy• Sterken (NED) Ranking the Stars. The Legacy of the Cold War Summer Olympic Games32

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Olympic Legacy for National Sport Federations
Vassil Girginov, Brunel University, Vassil.Girginov@brunel.ac.uk
Holger Preuss, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, preuss@uni-mainz.de
Aim and Research Questions
The study addresses the question of what constitutes intangible Olympic legacy the Games provide
for National Sport Organisations (NSO) and how it can be measured. This is an importantconceptual and practical question as it concerns the fundamental role of legacy for the future of
the Games and Olympic Movement (IOC, 2018).
Theoretical Background and Literature Review
In the space of some 20 years (1998-2019) the notion of legacy has been transformed from a
relatively negligible by-product of the Olympics, to a normative concept promoting institutionalized
forms of behaviour and capable of delivering benefits to a wide range of stakeholders. Yet, despite
attempts for developing legacy frameworks (Dixon, et al., 2011; Kaplanidou, 2012; Misener, 2015;
Preuss, 2018) there is a distinct lack of knowledge of what is intangible legacy and how it can bestudied and measured.
This study builds on Preuss’ (2018) framework which purports that legacy occurs because ofchanges in six fundamental structures including urban development, policy and governance,
human development (skills, knowledge, networks), innovations, social believes and environmental
enhancement. Girginov (2018) conceptualised legacy as a process of capacity building which
includes an emergent combination of attributes, assets, capabilities and relationships. There is also
a broad agreement in organisational literature that the intangible capital of the firm is composedof three categories – human, structural and relational capital (Martin, 2018). Regardless of theterms used by different conceptualisations of intangible assets and impacts, there is a great deal ofoverlap and complementarity between them.
Research Design, Methodology and Data Analysis
This paper is part of a two-stage study and utilizes a longitudinal multiple case study approach,from 2007, when the London 2012 Olympic legacy visions were formally articulated, to the presentday. We report here the process of conceptualising intangible legacy and developing an instrument
for measuring it. The focus of the study was on NSO which play a central role in delivering theGames, serve millions of members and actively support governments’ wider welfare agenda. First,
we surveyed literature and empirical investigations and formulated a definition of intangible
legacy. This definition allowed identifying six main proxy variables related to NSO, which also
correspond to the three main long-term benefits identified by the IOC’s (2018) legacy framework
including organised sport development, social development through sport, and human skills,
networks and innovation. These proxy variables were operationalised through a series of 72
measurable and easy to interpret indicators. We then conducted two focus groups with 10 and 8
Olympic NSOs to test out the conceptualisation and operationalisation of intangible legacy andrefined the instrument.
Results/Findings and Discussion
It is generally accepted that any intangible legacy of the Games is produced because of sportorganisations’ ability to mobilize and deploy resources. There are four important implications of
this that need consideration. The first concerns the existing pre-group organisation which largely

33

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

determines the ability of a sport to generate resources. The second acknowledges that there aredifferent mechanisms for access to resources including self-production, aggregation, co-optationand patronage. The third point focuses on the type of interactions taking place in the process ofresource mobilization and utilization. Finally, it is of critical importance to examine the target
groups which interact with the Games and are the main beneficiaries of intangible legacy. NSO
serve a large group of stakeholders including internal members (i.e., staff, volunteers, coaches,
athletes) and external partners (i.e., government agencies, sponsors, media). Deriving ameasurement system for intangible legacies is especially difficult as the knowledge of their modeof creation is largely correlational rather than theoretical. Classified and displayed indicators
represent a selected base for interpretation of an organisation’s ongoing business activities. In
terms of an organisation’s management, indicators should be connected clearly to the process ofmobilizing resources for goal achievement leading to overall success. They should describe
measurement points as a chain through the process of public value creation.
Conclusion, Contribution and Implication
The principal outcome of the project will be to generate an evidence-based understanding and amethodology for measuring the intangible legacies of NSO concerning the main pillar of Olympism
that is sport. This is in keeping with the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 2020 prioritization of sportand education as its core business. The study addresses a major gap in the current legacy thinking
and practices concerning the lack of attention to resource development, exchange processes, andresource access mechanisms that have been triggered because of staging the Olympics in thecontext of NSO. This has never been achieved before.
References
Dixon, T.; Benson, A., & Blackman, D. (2011). Developing a framework for evaluating Olympic and Paralympic
legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16(4): 285-302.
Girginov, V. (2018). Rethinking Olympic Legacy. London: Routledge.
Kaplianidou, K. (2012). The importance of legacy outcomes for Olympic Games four summer host cities
resident’s quality of life: 1996-2008. European Spot Management Quarterly, 12, 397-433.
Misener, L. (2015). Leveraging parasport events for community participation: development of a theoreticalframework, European Spot Management Quarterly, 15 (1), 132-153.
Preuss, H. (2018). Event legacy framework and measurement, International Journal of Sport Policy and
Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1490336.

Vassil Girginov is Reader in Sport Management/Development. Previously he has worked as advisor
to the Chairman of the Bulgarian Sports Union, on the Sofia bids for the Winter Olympic Games andin higher education institutions in Bulgaria and Canada. He has been researching the sports
development legacy of the 2012 London Olympic Games and the relationship between the cultureof national sports governing bodies and participation in sport. Vassil is the editor of the two volume
collection on the London 2012 Games published by Routledge, and is also an Executive Editor of
the 2012 Routledge Special Olympic Journals Issue that involves some 40 journals from a range ofacademic disciplines. Vassil’s current research projects include: ‘Creation and transfer ofknowledge within the Sochi Organizing Committee of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games’ (supportedby the Russian International Olympic University), and ‘UK National Governing Bodies of sport
leveraging of the London Olympics for capacity building’. His research interests, publications andindustry experience are in the field of Olympic movement, sport development, comparative
management and policy analysis.

34

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Holger Preuss is Professor of Sport Economics and Sport Sociology, Johannes Gutenberg-University,
Mainz. He also holds professorial appointments in Ottawa, Canada. He is a founding partner of
MESGO (Master of European Sport Governance) and has worked with and for many national andinternational sport federations. His research expertise is focused on the governance andorganization of mega sport events as well as to their economic and social impacts. He is a former
Editor of European Sport Management Quarterly and has published 15 books and more than 70
essays in sport related concerns. He is a member of IOC Commission for „Sustainability and Legacy“,
the Ethics Commission of the World Flying Disc Federation and member of the ad hoc committeeof the International Modern Pentathlon Union.

35

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Olympics Legacy Tokyo 2020
Diego Moreno Guzman, President of the Athletics League of Lince, Head Coach Track and Field
American School of Lima, General Manager Peru Road Runners, Diemo1984@gmail.com
The most important social and sport event in the world is definitively the Summer Olympic
Games, where around 200 countries participate in a host selected city every four years. Organize
this Giga Sports Event takes a lot of work, years of preparation and billions of dollars to invest inroad, sports facilities, transportation, Build the Olympic Village, etc. All these are funded by the
Local Organization Committee (LOC)-Government and Private Sponsors. The main issue ofprevious Olympic Games is what to do with the sports facilities that were built. They are usually
abandoned because LOC did not make a plan to sustain the legacy of the Games. That is why
those giant facilities are just “white elephants” once the games are terminated. LOC should makethe legacy of the Olympics sustainable, and not just being used during the games, causing loss ofmoney to the Local and National government.
Legacy of the Olympic Games should focus on four areas like Sport Legacy, Social Educational
Legacy, Economic Legacy, and Urbanistic Legacy. I will put emphasis on Sport Legacy, which has
two main objectives:• To promote the development of competitive sport and its institutions.
• To increase recreational and formative sports practice among all ages, genders and social
classes, including athletes with different abilities.
Tokyo 2020 Organization Committee should make a plan in advance to ensure the facilities will be
used after the games, The Olympics are usually organized in big cities like Tokyo where they
already have sport facilities but they still need to build new and modern ones according to theneed of the new era. I will suggest three ways to preserve the sports legacy:
1. Implementing Sport Programs: The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology of Japan in cooperation with the local government and athletes’ commission
should implement sport programs for the community, scholars, college students and highperformance athletes. Hence, sport facilities will be used by the whole community,
improving their health and lifestyle.
2. Sustainable Sports Facilities: New Removable sport facilities should be a new trend whenorganizing mega sport events. After the games, the removable sport complex could besent to rural areas where they do not have the proper infrastructure to develop sport andrecreational activities. Also, make an agreement with Local and Regional Governments toimplement sport program to ensure the success of the Olympics Legacy.
3. Organizing International Sports Events: After Tokyo 2020 will be new and modern
facilities, so Tokyo will be ready to organize any other international event, independentlyof how big the event is. These events will keep athletes and communities active throughsports, and local businesses will benefit economically from the visitors that will arrive at
the event.
I have researched the experience of the Legacy of the Rio 2016 and Lima 2019, and it has been a
big issue for both organizers to maintain the Legacy sustainable. Tokyo 2020 should implement
good strategic plan that involved the private and public sector, in favor of the community for abetter lifestyle and wellbeing. A crossover work among The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology, National Sport Federations, Olympic Committee, and Local
Governments. Therefore, the facilities and sport programs will be sustainable and increment the36

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

physical and sport activity in the community, either recreational or competitive. The quantitativeand qualitive methods should be applied toverify how the population has incremented practicing physical and recreational activity, and how
the competitive athletes are improving their performance in national and international events.
Diego Moreno Guzman holds a B.S. in Business Administration from the University of San Marcos(Lima, Peru) and also a B.A. in Business General Studies from the University of Idaho (Moscow,USA). Furthermore, Diego Moreno Guzman has studied Management and Public Administration at
the Center of Peruvian Government Studies and has attended the International Coaches Course
Sport Management at the University of Leipzig (Germany). He is currently general manager of Peru
Road Runners, head coach track and field at the American school of Lima und president of theAthletics League of Lince.

37

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Application of the Triple Helix Model for the Olympic Games' Legacy
Bianca Gama Pena, Rio de Janeiro State University, biancagamapena@gmail.com
Lamartine Pereira DaCosta, Rio de Janeiro State University
Dimitra Papadimitriou, University of Patras
Despite its international well acceptance among managers, the Triple Helix theory (ETZKOWITZ,
2010) applicability is still far from being a tool for the development of actions that result in legacy
for the host city of Olympic Games. In short, the Triple Helix theory considers that there are three
key actors for effective management using their capabilities to be complementary in their actions,
namely: companies, universities and the government. However, an interrelationship of those 3
actions as a triple support to organizational developments is lacking experience to become a model
for sport mega-events’ managerial claims, specially at the innovation research field. In this concern,
the gap of knowledge between the so-called HT model and its potential users in Olympic Games’
grounds became the initial approach of this study in terms of research question.
The Rio 2016 Olympic Games were the first ground working in order to test the HT model as longas that former mega-event was an ongoing development when this investigation begun.
Furthermore, to improve the elaboration of a successful model through the Triple Helix applicability
in the Rio de Janeiro city we decided to extend the study to two other cases of Olympic Games’
legacies: the Olympic Park in Munich (POM) and the Los Angeles Foundation 1984 (LA84). The POM
was selected for being one of the oldest Olympic Parks open to the public today, after 45 years of
the 1972 Munich Olympic Games and for standing out as a benchmark of success as it relates tosocial legacies as a final result. The LA84 Foundation was also selected because it was considereda great legacy reference for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. The creation of the LA84 Foundation
one year after the event was due to the need to apply surplus financial amount in actions togenerate legacy for the host city. The three scenarios of Olympic Games were finally constructed,
because at the time of this study the Olympic Park Rio 2016 was being a matter of muchcontroversy for not being administratively resolved how to proceed with the management of the
Olympic equipment.
Overall, the objective of this study was to propose a version of the Triple Helix model that could
contribute to a better management of the Rio 2016 Olympic legacy with applicability in other
Olympic Games. The Triple Helix theory was used as a reference for three studies as concerned tothe three editions of the Olympic Games. For the theoretical approaches, a search of bibliographic
references was made in the database EBSCO, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Scielo with the
keywords Triple Helix, Sports, Physical Education, Impact, Legacy, Heritage, Olympic Games, withspecial Rio 2016 focus. In addition, 17 interviews with semi structured script were made, besides
performing field research and documentary analysis (VEAL & DARCY, 2014).
The interviewees were: a) 6 companies’ participants of the Rio 2016 Olympics official sponsorshipprogram; b) 3 directors from the Munich Olympic Park Management team: the director, the former
director and the marketing director, and 3 POM sponsors companies; c) 5 leaders from the LA84
Foundation Management team: VP of Programs & Scholarships, VP of Operation & Finance, VP of
Development & Partnerships, VP of Communications & Marketing and the former CEO. The
criterion selection method (VEAL & DARCY, 2014, p.403) was used since respondents were selected
because they were responsible for strategic sector of their management team, either as a sponsor
or manager at the POM or LA Foundation. Semi-structured script was prepared by three experts inthe management of mega sports events, two of them from the State University of Rio de Janeiro(Physical Education Department), the other was from Patras University (Sport Management
Department). The interviews were conducted in person, being recorded and fully transcribed. The

38

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

content analysis was used (THOMAS, NELSON & SILVERMAN, 2015) after the interviewees’
validation.
In conclusion, separate analysis of POM, LA84 and Rio 2016 found points of connections with the
HT model of management demonstrating the viability of possible cooperation among the triple
institutional supports. The proposed HT model stands for the HT Theory by the presence of thethree actors with the following general roles: universities generating knowledge using their humanresources, the government promoting tax waiver for financially supporting by companies and thecompanies as sponsors to foster the start-up’s creation and innovation development. Nevertheless,it was also concluded that for the legacy plan of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games managers should act
as referred to an ecosystem joining businessmen from the organized civil society, government anduniversities, each of which would have its complementary role. Moreover, the application of the
Triple Helix theory for the management of mega-sport events presents itself as a possible great
turning point of the innovation for the next editions of the Olympic Games, certainly being thefundamental principle for success. In a pragmatic way it is suggested for the next hosting Olympic
cities the implementation of an external entity to the three HT actors, providing the shared
management of small companies subsidized by big companies, government and universities in the
incubation movement to leverage the production of products and services in an innovative andentrepreneurial way.

Bianca Gama Pena is CEO of Gama Advisory and Sport Management Professor at the Institute ofSport and Physical Education at UERJ. She submitted her PhD thesis entitled Sponsorship in mega
events to the University of Rio de Janeiro in 2019. Since 2019, she is a research fellow at Erasmus+
International credit mobility 107 at Patras University in Greece.
Lamartine Pereira DaCosta has a Bachelor Degree in Oceanography by Naval School Rio deJaneiro/RJ (1958), a degree in Physical Education by EsEFEx /RJ (1963), specialization in Ergonomics
at FGV/RJ (1971), a PhD in Philosophy by the University Gama Filho-UGF /RJ (1989) and a PhD Livre Docente in Sport Management (1988) by State University Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Currently he
is Professor at UGF for Ms and PhD in Physical Education, Visiting Professor at the University of East
London-UK and Regional Coordinator Latin America in ICSSPE (Berlin). Previously he was a member
of Research Council of International Olympic Committee, Lausanne (2001-2008), member of
WADA-Montreal (2000-2008) in addition to Visiting Professor at Lisbon Technical University andthe University of Porto (Portugal), International Olympic Academy (Greece), Universidad Autonoma
de Barcelona (Spain) from 1992 to 2007. In Brazil he was Professor at the Catholic University of
Petrópolis (Engineering), Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Masters degree inGeography), UNIRIO (masters of Cultural Studies, USP (masters of Physical Education) and UERJ
(grad in P.E.) from 1979-2002. Lamartine Da Costa has experience in the areas of Physical Educationand Sports, Leisure Studies, Sport Management, History and Philosophy with emphasis onenvironmental issues, ethics, social values, Olympic Studies and Knowledge Management. He hascontinuous production in research and development since 1963 in Brazil and abroad, starting witha line of research on environment and sport still active to date.
Dimitra Papadimitriou has a PhD in Sport Management and is located at the University of Patras
at the Department of Business Administration. Her research interest is in sponsorship, sportmanagement, knowledge culture, brand management, cultural diversity and marketing
management.

39

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Ranking the Stars. The Legacy of the Cold War Summer Olympic Games
Elmer Sterken, University of Groningen, e.sterken@rug.nl
We compare the legacy of various editions of the Summer Olympic Games in the years of the Cold
War 1948-1988. In these 40 years the Olympic Games developed into a full mega sporting event,despite a lot of political turmoil. We apply a contemporary view on legacy, although legacy has notbeen a decisive organization criterium in the Cold War episode. This implies that we do not need
to be concerned about endogeneity of legacy policies. It is important to note that all thecharacteristics which are used in a modern legacy analysis are not available for the evaluation of
the Olympic Games in the years 1948-1988. But based on ex post objective measurable
characteristics like participation, success, urbanization and economic impact, we present a legacy
ranking analysis, which shows that the Seoul 1988 Summer Olympic Games have generated thelargest impact during the Cold War. The runner-up is Melbourne 1956, followed by London 1948
and Munich 1972.

Elmer Sterken is Rector Magnificus of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands since 2011.
Sterken is professor of Monetary Economics since 1994. He graduated in Econometrics in 1983 andholds a PhD in Economics from the University of Groningen. His research interests are in monetary
policy, bank-firm relations and sports statistics. He published papers on sports related topics in the
Journal of Sports Sciences, Journal of Olympic History, Journal of Sports Technology and European
Sport Management Quarterly.

40

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Olympic Reform
Papers:• Walzel (GER) The governance challenges of co-hosting major sport events• Marques (BRA) Temporary Venues and the Olympic Games: How and why such
structures can benefit the Olympic Movement• Zhuk (RUS) & Desbordes (FRA) Polycentric Approach to hosting the Olympic Games• Mukanova, Desbordes & Hautbois (FRA) Towards a New Typology of Sports Events
Considering Polycentric Event Context

41

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

The governance challenges of co-hosting major sport events
Stefan Walzel, German Sport University Cologne, Walzel@dshs-koeln.de
The increasing critical view of mega sports events such as the Olympic Games (Koenecke et al.,2016; Langer et al., 2017; Scheu & Preuss, 2018) is due, among other things, to the fact that moresustainability in the sense of ecological, economic and social contributions is demanded bysociety from the organising committees and the stakeholders involved (Babiak & Trendafilova,
2011; Smith, 2009; Taks, 2017; Trendafilova et al., 2013; Walzel et al., 2018). The co-hosting ofmega sport events by several countries is an intensively discussed approach to more sustainabilityof the event (Heere et al., 2012; Horne & Manzenreiter, 2004; Kristiansen et al., 2016). In its
134th session in June 2019, the IOC decided that as part of the Agenda 2020, multiple cities andeven countries can now bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games (IOC, 2020).
However, the body of literature regarding co-hosted sport events, is limited to two sporting
events, which has been the subject of sport management research so far. Heere et al. (2012) aswell as Horne and Manzenreiter (2004) were the first ones who analysed the FIFA WC 2002.
Kristiansen et al. (2016) chose the European Youth Olympic Festival in 2015 for their study. Thesestudies identified some major challenges for the governance of co-hosted sport events andconsequently for the success of the events. Considering the increasing number of co-hosted sport
events in the recent years this research focuses on the following research questions: What are
the specific challenges for co-hosting sport events from a governance perspective?
Considering the exploratory nature of this study and the fact that co-hosting sport events is aquite new phenomenon with only a few events in the recent past, 23 semi-structured individual
in-depth interviews with representatives from Local Organising Committees (n=7), hosted
National Sport Federations (n=10), and International Sport Federations (IF) (n=5) of sevendifferent co-hosted sport events in five different sports as well as with one policy maker wereconducted in 2017. The interview guideline was developed based on first findings from theliterature review. Questions included in the guideline were, for example: What were the main
reasons for co-hosting the [event]? Which risks and challenges are associated with the [event]?
The interviews were conducted personally where possible, otherwise via telephone or via
electronic meetings. The time of the interviews varied from 18:40 to 147:09 minutes (Ø 37
minutes per interview), mostly limited to the available time of the interviewees. All interviews
were recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were the basis for the qualitative content
analysis that followed. According to Miles and Huberman’s (2013) approach, we initially carriedout an open coding of the interview contents.
The interviewees mainly perceived the co-hosting approach of sport events positively. The major
opportunities are seen in the chance to raise the efficiency of the event hosting, due to having
more than one home team, shared risks, pooled resources and infrastructure as well as allocating
the workload on different federations. However, during the interviews a number of challenges
could be identified, too: different motives and interest, increased complexity for organising theevent, tax and legal issues vary (tremendously) between the countries, language barriers, culturaldifferences, rivalries might create conflicts in the organisation. Furthermore, two different
bidding approaches are used, which significantly influence the complexity for the governance of
co-hosted sport events. All interviewed managers were aware of the importance of sport event’s
sustainability. However, none of them considered the potential for more sustainability as a main
motive for co-hosting the respective sport event. In addition, none of the considered co-hosted
sport events had a leveraging strategy in place, which are increasingly deemed central in major
event management.

42

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

The following conclusions can be drawn from this research: 1) IFs should provide better suited
framework conditions for more co-hosted sport events. 2) More research is required in terms ofthe cost-benefit ratio of co-hosting sport events. 3) Some international team sports federations
use the co-hosting approach to allow even more teams to participate in the events, which has anegative impact on the sustainability of the respective sport events.
References
Babiak, K. & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt
green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1),11-24.
Heere, B., Kim, C. Y., Yoshida, M., Ogura, T., Chung, K. S., Lim, S. Y. & Nakamura, H. (2012). The impact ofWorld Cup 2002 on the bilateral relationship between South Korea and Japan. Journal of SportManagement, 26(2), 127-142.
Horne, J. D. & Manzenreiter, W. (2004). Accounting for Mega-Events: Forecast and Actual Impacts of the2002 Football World Cup Finals on the Host Countries Japan/Korea. International Review for theSociology of Sport, 39(2), 187-203.
IOC (2020). Contractual Framework for Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Last access via
https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Games/Future-OlympicHosts/Contractual-framework-for-hosting-the-Olympic-and-Paralympic-Games-January2020.pdf#_ga=2.226145818.1073018029.1582353916-147521303.1561554984 on 20 February 2020.
Könecke, T., Schubert, M., & Preuss, H. (2016). (N)Olympia in Germany? An analysis of the referendum
against Munich 2022. Sportwissenschaft, 26(1), 15-24.
Kristiansen, E., Strittmatter, A.-M. & Skirstad, B. (2016). Stakeholders, Challenges and Issues at a Co-Hosted
Youth Olympic Event: lessons Learned from the European Youth Olympic Festival in 2015. The
International Journal of the History of Sport, 33(10), 1152-1168.
Langer, V. C. E., Maennig, W., & Richter, F. (2017). The Olympic Games as a News Shock: Macroeconomic
Implications. Journal of Sports Economics, 19(6), 884-906.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (3rd ed.).
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scheu, A. & Preuss, H. (2018). Residents’ perceptions of mega sport event legacies and impacts. The case of
the Hamburg 2024 Olympic bid. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 48(3), 376-386.
Smith, A. (2009). Theorising the Relationship between Major Sport Events and Social Sustainability. Journalof Sport & Tourism, 14(2-3), 109-120.
Taks, M. (2013). Social sustainability of non-mega sport events in a global world. European Journal for Sportand Society, 10(2), 121-141.
Trendafilova, S., Babiak, K., & Heinze, K. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and environmental
sustainability: Why professional sport is greening the playing field. Sport Management Review, 16(3),298-313.
Walzel, S., Robertson, J., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility in Professional TeamSports Organizations: An Integrative Review. Journal of Sport Management, 32(6), 511-530.

Stefan Walzel studied Sport Science at the German Sport University Cologne, majoring in Sport
Economics and Sport Management and at Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
He completed his doctoral studies at the German Sport University in 2010. He has been teaching
Sport Marketing, International Sport Management, and Sport Business for over 10 years and is aregular speaker at various European universities. His research interests include Sport Marketing,Sport Sponsorship and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in and through sport. In 2013 he wasawarded a research grant by the UEFA and researched into the effects of CSR activities of footballfederations.

43

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Temporary Venues and the Olympic Games: How and why such structures canbenefit the Olympic Movement
Bráulio Paes Marques, University of Peloponnese, Sport Management Research LabGESPORTE/UnB, braulio.p.marques@gmail.com
Olympic venues play decisive roles in the commercial and public success of any edition of the
Olympic Games. Host cities don’t usually have all the necessary facilities prior to being elected, so
there is a need for the construction of new sporting structures that should be used not only during
this short time frame but also beyond. Within a context in which sustainable development andlegacy are increasingly relevant to the Olympic Movement, temporary venues appear to be a clever
solution by complying with both. The objective of this research was to identify different Olympic
stakeholders’ perceptions of the potential role of temporary venues in fostering the future of the
Olympic Movement. The adoption of the stakeholder theory as theoretical framework occurs under
the presumption that delivering any edition of the Olympic Games demands from its Organizing
Committee (OCOG) fruitful relationships with other Olympic stakeholders, and solutions such as
temporary venues need to be closely aligned with the interests of these groups if they ought to be
implemented in future Olympic Games. Therefore, the research question of this work is: How andwhy can temporary venues at the Olympic Games foster the future of the Olympic Movement? This
research was designed as a qualitative and empirical project in which a questionnaire was selected
as the instrument of collecting sample data. Within January and February 2020, it was responded
by a quota sampling of 21 individuals who have already been involved in any edition of the Olympic
Games. Developed by the author, such tool is divided into three parts and encompasses theoreticalframeworks such as the triple bottom line (Hede, 2007) and potential benefits of stadia (Preuss,2015) to comply, respectively, with both spheres of the research. Following a stage of data
condensation based on indexation, the main tool used for data display is the content-analyticsummary table. The results demonstrate a general perception among stakeholder groups that
temporary venues are aligned with sustainable development. They also indicate different
perceptions by stakeholders of using this venue typology as tools to benefit Games’ hostcommunities, regions, and countries. While the development of advanced engineering andarchitectural techniques are widely accepted as potential outcomes from the adoption of
temporary Olympic venues, their use as iconic buildings in fostering national identity and present
a positive economic, political, and social status worldwide is met with reasonable scepticism.
However, as the IOC acts as the main policymaker in relation to the selection and the potential useof temporary venues, specific policies and guidelines are yet to be made. Therefore, bydemonstrating the necessity of the IOC to encourage wide-ranging interactions between Olympic
stakeholder groups concerning the potential role of temporary Olympic venues within futureGames legacy plans, it can be concluded that this research contributes to the theoretical andpractical knowledge of the Olympic Movement by indicating that, while complying with premisesof sustainable development, this venue typology is yet to be fully explored as an asset for the
Olympic Movement and its guiding philosophy.
References
Hede, A. M. (2007). Managing special events in the new era of the triple bottom line. Event Management,11(1-2), 13-22.
Preuss, H. (2015). A framework for identifying the legacies of a mega sport event. Leisure studies, 34(6),643-664.

44

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Bráulio Paes Marques has a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Brasilia and a
Master's degree in Olympic Studies, Olympic Education, Organisation and Management of Olympic
Events from the University of Peloponnese in Greece. He has gained event experience at the FIFA
U17 World Cup in Brazil, 2019 and the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio. He has also volunteered atnumerous mega sport events.

45

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Co-hosting the Olympic Games: stakeholders’ perspective
Elizaveta Zhuk, Paris-Saclay University, elizaveta.zhuk@gmail.com
Michel Desbordes, Paris-Saclay University, michel.desbordes@universite-paris-saclay.fr
BackgroundIn 2014 the International Olympic Committee adopted the Olympic Agenda 2020. Cornerstones of
the Agenda 2020 are reduction of costs for bidding, maximum use of existing facilities andpossibility of co-hosting (IOC, 2014).
‘Co-hosting’ is a situation when several countries host sports event together sharing related risks
and benefits. It is a relatively new concept, and has not been widely researched yet.
At the moment there were no co-hosted Olympic Games in history (most famous cases of cohosted sports mega-events relate to football championships, such as: UEFA Euro 2000, 2008, 2012
and 2020, and FIFA World Cup 2002 and 2026). However, in 2015 the 12th European Youth Olympic
Festival was co-hosted by Austria and Liechtenstein. According to Kristiansen, Strittmatter andSkirstad (2016), this co-hosting was «pioneering in the history of the International Olympic
Committee and exemplifies the IOC’s ongoing renewal of the Olympic Movement» (p. 1153).
Besides, during the 2020 Winter Youth Olympic Games in Switzerland some competitions were cohosted by France.
Indeed, introducing the possibility of co-hosting, the IOC addressed both current challenges related
to hosting sports mega-events and the future of the Olympic Games. The possibility of co-hosting
had already received the feedback from countries. Joint bid Stockholm—Åre was competing for theright to host the 2026 Winter Olympics and presumed that several events would take place in
Latvia, making the 2026 Olympic Games co-hosted by two countries. Though this bid lost to anotherbid Milan—Cortina d’Ampezzo, the 2026 Olympics will still be hosted by several locations but
within one country, with five sports clusters all over Northern Italy. What is important is thatcountries demonstrated interest in co-hosting the Olympics. Thus, co-hosting has a great potential
for the Olympic Movement.
Previous researchCo-hosting has not received much attention in academic research yet. On the contrary, challenges
related to hosting sports mega-events have been studied by plenty of scholars. Among the maincurrent challenges are cost overruns, the phenomenon of ‘white elephants’, public opposition tohosting and the lack of bidders.
Many researchers (Andreff, 2012, Baade & Matheson, 2016, Chappelet, 2014, Parent & Chappelet,
2017, Solberg, 2017, Zimbalist, 2010) fairly claim that the main problem of hosting international
sports mega-events nowadays is huge costs. Event organisers try to advocate the use of huge publicmoney and often promise economic windfall which does not occur at the end (Alm, Lechner &Solberg, 2016, Horne & Manzenreiter, 2004, Kesenne, 2012, Kurscheidt, 2006, Parent & SmithSwan, 2013). Billions are being spent for building so-called ‘white elephants’ - sports facilities which
are not being used after the event and which turn into a burden to municipalities because of hugemaintenance costs (Emery et al., 2016, Gratton & Preuss, 2008, Leopkey & Parent, 2012, MacAloon,
2008, Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2013).

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

46

As the result, local communities protest against hosting sports mega-events (Allen, O'toole, Harris& McDonnell, 2012, Girginov, 2012, Masterman, 2014). Several referenda related to hosting the2022 and 2024 Olympics made governments withdraw from bidding process because of public
opposition.
Thus, there is a risk for international sports organisations to end up with no countries willing andable to host sports mega-events rather soon. From this perspective co-hosting can potentiallybecome a solution to this problem.
Existing studies on co-hosting relate rather to particular aspects of previous co-hosted events
rather than to the phenomenon of co-hosting as such. Besides, there is no research on advantages
and challenges of co-hosting the Olympic Games from stakeholders’ perspective yet.
Central research question
What are advantages and challenges of co-hosting the Olympic Games, from stakeholders’perspective?
Aim
To identify standpoints of various stakeholders to ascertain their perspectives on pros and cons of
co-hosting the Olympic Games.
Research hypotheses
1. Although co-hosting has significant advantages and can increase the number of bidding
countries, at the same time it has specific challenges. Co-hosting main positive effects refer
to: sharing/reducing costs and risks between co-hosts; use of existing sports infrastructure;opportunity to host for new/small countries; opportunity to improve relations between cohosting states; benefits for sponsors. Main difficulties related to co-hosting are: distance andlogistics; planning and operational complexity; potential loss of spirit, atmosphere andidentity of event; potential lack of intercultural experience for visitors; security concerns.
2. There is heterogeneity of perspectives regarding co-hosting between various stakeholder
groups. Various stakeholder groups have various perspectives regarding co-hosting positiveeffects and challenges, and different arguments to support their interests. For somestakeholder group(-s) co-hosting is more beneficial than for others.
Theoretical framework
The authors use stakeholder theory as a theoretical framework.
Methodology
Primary data collection
To collect primary data, the researchers use semi-structured in-depth open-ended interviews withsuch stakeholders as:-

hosting countries
global sponsors
media10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

47-

athletes
spectators

The authors expect to conduct at least one interview with each of five targeted stakeholders(at least five interviews in total). The aim of the interviews is to find out stakeholders’ opinions
about co-hosting and to define main positive effects and difficulties related to co-hosting fromtargeted stakeholders’ perspectives. Specific questions for interviewees refer to planning andoperational processes, costs, logistics, atmosphere of the event, etc.
Secondary data collection
In terms of secondary data collection, the authors analyse documents of the IOC and otherinternational sports organisations related to the bidding process and co-hosting.
Expected conclusions
Co-hosting could increase the number of hosting countries offering the opportunity to share risks
and benefits between co-hosting states. It could become an alternative to a traditional approachof hosting sports mega-events by one single country. Co-hosting has a huge potential if appliedwith consideration for interests and needs of various stakeholders. However, co-hosting has certain
challenges which have to be taken into consideration (planning and operational complexity,
logistics, etc.). The authors’ hypothesis is that various stakeholders have different perspectives
regarding ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of co-hosting due to their distinct interests and needs. Thorough analysisof stakeholders’ interests allows the authors to define a set of positive effects and challenges
related to co-hosting and to identify stakeholders who benefit from co-hosting the most and theleast. When considering the possibility of co-hosting the Olympic Games, the IOC and countries
interested in hosting should take into account advantages and challenges of co-hosting defined inthis study, and should balance interests of various stakeholders.
References
Allen, J., O'toole, W., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (2012). Festival and Special Event Management. John Wiley& Sons.
Alm, J., Lechner, E., & Solberg, H. A. (2016). The hosting of sport mega-events: a cost efficient perspective.
In S. Frawley (Ed.). Managing Sport Mega-Events. (pp. 68-86). Routledge.
Andreff, W. (2012). The winner's curse: why is the cost of sports mega-events so often underestimated? In
W. Maennig, & A. S. Zimbalist (Eds.). International handbook on the economics of mega sporting events(p. 37-69). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (2016). Going for the Gold: The economics of the Olympics. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 201-218.
Chappelet, J. L. (2014). Managing the size of the Olympic Games. Sport in society, 17(5), 581-592.
Emery, P., Westerbeek, H., Schwarz, E. C., Liu, D., & Turner, P. (2016). Managing sport facilities and major
events. Routledge.
Girginov, V. (2012). Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Volume One: Making
the Games. Routledge.
Gratton, C., & Preuss, H. (2008). Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. The international
journal of the history of sport, 25(14), 1922-1938.
Horne, J. D., & Manzenreiter, W. (2004). Accounting for mega-events: forecast and actual impacts of the2002 Football World Cup Finals on the host countries Japan/Korea. International review for the sociologyof sport, 39(2), 187-203.
IOC (2014). Olympic Agenda 2020.

48

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Kesenne, S. (2012). The economic impact, costs and benefits of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games:
who wins, who loses? In W. Maennig, & A. S. Zimbalist (Eds.). International handbook on the economics
of mega sporting events. (pp. 270-278). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kristiansen, E., Strittmatter, A. M., & Skirstad, B. (2016). Stakeholders, Challenges and Issues at a Co-Hosted
Youth Olympic Event: Lessons Learned from the European Youth Olympic Festival in 2015. The
International Journal of the History of Sport, 33(10), 1152-1168.
Kurscheidt, M. (2006). The World Cup. In W. Andreff, & S. Szymanski (Eds.). Handbook on the Economics ofSport. (pp. 197-213). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2012). Olympic Games legacy: From general benefits to sustainable long-term
legacy. The international journal of the history of sport, 29(6), 924-943.
MacAloon, J. J. (2008). ‘Legacy’ as managerial/magical discourse in contemporary Olympic affairs. Theinternational journal of the history of sport, 25(14), 2060-2071.
Masterman, G. (2014). Strategic sports event management. Routledge.
Parent, M. M., & Chappelet, J. L. (2017). The (wide) world of sports events. In M. Parent, & J. L. Chappelet(Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management. (pp. 19-36). Routledge.
Parent, M. M., & Smith-Swan, S. (2013). Managing major sports events: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Solberg, H. A. (2017). Mega events: Why cities are willing to host them, despite the lack of economic
benefits. In I. Brittain, J. Bocarro, T. Byers, & K. Swart (Eds.). Legacies and Mega Events: Fact Or Fairy
Tales? (pp. 63-80). Routledge.
Thomson, A., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2013). Conceptualizing sport event legacy. EventManagement, 17(2), 111-122.
Zimbalist, A. (2010). Is it worth it? Finance & Development, 47(1), 8-11.

Elizaveta Zhuk is a PhD student at Paris-Saclay University since 2019. She graduated from Moscow
State University with a law degree in 2007 and has since then worked in various positions in thisfield. From 2017 to 2018, she studied the Master of Sport Administration at the RussianInternational Olympic University. Elizaveta Zhuk has already published several publications,participated in several conferences and has been awarded grants, e.g., Play the Game conference
full grant winner 2013.
Michel Desbordes is a specialist in sports marketing with a research focus on the management ofsports events, sports sponsorship and marketing applied to football. He is an expertise in leading
MBA programs in sport management. Michel Desbordes published 32 books (with Elsevier, UK,
Editorial Piadotribo and Inde Publications, Spain, Economica, Les Editions d'Organisation and PUS,France), 52 academic articles (International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, European
Sport Management Quarterly, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, amongst
others). He was editor of the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship fromJanuary 2009 to 2019. He is also a former adjunct professor at the Sport University of Sport(Shanghai, China) and at the University of Ottawa (Canada).

49

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Towards a New Typology of Sports Events Considering Polycentric Event Context
Karina Mukanova, University of Paris Sud, karina.mukanova@u-psud.fr
Michel Desbordes, University of Paris Sud, michel.desbordes@universite-paris-saclay.fr
Christopher Hautbois, University of Paris Sud, christopher.hautbois@u-psud.fr
The latest edition of FIFA World Cup 2018 in Russia was held across 12 stadiums of the capacity
ranging from 33000 to 78000 seats (FIFA, 2018). Hosting multi-sport events such as Summer andWinter Olympic and Paralympic Games is another level of commitment, amplified by the specificweather conditions needed for certain sports. Hence, the way the major sport event hosting
requirements are presented today is very discriminatory towards many host nations that naturally
either cannot have necessary weather conditions or cannot and do not need to have the required
number of facilities.
As a potential response, the International Sport Governing Bodies (ISGBs) are embracing thechange. The mono-sport ISGBs have been allowing countries to be more flexible, either by letting
them bid for a particular group stage, e.g. UEFA EURO 2020 or jointly bid with another country, e.g.
FIFA World Cup 2026 in USA, Canada and Mexico. When it comes to the Olympics, IOC has
systematically allowed the practise of hosting certain disciplines like sailing, surfing, rowing or
equestrian sport and some of the winter sport disciplines outside the mainland of the host country
due to various reasons ranging from national regulations to lack of weather conditions or naturesites. This demonstrates that the way the events have been hosted cannot be still confined to thevision of a single host city or country, where they have always been “bigger” events.
On the academic side, these today’s changing formats are not very well considered. The current
research on spatial characteristics of sport events have been noticed in the recent classification ofsport events based on three dichotomies: for-profit/non-profit, mono-sport/multi-sport and oneoff/recurring events by Chappelet and Parent (2015). The dichotomy of recurring/one-off events
explains how the event is either hosted at the permanent location or at a different one with every
new edition respectively. Kaspar (2014) mentioned similar concepts of single-site/multi-site events
to explain the presence of multiple venues in the Olympics and place/mobile events to explain the
one-off/recurring context. Soon, Kaspar (2018) and Stura et al. (2017) introduced the term
“polycentric” to explain the presence of a venue cluster beyond the host nation’s borders in the
Olympics and other major events, e.g. UEFA EURO 2020. There are also researchers who started
studying the joint bids and co-hosted events by multiple host nations (Byun et al., 2018; Kristiansen
et al., 2016; Walzel, 2018). However, it is uncertain if the discussion of the events they present canbe applicable in all polycentric event scenarios without an established understanding of various
polycentric event typologies and their major differences. Therefore, applying Kaspar’s (2018)“polycentric” lenses to the latest event classification based on 3 dichotomies by Chappelet andParent (2015), a clear research gap appeared within polycentric events that were disregarded in
the literature before. As a result, the idea to embed an additional dichotomy on the event centricity
came into life to show the existing plethora of events classified to monocentric and polycentric,
where polycentric events have an additional sub-classification.
The purpose of this new complementary dimension is to adapt the current event typology to the
up-do-date changing environments in the event hosting. It will provide a panoramic view on all
possible polycentric event scenarios that will stimulate the discussion of events beyond thecommonly researched one-off and non-profit context. This could be highly useful for benchmarking
purposes for both academics and practitioners. It will also highlight how centricity of the event is50

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

variable based on event editions that will then demonstrate the versatility of certain events within
the dichotomy of one-off/recurring events by Chappelet and Parent (2015). Finally, the sport event
management research body will benefit from the identification of specific research gaps andvulnerable polycentric events for further empirical study.
Similarly, practitioners such as the event owners and organizers will be more informed on the
differences in the event outcomes and in the profile of challenges and opportunities at a given
polycentric typology. Also, they will be able to see which events today follow which centricity
patterns, which events can no longer exist in monocentric context due to its growth and what
actions should therefore be undertaken by the practitioners. Moreover, recognizing and studying
all possible polycentric events across other dichotomies will lead to more transparency in terms of
the environmental footprint and good governance of such events.
References
Byun, J., Leopkey, B., & Ellis, D. (2019). Understanding joint bids for international large-scale sport eventsas strategic alliances. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, SBM-09-2018-0074.
Chappelet, J.-L. & Parent, M. (2015). The (wide) world of sports events. In M. Parent & J.-L. Chappelet(Eds),The Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management (1st ed., pp. 1-17). Abingdon: Routledge
FIFA (2018) FIFA World Cup in numbers. Zurich : Fédération Internationale de Football Association.
Kaspar, R. (2018). Smart Mega Events – How Have The IOC’s “New Norm” Requirements Impacted
The Sports Facility Concepts Of The Cities Bidding To Host The 2026 Olympic Winter Games? (Practitioner
Contribution).
Kaspar, R. (2014). The dimensions of events management. In J. Beech, S. Kaiser & R. Kaspar, The Businessof Events Management (1st ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Kristiansen, E., Strittmatter, A.-M., & Skirstad, B. (2016). Stakeholders, Challenges and Issues at a CoHosted Youth Olympic Event: Lessons Learned from the European Youth Olympic Festival in 2015. The
International Journal of the History of Sport, 33(10), 1152–1168
Stura, C., Aicher, C., Kaspar, R., Klein, C., Schulz, S., & Unterlechner, S. (2017). The UEFA EuroChampionship 2020. In M. Dodds, K. Heisey, & A. Ahonen (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of InternationalSport Business (1st ed., pp. 26–36).
Walzel, S. (2018). Specific legacy of co-hosted sport events – Learnings for the Olympic Games. Paper orposterpresented at the 9th International Sports Business Symposium, Chuncheon.

Karina Mukanova is a doctoral student at University of Paris Sud. Her research interests lie within
co-hosted major sports events by two or more nations. Through her research, she seeks tounderstand co-hosting through the lenses of Interorganizational relationships (IORs) and its three
primary phases: formation, management and outcomes that it has for the organizers as well as therights holders.
Michel Desbordes is a specialist in sports marketing with a research focus on the management ofsports events, sports sponsorship and marketing applied to football. He is an expertise in leading
MBA programs in sport management. Michel Desbordes published 32 books (with Elsevier, UK,
Editorial Piadotribo and Inde Publications, Spain, Economica, Les Editions d'Organisation and PUS,France), 52 academic articles (International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, European
Sport Management Quarterly, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, amongst
others). He was editor of the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship fromJanuary 2009 to 2019. He is also a former adjunct professor at the Sport University of Sport(Shangai, China) and at the University of Ottawa (Canada).

51

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Christopher Hautbois is an associate professorship at the University of Paris Sud. In 2012, hehabilitated at the same university. His main research interests are in sports marketing, non-for
profit organisation strategies in sport, destination/place branding through sport and economics ofsport.

Marketing I
Papers:• Kim & Delia (USA) Understanding Olympic Sponsorship in Caribbean National Olympic
Committees• Delpy Neirotti (USA) The Future of Olympic Digital Marketing Engagement• Brownell (USA) Olympic Hospitality in Tokyo: The Legal and Sports Development
Legacies

53

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Understanding Olympic Sponsorship in Caribbean National Olympic Committees
Jeeyoon Jamie Kim, Syracuse University, jkim122@syr.edu
Elizabeth B. Delia, University of Massachusetts Amherst, edelia@isenberg.umass.edu
The Caribbean Association of National Olympic Committees (“CANOC”) consists of 28 National
Olympic Committees (“NOC”) in the Caribbean region. A key agenda of CANOC’s member NOCs isdeveloping an Olympic sponsorship program to provide the needed support for their national teamand sport events and to diversify their revenue stream which is heavily reliant on the International
Olympic Committee or government subsidies. The Caribbean NOCs have a unique sport market forbeing placed in small states that are oftentimes characterized by small population, confined
economy, and small private sectors (e.g., Houlihan & Zheng, 2015; World Bank, 2019). For such
uniqueness, many Caribbean NOCs are encountering challenges in finding sponsorship partners,
and acknowledging the need for a sponsorship strategy tailored for their sport market (e.g.,
Metuzlas, 2013; Seguin, Teed, & O’Reilly, 2005). However, there is a void of research in the small
states and Caribbean contexts. Existing knowledge on sponsorship has limited applicability (as it ismainly derived from advanced sport markets; Metuzlas, 2013), calling for further studies tounderstand Olympic sponsorship in this important (cf. among 206 NOCs worldwide, 13.8% arelocated in the Caribbean region) yet overlooked market. Therefore, upon the request of and in
partnership with CANOC, this project is conducted with the aims to answer the following questions.
(1) What is the current state (i.e., objectives, properties and its appeal/popularity, current sponsors
and leveraging strategies) of Caribbean NOC’s sponsorship?
(2) What is the desired state (i.e., ultimate goal, opportunities, challenges) of Caribbean NOC’s
sponsorship?
(3) What are ways to develop effective partnerships between NOCs and sponsors?
To answer the questions, online surveys and semi-structured interviews have been conducted,
targeting those who have at least 3 years of full-time experience at and are knowledgeable of thesponsorships of the respective Caribbean NOC (mainly, data were collected from the president,
secretary general, treasurer, or marketing director of NOCs). As of January 2020, 21 NOCs
completed the survey and 17 interviews (cf. one per NOC; 60~90 minutes per interview) have been
conducted. Data analysis is underway, following a part-to-whole process and open and axial coding(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). As a result, researchers will be able to interpret the participants’perspectives in a way that should tell the story of the sponsorship situation across and within
Caribbean NOCs. Theoretically, this study will add to the Olympics and sponsorship strategy
literature. Practically, the findings will be of value to the 28 Caribbean NOCs and/or any otherorganizations in small states/markets in developing sponsorship strategies.
References
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Houlihan, B., & Zheng, J. (2015). Small states: sport and politics at the margin. International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics, 7(3), 329-344.
Metuzlas, P. (2013). St. Vincent and the Grenadines Marketing Plan, Unpublished report.
Seguin, B., Teed, K., & O'Reilly, N. J. (2005). National sports organizations and sponsorship: An identificationof best practices. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1(1-2), 69-92.
World Bank (2019). Stall states at-a-glance. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/
country/smallstates

54

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Jeeyoon Jamie Kim joined the Department of Sport Management at Syracuse University in August
2016 after earning her PhD from Florida State University. Her research agenda is anchored on theimpact of sporting events on local communities and event consumers. Prior to entering academia,
she served with the Korean Olympic Committee. For five and a half years, she worked for theInternational Games, International Relations and 2018 PyeongChang Olympics Task Force Teams,
participating in (as a team manager), bidding for, and organizing various Olympic sporting events.
She also has experience working as an investigator at the Center for Sport Industry at Seoul National
University, conducting consulting projects to develop strategies for professional sport teams. Her
areas of specialization include mega sporting events, sport event consumer well-being, destination
branding, quantitative research methods.
She earned her bachelor’s degree in physical education and master’s degree in sport management
at Seoul National University. She also earned an executive master’s degree in sport organization
management from the University of Poitiers through the MEMOS program.
Elizabeth B. Delia has been an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts since 2015.
After her master's degree, she worked in market research for several years. She received her PhD
from Florida State University in 2015. Elisabeth Delia is the author of numerous scientific articles
on the topic of team identification.

55

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

The Future of Olympic Digital Marketing Engagement
Lisa Delpy Neirotti, George Washington University, delpy@gwu.edu
Historically the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has relied on corporate sponsors,
broadcasters, and authorized ticket resellers (ATRs) to market the Olympic Games and its values to
consumers, both spectators and viewers (Baird, 2016; Young, 1998). Data collection, analysis, andengagement of Olympic consumers has been slow to evolve compared to other professional sportorganizations in the United States and Europe (Mondello & Kamke, 2014; Mumcu & Fried, 2017).
Successful non-profit and for-profit organizations are using data to make marketing decisions to
attract and retain customers and improve the customer journey (Lee, 2013). Data mining andmarket analytics allows for customer segmentation, and offers profound insights into customer
preferences and trends (Naraine, 2019; Ha, Hum, & Greenwell, 2016; Guo, et.al., 2017; Pu & James,2017). Digital engagement includes the spectrum of activities and experiences from cognitive,
emotional, and physical that have a positive impact on a brand (Dhanesh, 2017).
Currently, Olympic ticketing data bases are the property of the Organizing Committees of the
Olympic Games (OCOG) and then the respective National Olympic Committee (NOC). For example,
the Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC) will receive 80,000 names and email addresses as a legacyof the 2020 Games. A post-Olympic Games digital engagement strategy is currently being
developed by JOC (Yamashita, 2019) but little has been researched or done with previous Olympic
Games data bases. Kolotouchkina (2018) researches citizen engagement in the lead up of the Tokyo
Olympic Games but does not address the collection and use of data pre or post the Olympic Games.
The signing of Alibaba in 2017 as a global Olympic sponsor in the category of cloud infrastructure,cloud services and e-commerce platform services was a major step forward in developing acustomer relationship management (CRM) system for the International Olympic Committee.
Alibaba is creating a ticketing platform that is expected to be used for the 2022 Winter Olympic
Games and beyond, eliminating the need for each Organizing Committee to create their own
platform and data base. The IOC hired the first Director of Digital Engagement in October 2019 andthe Olympic Channel is building a team of over 40 data scientists.
Consider the lack of literature in this area and the recent interest in the IOC to develop acomprehensive digital engagement strategy, the following research questions have beendeveloped: 1) What are the different data sources important for the IOC to capture and manage;
2) What are some challenges that may impact the potential use of the data and 3) How best can
the data be used to reach more people and engage consumers 365 days per year, as per the
Olympic Agenda 2020 Recommendation. The methodology for the study is qualitative in natureand includes interviews with 1) Directors and managers of different IOC departments includingSport, NOC Relations, Olympic Solidarity, Technology, Olympic Channel, Television and Marketing
Services to better understand what data is currently being collected or could be collected and any
concerns. 2) NOC staff responsible for digital engagement from Olympic host countries in the past
decade (Canada, Great Britain, Russia, Brazil, Korea) about how respective Olympic data bases havebeen used. 3) Future host NOCs (Japan, China, France, United States, and Italy) to learn more about
their plans or possible concerns with the IOCs new ownership model of Olympic ticketing data.

56

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

References
Baird, L. (February 22, 2016). Marketing of the Olympic Games. SINC Conference, Washington, DC.
Dhanesh, G. S. (2017). Putting engagement in its proper place: State of the field, definition and model ofengagement in public relations. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 924. Retrieved fromhttp://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/1988103746?accountid=11243
Guo, L., Sharma, R., Yin, L., Lu, R., & Rong, K. (2017). Automated competitor analysis using big data analytics.
Business
Process
Management
Journal,23(3),
735-762.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2015-0065
Ha, J., Hums, M., & Greenwell, T. C. (2016). Using cultural factors to explore sport consumption behaviorsof ethnic minority groups: The case of asians in the united states. International Journal of Sports
Marketing & Sponsorship, 17(2), 130-152. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1108/IJSMS-042016-009
Kolotouchkina, O. (2018). Engaging citizens in sports mega-events: The participatory strategic approach of
tokyo
2020
olympics.
ComunicaciónySociedad,
31(4),
45-58.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.15581/003.31.4.45-58
Lee, P. M. (2013). Use of data mining in business analytics to support business competitiveness. The Review
ofBusiness
Information
Systems(Online),17(2),
53.
Retrievedfrom
http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/1418721911?accountid=11243
Mondello, M., & Kamke, C. (2014). The introduction and application of sports analytics in professional sportorganizations.
JournalofAppliedSport
Management,6(2)Retrievedfrom
http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/1730027881?accountid=11243
Mumcu, C., & Fried, G. (2017). Analytics in sport marketing. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(2),102-105. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1123/smej.2016-0019
Naraine, M. L. (2019). Follower segments within and across the social media networks of major professional
sportorganizations.
Sport
Marketing
Quarterly,
28(4),
222-233.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.32731/SMQ.284.122019.04
IOC(2014).
Olympic
Agenda2020
Recommendations.
https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic_Agenda_2020/Olympic_Agenda_2020-2020_Recommendations-ENG.pdf
Pound, R. (February 13, 2018) Lecture. George Washington University.
Pu, H., & James, J. (2017). The distant fan segment: Exploring motives and psychological connection ofinternational national basketball association fans. International Journal of Sports Marketing &Sponsorship, 18(4), 418-438. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1108/IJSMS-05-2016-0022
Yamashita, S. (2020). Strategy of Fan Engagement Post Tokyo 2020. Masters Project, MEMOS.
Young, S. A. (1998). The 'Olympic/media complex': The development and relationships of olympic marketing(Order No. MQ44800). Available from ABI/INFORM Collection. (304459438). Retrieved fromhttp://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/304459438?accountid=11243

Lisa Delpy Neirotti, Ph.D., has been a professor of sport, event, and tourism management in the
School of Business at The George Washington University for 25 years and directs the BBA, MBA,and Masters of Tourism Administration sport management degree programs. She also oversees
the Sport Philanthropy and Youth Sports Administrator professional certificates plus the GW
Green Sports Scorecard initiative. Lisa co-authored the Ultimate Guide to Sport Marketing andfounded the Travel, Events, and Management in Sports (TEAMS) conference in 1997. She also
consultants with sport organizations and sponsors and conducts numerous economic and market
research studies. Many organizations including USAID have commissioned her to look at sport
tourism as an economic development tool. Recognized as an Olympic scholar, she has attended

57

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

17 consecutive Olympic Games and 4 World Cups as a volunteer, researcher, and consultant. She
also teaches for the International Olympic Committee’s Executive Masters in Management ofSports Organizations (MEMOS) and founded the Women in Sports & Events (WISE) DC Chapter.

58

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Olympic Hospitality in Tokyo: The Legal and Sports Development Legacies
Susan Brownell, University of Missouri, sbrownell@umsl.edu
Olympic hospitality is the official label for two kinds of practices that have been growing rapidly:
entertainment packages for guests of multinational corporations and wealthy elites, and hospitality
houses operated by nations and corporate sponsors. “Japanese-style hospitality” (omotenashi) isa theme of the Tokyo Olympics. Tracing roots back to Confucian philosophy, Japan possesses
elaborate gift-giving and corporate hospitality practices (Rupp 2003; Befu 1967; Allison 1994).
To date scholarship on Olympic hospitality is sparse (exceptions are Brown 2007; essays on
hospitality houses in Baka and Hess 2013). Therefore this paper is based on interviews conductedin Tokyo in August 2019 with staff at the IOC, TOCOG, STH (the supplier of in-venue hospitality),
and other organizations, supplemented with additional interviews, online research, and discussions
with a Japanese expert on Olympic law. The interviews revealed that while the IOC has longoverseen the sale of hospitality packages to corporate sponsors, for the Tokyo Olympics it iscoordinating, under the label “commercial hospitality,” the sale of packages to wealthy individuals
and corporations that are not official sponsors. This is only the second summer games (after
London) at which this has been done, and it will be on a new scale, and under a new organizational
structure. The IOC’s goal is to increase the revenue of the OCOG (IOC 2018: 174-5). During theTokyo Olympics, tens of thousands of guests will enjoy hospitality packages and hundreds ofthousands of visitors will frequent more than 50 hospitality houses. Using major sports events forcorporate hospitality is not as common in Japan as in the West, so the scale of the hospitality in2020 will be unprecedented in Japan. Given its well-developed professional sports, Japan displays
significant potential for growth in this area, and interviewees hoped that the Olympics will pushforward its development and introduce a new revenue stream into the sports industry, perhaps
even helping to push Japan out of its long recession.
The paper focuses on two legacies of Olympic hospitality. Compliance guidelines for Japan’s antibribery law were strengthened in 2015 and 2016. Japan did not previously have an anti-scalping
law and implemented one in June 2019. Olympic hospitality’s legal legacy results from thestrengthening of anti-bribery and anti-scalping laws, important frameworks for the developmentof hospitality because of the risk of corruption. This is because tickets bought from the OCOG for
hospitality purposes can only be gifted and cannot be resold for profit, and corporate hospitality
must comply with domestic and international anti-bribery laws. The sports development legacy
results from the introduction of practices that are common in the U.S. and growing in Europe, which
increase the revenue that stadiums and arenas can generate, making them more financiallysustainable. This paper utilizes the comparative approach of cultural anthropology and East AsianStudies to examine what happens when the Western-based legal regimes and practices associatedwith Olympic hospitality intersect with Japanese cultural traditions of hospitality.
References
Allison, A. (1994). Nightwork: Sexuality, Pleasure, and Corporate Masculinity in a Tokyo Hostess Club. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Baka, R. & Hess,R. (eds.) (2013). On the Periphery: New Perspectives on the Olympic Movement. Sydney:
Walla Walla Press.
Befu, H. (1967). Gift-Giving and Social Reciprocity in Japan, France-Asie/Asia, 21(2), 161-7.
Brown, G. (2007). Sponsor Hospitality at the Olympic Games: An Analysis of the Implications for Tourism,
International Journal of Tourism Research, 315–27.

59

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

IOC (2018). HCC [Host City Contract] – Operational Requirements June 2018. Lausanne: IOC.
Rupp, K. (2003). Gift-Giving in Japan: Cash, Connections, Cosmologies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Susan Brownell received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 1990. In 1994
she joined the University of Missouri, St. Louis. She is an internationally recognized expert on
Chinese sports, Olympic Games, and World’s Fairs. She won UMSL’s Chancellor’s Award for
Research and Creativity in 2015. She has done fieldwork in China, primarily in Beijing and Shanghai.
In 2007-08 she was a Fulbright Senior Researcher at the Beijing Sport University, doing research on
the Beijing Olympic Games. She also did research at the Olympics in Athens, Rio, and PyeongChang.
At UMSL, she teaches ‘The Body in Culture’; ‘Medicine in Culture and History’; ‘Senior Seminar’;
and courses about China, East Asia, and health and medicine.

Marketing II & Olympic
Education
Paper:• Dodds (USA) How can Olympic sponsors comply with international corruption law?
• Dubinsky (USA) Nation branding and the Olympic Games: The case of Israel• Rhodes (USA) Olympic Ideals and Values Education and the Tokyo 2020 Summer
Olympic and Paralympic Games: Do Educational Inputs for Athletes, Coaches andSpectators Directly Lead to Broader Understanding and Impact of Olympism andOlympic Ideals and Values?

61

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

How can Olympic sponsors comply with international corruption law?
Mark Dodds, SUNY Cortland, Mark.Dodds@cortland.edu
The on-site activation tactics of corporate hospitality is a vital component to the B to B function of
an Olympic sponsorship. This element creates new business opportunities and reestablishes sales
contacts. Unfortunately, many corporate hospitality tactics may violate international corruption
law, such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
The FCPA governs how US corporations conduct business in other countries. Among its provisions,
the FCPA criminalizes US corporations and its citizens from bribing foreign officials from agovernmental department, agency or instrumentality thereof. Most commonly, this action is giving
something of value (money or other benefits) to a public official with the intent to obtain or retain
business. Since the law does not create a distinction between money and other benefits, many of
the actions associated with a sponsor’s corporate hospitality may violate the FCPA.
All US corporations must comply with the FCPA. This act governs how US corporations conductbusiness in other countries. However, the US Department of Justice has been very expansive in its
definition of US corporation. Its jurisdiction includes many foreign organizations acting within
another country but has minimal US contacts.
The FCPA has been applied against sport sponsors in the past. Weatherford International, a Swissoil services corporation with substantial operations in Houston was fined more than $120 million(Securities, 2013) for improper travel and entertainment expenses, including Match tickets, travel,and entertainment at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (SEC.gov, 2013).
At the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China, BHP Billiton Ltd., an Australian mining
company, provided corporate hospitality to government officials that included event tickets, luxury
hotel accommodations, and sightseeing trips worth up to $16,000 per trip (SEC.gov, 2015). BHP
Billiton settled the violations by paying a $25 million fine.
Weese (1995) challenged sport marketers to serve practitioners or else the research is not serving
the sport management academy. This investigation is appropriate because legal research can
improve industry practices by improving managerial decision making (Moorman & Grady, 2011).
Legal research reinforces sport marketing research because of the focus on the type and severityof potential financial injury (Moorman & Grady, 2011). Because the FCPA continues to investigate
sport sponsors, and increasingly scrutinizing international sport organizations, such as the
Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the United States Olympic Committee, and theInternational Association of Athletics Federation (Riella and Harwood, 2019), this research is timely
and relevant.
This presentation will: (1) analyze the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (2) discuss potential areas ofconcern; and, (3) offer recommendations for sport marketers to comply with the FCPA.
References
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-213, 91 Stat. 1495
Moorman, A. & Grady, J. (2011). Legal Research. In D. Andrew, P. Pedersen & C. McAvoy (Eds.). Researchmethods and design in sport management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Riella, A. & Harwood, B. (2019, March 5). DOJ is “swinging for the fences” in expanding traditional industry
focus. Vinson & Elkins FCPA & Global Anti-Corruption practice. Retrieved from:https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5596ce53-45ed-4520-82d6-cb70786ecc94
SEC.gov (2013, November 26). SEC charges Weatherford International with FCPA violations. Retrieved from:http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370540415694#.VRAtTeHpx8t

62

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

SEC.gov (2015, May 20). SEC charges BHP Billiton with violating FCPA at Olympic Games. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-93.html
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Weatherford International Ltd. No. 4:13-cv-3500 (S.D. Tex. 2013).
Weese, W.J. (1995). If we’re not serving practitioners, then we’re not serving sport management. Journal ofSport Management, 9, 237-243.

Mark Dodds is a professor teaching sport marketing and sport law at the State University of New
York, College at Cortland. He holds a J.D. from Marquette University Law School, a MBA from
Robert Morris University and a B.Sc. in Marketing Management from Syracuse University. While at
MULS, he earned a Sport Law Certificate from the National Sport Law Institute. His research area isfocused on legal issues in sport business, international sport, sponsorship activation, and legal
issues with internships. He has published articles in journals such as: Journal of Brand Strategy,
Journal of Sponsorship, Marquette Sports Law Review, Case Studies in Sport Management, Journalof Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Journal of Sponsorship, International Journal of SportManagement and Marketing and College Athletics and the Law. He co-edited the award-winning
Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing and a special motorsports issue ofInternational Journal of Sport Management and Marketing.

63

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Nation branding and the Olympic Games: The case of Israel
Yoav Dubinsky, University of Oregon, yoavd@uoregon.edu
Sports had a political role in the creation of the State of Israel, in shaping Israel’s national identity(Kaufman & Galily 2009) and for nation branding purposes (Dart 2016). In the context of the
Olympic Movement, Israel has a history of being associated with international politics, which attimes overshadow the festive competitions (Galily 2007). Whether it is through boycotts, exclusion,terrorism or demand for commemoration, Israel is constantly recognized with armed conflicts,
which instead of an opportunity to be associated with a global celebration becomes a liability for
Israel’s country image, for Israel’s public diplomacy and for the branding of Israel (Dubinsky &Dzikus 2018).
The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of the Olympic Games in branding of a country going
through one of the most complicated and polarizing prolonged international disputes – the Stateof Israel. Countries going through prolonged armed conflicts and wars, suffer from negative images,
which deteriorate potential customers to purchase products associated with these countries ortravel to them (Heslop, Lu & Cray 2008). For almost three millennia, countries, cities, and places
have been using sports to improve their images (Dubinsky 2019). As the Israeli-Arab disputeescalates, Israel’s image has been dramatically deteriorating, partly because of not having clear
nation branding strategies (Avraham 2009; Gilboa 2006).
This study is partly based on the author’s PhD dissertation focusing on Israel’s use of sports fornation branding, and public diplomacy. Coming from a constructive ontology and epistemology,
the author conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with official in key official in policy making
positions in Israeli sports and the Israeli government on sports or the branding of Israel. After
analyzing the results, five themes emerged from the data: (a) The Conflict, (b) Hosting Sports
Events, (c) Representation, (d) Relations with the State, and (e) Challenges and Opportunities.
Based on the thematic analysis, the author conducted a SWOT analysis of Israel’s situation andcame up with practical recommendations for Israel that countries facing prolonged conflicts should
also consider for nation branding purposes through sports. While the original study focused on
Israeli sports in general, this presentation focuses on the context of the Olympic Games. The study
is significant as it contributes to existing knowledge on country image (Buhmann & Ingenhoff 2015)
and its related fields, on how countries going through a prolong conflict are impacted by the
Olympic Games (Boykoff 2016), to literature on sports in Israel, and nation branding and the
Olympic Games.
References
Avraham, E. (2009). Marketing and managing nation branding during prolonged crisis: The case of Israel.
Journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5, 202–212.
Boykoff, J. (2016). Power games: A political history of the Olympics. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Buhmann, A., & Ingenhoff, D. (2015). The 4D Model of the country image: An integrative approach from theperspective of communication management. The International Communication Gazette, 77, 102-124.
Dart, J. (2016). “Brand Israel”: Hasbara and Israeli sport. Sport in Society, 19, 1402–1418.
Dubinsky, Y. (2019). From soft power to sports diplomacy: A theoretical and conceptual discussion. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 15, 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-019-00116-8
Dubinsky, Y., & Dzikus, L. (2019). Israel’s country image in the 2016 Olympic Games. Place Branding andPublic Diplomacy, 15, 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-018-0105-y
Galily, Y. (2007). Sport, politics and society in Israel: The first fifty-five years. Israel Affairs, 13, 515–528.

64

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Heslop, L. A., Lu, I. R. R., & Cray, D. (2008). Modeling country image effects through an international crisis.
International Marketing Review, 25, 354–378.
Kaufman, H., & Galily, Y. (2009). Sport, Zionist ideology and the State of Israel. Sport in Society, 12, 1013–
1027.

Yoav Dubinsky is an Instructor of Sports Business in the Lundquist College of Business, at the
University of Oregon, USA. Dr. Dubinsky received his PhD from the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville writing his dissertation on “Israel’s use of sports for nation branding and public
diplomacy”. His research focuses on sports, country image, nation branding, and public diplomacy,
especially in the context of the Olympic Games. Dr. Dubinsky has been covering and researching
the Olympic Movement for more than a decade, including during the 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020
Olympic Games and has been involved with the International Olympic Academy since 2009 in avariety of capacities as a student, a coordinator and a lecturer.

65

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Olympic Ideals and Values Education and the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympic andParalympic Games: Do Educational Inputs for Athletes, Coaches and Spectators
Directly Lead to Broader Understanding and Impact of Olympism and Olympic
Ideals and Values?
Garry Rhodes, California State University at Dominguez Hills, grhodes@csudh.edu
According to the most current version of the Olympic Charter and the International Paralympic
Committee Handbook, the Olympic and Paralympic Movements focus is not on which athletes earna gold, silver, or bronze medal. There are integrated ideals and values that make the Olympic andParalympic Games more than just an ordinary set of athletic contests.
The Mission and Role of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is not only to hold athleticcompetitions. According to the Olympic Charter, the mission of the IOC is to “promote Olympism
throughout the world and to lead the Olympic Movement” (Olympic Charter, September 2019, p.
16).
The Olympic Charter includes the following impacts as a part of the “The Fundamental Principlesof Olympism” (Olympic Charter, September 2019, p. 11):
1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities
of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create
a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social
responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of
humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservationof human dignity.
3. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of
4. practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires
mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
Symbols of the Olympic Movement and Olympism that are described in the Olympic Charter of theInternational Olympic Committee (IOC) include: the Olympic Symbol, the Olympic Flag, the Olympic
Motto, the Olympic Anthem, the Olympic Flame, and the Olympic Torch.
The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has published the International Paralympic
Committee Handbook, which includes the following vision: To Enable Paralympic Athletes toAchieve Sporting Excellence and Inspire and Excite the World (International Paralympic Committee
Handbook, April 2003, p. 2; June 2016, p. 3).
This is supported through a number of highlighted items, including:•To support and encourage educational, cultural, research and scientific activities that
contribute to the development and promotion of the Paralympic Movement.

•

To ensure that in sport practiced within the Paralympic Movement the spirit of fair playprevails, violence is banned, the health risk of the athletes is managed and fundamental
ethical principles are upheld.

66

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM•

To promote Paralympic sport without discrimination for political, religious, economic,
disability, gender, sexual orientation, or race reasons. (International Paralympic Committee
Handbook, April 2003, pp. 2-­­3).

The statements about the mission and role of the IOC support Olympism, the Olympic Movement
and highlight key symbols that represent Olympism and the Olympic Movement. However, doathletes, coaches, and spectators really understand these concepts? Is it clear to athletes, coaches
and spectators how the IPC implements efforts to support their vision and mission? Rhodes and
Zlotnicki (2014) made the case that more could be done to education athletes, coaches and ort theideals and values supported by the IOC and IPC.
Learning about Olympism, in directed inputs/learning, leading to outcomes/learning actions is no
simple process. According to Baker et al., 2012), that for athletes, there is a “multidimensional
nature of Olympic careers and… complexity of learning through sport… our analysis suggested that
athletes’ behaviours are determined by interactions and local consequences” (p. 382).
Binder (2012, p. 299) highlights the importance of not just expressing Olympic ideals and values
and developing programs to disseminate them, but to be analytics in evaluating outcomes: “Thechallenge for all who believe that sport and physical activity provide a context for learning aboutlife is to evaluate the results, another topic for future research”. To impact broad learning to theathletes, coaches, and millions of spectators around the world, a broader understanding of“Olympic Education” is important. According to Chatziefstathiou (2012, p. 395), “Olympic
education should be understood more broadly beyond the strict sense of education and encompass
a series of actions and initiatives which can take place in different contexts and for different tasks.“
There has been some progress in the development of additional resources, developed andimplemented outside of a traditional school or university environment, including those of the
Olympic Values Education Programme (2017), IOC Athlete365 (n.d.) and theWorldWiseAthlete.com website (Rhodes, n.d.). The Olympic Values Education Program (OVEP). TheOVEP Toolkit includes the following resources:•

The Fundamentals of Olympic Values Education Manual: A Sport-­­based Programme•

Delivering OVEP PLAYbook: A Practical Guide to Olympic Values Education•

OVEP Activity Sheets: Exercises to Support Olympic Values Education•

The Resource Library•

OVEP Workshop Plan: Learning Through Physical Activity -­­ Train the Trainers (Olympic
Values Education Programmer, 2017).

The IOC Athlete 365 Program supports Olympic athletes by providing advice, service, and tools that
support them across six main themes: Voice, Well--­being, Finance, Careers, and Game-­­time
Integrity (International Olympic Committee, n.d.). During the Youth Olympic Winter Games in
Lausanne, Switzerland, Athlete365 provided in-­­place support at the Olympic Village and online
support through the Athlete365 App as a part of the Athlete365 Education Programme. The
expansion of these efforts at the Summer 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, Japan
provides potential for increasing support for Olympic and Paralympic ideals and values.
The WorldWiseAthlete.com website provides information to help athletes, coaches, and spectators
better understand the Olympics, the host city and country, Tokyo, Japan (n.d.) and includes thefollowing resources:

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

67-

Being Worldwise at the Olympics and Paralympics-

Cross-­­Cultural Awareness-Global Understanding-

Introduction to Tokyo-

Athletes Giving to Others (Rhodes, n.d.).

This paper will expand upon some of these key concepts and raise questions about whether there
is any good data confirming that these resources, as well as others, can confirm that Olympic andParalympic ideals and values and symbols are well understood by athletes, coaches and educatorsand provides questions that can provide a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of supportingthese ideals and goals during the 2020 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, Japan, as
described by the Olympic Charter and the International Paralympic Committee Handbook.
References
Barker, D., Barker-­­Ruchti, N., Rynne, S. B., & Lee, J. (2012). Olympism as education: 4 analysing thelearning experiences of elite athletes. Educational Review, 64(3), 369–384.
https://doiorg.libproxy.csudh.edu/10.1080/00131911.2012.665846
Binder, D. (2012). Olympic values education: evolution of a pedagogy. Educational Review, 64(3), 275–302.
https://doi-­­ org.libproxy.csudh.edu/10.1080/00131911.2012.676539
Chatziefstathiou, D. (2012). Olympic education and beyond: Olympism and value legacies from the
Olympic and Paralympic Games. Educational Review, 64(3), 385–400. https://doi-­­org.libproxy.csudh.edu/10.1080/00131911.2012.696094
International Olympic Committee (n.d.). Athlete365 Support, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne,
Switzerland. https://www.olympic.org/athlete365/support/.
International Paralympic Committee Handbook (June 2016). International Paralympic Committee
Handbook Preamble, International Paralympic Committee, Bonn, Germany.
https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/141217162407
366_2014_12+Sec+i+Preamble.pdf.
International Paralympic Committee Handbook (April 2003). International Paralympic Committee
Handbook, 1 (1.1), Paralympic Vision and Mission, International Paralympic Committee, Bonn,
Germany. https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/141113141204
499_2014_10_01+Sec+i+chapter+1_1_Paralympic+Vision+and+Mission.pdf.
Olympic Charter (September 2019). Olympic Charter: In Force As From June 2019, International Olympic
Committee, Lausanne, Switzerland.
https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/General/EN-­­Olympic-­­
Charter.pdf.
Olympic Values Education Programme (2017). Olympic Values Education Programme Toolkit, International
Olympic Committee Foundation for Culture and Heritage, Lausanne, Switzerland.
https://www.olympic.org/olympic-­­ values-­­and-­­education-­­program.
Rhodes, G. (n.d.). About the WorldwiseAthlete.com Website. Center for Global Education, Los Angeles.
http://worldwiseathlete.com/about.asp.
Rhodes, G. & Zlotnicki, J. (2014). Initiatives Beyond the Competition: Common Purposes Connecting
International Sport and Education, Olympism, Olympic Education and Learning Legacies. Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, Newcastle Upon Tyne,United Kingdom.

Gary Rhodes is a Full Professor in the College of Education at California State University at
Dominguez Hills (CSUDH). He Coordinates the Graduate Higher Education Administration andLeadership Program, serves as Director of the Center for Global Education, and is a Member of theInternational and U.S. Pierre de Coubertin Committees. He holds a BA in English Language and68

10th INTERNATIONAL SPORT BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM

Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as an MA in International
Relations, MS Ed. In Education and Counselling, and a PhD in Comparative and International
Education and Higher Education Administration, from the University of Southern California. He has
published, presented and developed resources focused on the importance of the Olympic
Movement as well as international student mobility to promote international relations andinternational understanding. From 2015 – 2018, he served as Associate Dean of International
Education and Senior International Officer in the College of Extended & International Education at
CSUDH. He is also Director of the Center for Global Education at CSUDH. He developed the Centerin 1998 at the University of Southern California, then moved the Center to Loyola Marymount
University in 2004, then to the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at UCLA in
2010, before moving it to its current home at CSUDH in 2015. The Center for Global Education at
CSUDH serves as national resource to support international learning and understanding throughthe Olympic Movement and internationalization of higher education, with a special focus on
student mobility issues. He publishes articles and presents widely at conferences across the U.S.
and around the world. He served in the field as a Technical Advisor in support of a primaryeducation project in Cameroon and served as a Fulbright Senior Specialist in India and South Africa.