Systematically mapping the Societal Potential of Elite Sport: a review and the

development of a conceptual model.

Authors:

Jens De Rycke, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, SASO (Sport and Society):

Veerle De Bosscher, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, SASO (Sport and Society)

Key words: elite sport; elite sport policy; elite sport societal outcomes; conceptual model;

mapping review # words: (max 3000)

INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1960’s, governments started to grasp the cultural, political and

economic importance of elite sport, which has led to governmental intervention in the

form of financial investment, administrative support and regulation. Moreover, in the

early twenty-first century, sport and elite sport has become an increasing policy

priority (De Bosscher, De Knop, Van Bottenburg, & Shibli, 2006; Green, 2009). As

such, questions are raised concerning this policy arrangement (Girginov, 2012; Grix

& Carmichael, 2012b; Hogan & Norton, 2000). It is argued that the escalating costs

needed to achieve elite sport success causes governments to get entangled in an

unsustainable, upward competitive spiral leading to excessive spending (Houlihan &

Zheng, 2013). Moreover, elite sport investment does not guarantee success, which

means that public investment in elite sport carries a political risk (Houlihan & Zheng,

2013).

When facing the challenge of justifying investments in elite sport to their public, elite

sport policy makers increasingly tend to advocate for elite sport development by

stating that it will ‘trickle’ a wide range of societal benefits. The most referenced are

international prestige (Smith, 2005; Walker et al., 2013; Wicker, Hallmann et al.,

2012), diplomatic recognition (Merkel, 2013), a ‘feel good factor’ (Hallmann, Breuer,

& Kühnreich, 2013; Kavetsos & Szymanski, 2010), raised levels of sport participation

(De Bosscher, Sotiriadou, & van Bottenburg, 2013; Hindson, Gidlow, & Peebles,

1994; Storm, 2012; Veal, Toohey, & Frawley, 2012), to more concrete economic

impacts (Sant & Mason, 2015; Shipway, Kirkup, Saayman, & Saayman, 2012; Swart

& Bob, 2012; Zhang, Li, Ouyang, & Malone, 2013). This is in line with many

corporations and organizations (including the IOC and UN) who have recognized elite

sport as powerful in promoting education, culture, health, sustainable development

and peace. However, this ‘elite sport-plus’ train of thought (after Coalters ‘sport-plus’

concept (Coalter, 2013)), is being criticized by academics (Grix & Carmichael,

2012a). Pleading sport policy makers to ‘mature and become less ambitious and more

effective’ (Coalter, 2007), that there is a need to “demythologize” sport’ (Shilling &

Mellor, 2014) so that it is no longer understood as an intrinsically “good” thing

(Green, 2004). Inevitably, some have dishonest purposes or hidden agendas when

proposing elite sport investments (Gould & Williams, 2011; Reiche, 2014). An

astonishing case is that of Ken Livingstone, London’s former mayor who claims he

‘trapped’ the government by bidding for the Olympics. He reports he didn’t bid for

sports sake, but only “because it’s the only way to get the billions of pounds out of the

Government to develop the East End – to clean the soil, put in the infrastructure and

build the housing”(Barclay, 2009). Evidently, bid and event proponents

overemphasize positive outcomes, whereas negative legacies, such as overcrowding

and environmental damage are contested, concealed or turned a blind eye (Sant &

Mason, 2015). It aggravates academics that path dependency (Green & Collins, 2008)

and ‘deep-seated story lines’ (Fischer, 2003) –although not necessarily false- impacts

sport policy-making often more than the quality and quantity of the available evidence

(Houlihan, Bloyce, & Smith, 2009). Coalter (2007) hits the nail on the head when

proclaiming ‘there is a need to think more clearly, analytically and less emotionally

about sport and its potential’ (Coalter, 2007, p.7).

The state of the art literature on elite sport societal outcomes has succeeded in asking

the right questions, but has failed at giving robust answers that can inform and guide

policy. It is in this regard that Grix and Carmichaels’ (2012) question of ‘why nations

should care about winning medals, and therefore why they should invest in elite

sport’, remains mostly unanswered. Their plentiful cited contribution dissects the

reasons for prioritizing and investing in elite sport in great fashion, but does not offer

a thorough review of the relevant literature nor does it present a framework that can

advance knowledge and therefore be a potentially important influence on practitioner

and policy-makers’ decisions (Woodman, Thomas, & Dickson, 2012). Several

academics call for broader, intra- and inter-disciplinary theoretical conceptualisations

(Chalip, 2006; Muller, 2009). For example Houlihan et al. (2009) underscore the

urgent need of a holistic conceptualisation of the sport sector “as being an element of

welfare provision, a component of national cultural identity, a segment of the post-

industrial economy and a diplomatic resource” (Houlihan et al., 2009, p. 9). To date,

the current analysis of the state of the art in literature reveals that a theoretical model

framing the societal potential of elite sport does not yet exists. As such, the objective

of this paper is to systematically develop a conceptual framework mapping the

societal potential of elite sport based on a literature review. The following research

questions are posed:

Q1: What is the assumed potential – both positive and negative – of elite sport in

society?

Q2: To what extent are the assumptions of the societal potential of elite sport practices

supported by empirical research findings?

Q3: How can it be listed and classified in a logical and convenient way, in order to

holistically frame the societal potential of elite sport?

METHODs

This paper adopts a mapping review/systematic map in order to develop a conceptual

framework. This type of review has been developed to map out and categorize

existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from

which to commission further reviews and/or primary research (Grant & Booth, 2009).

It enables contextualization within broader literature, thus enabling a solid base to

develop a conceptual framework. As such it is a valuable tool in offering

policymakers, practitioners and researchers an explicit and transparent means of

identifying narrower policy and practice-relevant review questions (Grant & Booth,

2009) an is a building block of evidence based practice (Booth, 2003). Its value lies in

the recognition that practitioners find it almost impossible to make decisions based

upon the massive and increasing volume of research evidence (Sleep & Clark, 1999).

Accordingly, three different relevant electronic databases (SportDISCUS, Web of

Knowledge and Google Scholar) were used to discover the evidence-based research.

The Cochrane Collaboration recommendations to designate the search key words and

track down and interpret relevant studies (Higgins & Green, 2011) have guided the

literature review. One of the recommendations to find all relevant search keywords is

to brake down the research question into components, following the PICO – that is

Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison and Outcome - methodology. PICO is

appropriate for this systematic mapping review because, to be able to map the full

scope of elite sports societal potential, it was necessary to search on every possible

aspect. Important, because articles sometimes do not lend themselves well to

searching as concepts may not be well described in the title or abstract and are often

not well indexed with controlled vocabulary terms (Higgins & Green, 2011). As such,

the search terms were initially determined after a pre-exam of literature, which

enabled to detect several relevant frameworks and umbrella reviews in addition to

previously collected academic works. A total of 203 search keywords were included

(expanded with its synonyms an/or related terms) relating to elite sports societal

impact (appendix 1 Keywords used for inclusion).

Hence, in this review, we included empirical studies of any design that had

investigated one or more societal outcomes due to elite sport. The initial filtering was

undertaken based on the title of the literature source; a second filter was then based on

the content in the abstract, and then only the full text reviewed for those articles,

reports and papers that passed all inclusion criteria (see appendix 2 Flowchart for

overview of process). Additionally, the reference lists and bibliographies of all the

included articles and reviews were searched by hand. During the review, a maximum

of 50 ‘hits’ were considered from each search website for each keyword. Apart from

peer-reviewed, also edited books, research reports, and conference papers were

included. As in similar previous studies (McCartney et al., 2010), we included articles

starting from January 1978 up to now (June 2015). Also, studies that used a mix of

real and estimated data were included. Non empirical studies like for example media

portrayals and studies using exclusively estimated data, letters, commentaries,

editorials, expert opinions, abstracts and reviews without original data were excluded.

A mapping review does not include a quality assessment process, as its purpose is to

map out, detect gaps and categorize literature (Grant & Booth, 2009). Duplicates were

removed which ensured that evidence was not ‘double-counted’ through multiple

inclusions (Weed et al., 2015).

In order to answer research question 2 (‘To what extent are the assumptions of the

societal impact of elite sport practices supported by empirical research findings?’), the

weight of the available academic evidence was assessed. Note that in evidence-based

practice, the term ‘evidence’ is used deliberately instead of ‘proof’, which emphasizes

that evidence can be so weak that it is hardly convincing at all or so strong that no one

doubts its correctness. In determining the weight of the evidence, it is therefore

important to decide which research design and evidence is the most qualitative and

authoritative (Petticrew & Roberts, 2003) and to consider the quantity of the available

studies. Therefore, a 5-point scale was used: 5= solid empirical evidence, 4=

encouraging empirical evidence, 3= inconclusive empirical evidence, 2= lack of

empirical evidence, 1= no empirical evidence. Scores were given by two independent

researchers; if there was no consent, the results were discussed until consensus was

reached. In addition, the literature reviews of the included studies often give

statements of the weight of the evidence themselves.

The conceptual framework is the result of an extended continual process of model

building, critique, and revision by two researchers until consensus was reached. The

build-up of the model started from an author’s quote or a purified main result of

empirical academic research. Appendix 3 ‘Example Stimulation of Sport

Participation’ illustrates the first phase that was conducted to build the conceptual

frame. It shows results of empirical studies regarding the inspirational and

discouragement effect of elite sport on grassroots sport participation. From thereon

clusters were made, forming an expanding ‘web’ of grouped quotes. In a second

phase, overarching terms were given to the clustered groups. Appendix 4 ‘Unity’ is an

example of the ‘supercluster’ ‘Unity’ which consists of three ‘clusters’ ‘Social

Equity’, ‘Collectivity’ and ‘Values’. The ‘clusters’ contain respectively nine, eight

and 11 ‘subclusters’, who again, represent two or three subthemes, thus form the first

clustering of the web. Initially, the building process of the model started with a

proposal of seven clustered themes and more than 200 potential influence domains

evolved from the literature. Due to further interpreting, labelling and clustering - a

total of 109 detected ‘subclusters’, an outline of 11 broader, more abstract ‘clusters’

and three ‘super clusters’. Note that during this process, underlying mechanisms and

indirect influential factors were also detected, but not included in the development of

the model since this aims to exclusively frame the direct potential of elite sport in

society. In order to make a sound contribution with this model, previously developed

conceptual frameworks were explored, thus forming a starting point and source of

inspiration (see appendix 5 ‘previous frameworks’).

RESULTS

We focus explicitly on both the potential positive and negative outcomes of elite sport

and capture a holistic and inclusive range of evidence. A specific ‘Elite Sport Societal

Potential Model’ is articulated (see figure above), within which a number of

interactions - which can be influenced by policy - are proposed and the potential

mapped. The societal potential of elite sport was distilled down to three ‘super

clusters’ and 11 ‘cluster’ themes: A) unity; (a) social equity, (b) collectivity, (c)

values, (B) uniqueness; (d) feel good, (e) attraction, (f) showcase, (g) economic, (C)

upgrowth; (h) athlete development, (i) fans development (j) stakeholders development

(k) local development. ‘Unity’ describes the potential outcomes that arise when

networks between people, groups, organizations, and society come together in the

elite sport domain. It follows Simon and colleagues (2014) judgment that sport

provides common behavioral guidelines to generate shared experiences, values, and

beliefs through collective conscience. Through the clustering process, three main

themes were found. (a) social equity stands for elite sports function in bridging

different cultures & religions, thus stimulating cultural diversity and socio-economic

equality (e.g. social mobility), human rights and justice. Research in for example elite

football shows that patterns of overt and more institutional forms of discrimination

(e.g. subclusters sexism, exclusion, exploitation; subthemes racism, human

trafficking...) continue to shape the experiences of minorities and limit the parameters

of minority involvement in the game (Bradbury, 2013). ‘Collectivity’ is formed out of

the premise that no institution or organization in a community has a stronger influence

in bringing people together as a local sport team does (Anderson and Stone, 1981) and

that elite sport events are an ideal opportunity to build a preferred destination image

(Donaldson and Ferreira, 2007). In domestic politics, national sporting success can

contribute to nation building, achieving unity, national identity and pride (Reiche,

2014). Through shared experiences, ‘collective identities’ can be formed (Lee,

Cornwell, & Babiak, 2013, p. 27). Rivalry and community alienation are potential

negative by-products of elite sport. The cluster ‘values’ is formed out of Loland and

McNamee’s conjecture that, although elite sport is often associated with unethical

practices (subclusters corruption/crime, competitive trait, aggression/violence, doping,

unfair play and other deviant examples), “if practiced according to our norm of fair

play, we believe that sporting games can stand out as a paradigmatic practice of the

possibility of moral dialogue that is so important in our modern, pluralistic societies”

(Loland & McNamee, 2000, p. 76). Elite sport provides an international platform for

social debate and enables people to realize human needs and ideals in a powerful

symbolic form, containing nostalgic traditions and rituals (Lipsky, 1979).

The second ‘supercluster’, ‘Uniqueness’, arose out the ‘unique selling proposition of

elite sport’ as it can provide, a feel-good effect among ‘consumers’ and attracts

enormous media attention. Fans attending live sporting events derive enjoyment,

happiness and satisfaction (De Knop, Scheerder, & Vanreusel, 2002) by having an

opportunity to experience entertainment (Fredline, 2005), comradeship, aesthetics,

and socialize with other spectators (Wann et al., 2001). Mega-sporting events

encompass the entire globe and are nearly certain to attract a great deal of worldwide

media coverage (Dolles and Söderman, 2008). A professional sports team has the

potential to build ‘brand equity’ by capitalizing on the emotional relationship it shares

with its fans (Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). A ‘showcase effect’ sets in as sport

offers an arena for countries to compete with each other in a ‘global sporting arms

race’ to gain international prestige, recognition, political power and fame. Countries

bidding for major events sometimes strive for a powerful public stage for their

ideological battles (Merkel, 2013), but the most distinct feature is that it paves the

way for economic value: an economic boost, new transport and infrastructure,

tourism, consumption, employment. Although research confirms that an economic

legacy is not certain as a ‘hangover’ with regards to the decaying infrastructure and

limited noticeable positive outcomes for the community (Meyer, 2009) often

occurred.

The third ‘supercluster’ is called ‘upgrowth’; and constitutes of the potential

developmental and leveraging processes due to elite sport participation (athlete),

consumption (fans), association/partnership (stakeholders) or locality/hosting (local).

Indeed, by incorporating the personal, physical and mental influences, the full scope

of potential influence spheres associated with elite sport are captured. Positive

influences for athletes are clustered as: identity building, relationships, health,

education, quality of life and learning life skills. In contrary, several physical and

psychological challenges (e.g. injuries, social isolation, pressure to perform) may

impose risks to the elite athlete’s wellbeing (Steffen, Soligard, & Engebretsen, 2011).

As ‘idealized creations’, athletes provide inspiration, motivation direction and

meaning for people’s lives. The notion that co-experiencing an athlete’s achievement

– live or through media – would inspire to actively change behaviour and personal

characteristics (volunteering, character building, self-efficacy, hard work, risk

taking...) and for example trickle sport participation has been contested. Donnelly et

al. (2011) state that “It is now clear that increased participation is not an automatic

legacy of hosting major sporting events or winning medals, and that far more

deliberate interventions are necessary in order to increase participation in sport and

physical activity. Inspiration is simply not enough”. Possible negative spheres has led

some authors to theorize about a ‘discouraging effect’ and decreased body image as a

result of an experienced ‘competence gap’. The stakeholder development cluster

constitutes of a variety of stakeholders that are entangled within elite sport. People do

not go to games just to watch athletes play; eating, drinking, shopping, and socializing

are other options that people enjoy at sport venues (Wann et al., 2001). Partnerships

and sponsor deals lead to direct economic outcomes relating merchandise sales, TV

rights, jobs, sport industry assets (Couvelaere & Richelieu, 2005) and others outcomes

like stimulation of scientific research, innovation, and corporate social responsibility.

Undoubtedly, elite sport stimulates the economy through the interconnection of sport,

media and business. These parties utilize the big public interest in elite sport and

emotional bonds with sporting heroes, teams and clubs. Sporting organizations benefit

and thrive because of this affiliation (Tomlinson, 2011).

Finally, the cluster local development stands for outcomes due to financing of elite

sport development and the organization of elite sport events. Especially when hosting

mega-events, cities invest in for example public transportation, sport accommodation,

the environment, local infrastructure, sustainable development...where inhabitants can

benefit from. Major events often bring forth a disruption of the local lifestyle (noise,

vandalism, an increase in crime and overcrowding) and living conditions which may

let residents avoid event places or decide to leave the area entirely (Mules and Dwyer,

2005). Unfortunately, there are examples of events where example low-income

neighborhoods were torn down in order to build new venues and roads (Agha, Fairley,

& Gibson, 2012).

DISCUSSION

The literature review shows that societal value is reflected in the ways elite sport

influences and effects individuals, groups and society at large. Elite sport is unique as

it enthuses and inspires people to unite and progress. However, these effects do not

occur automatically. Whether and how they manifest themselves depends on the

social context and social conditions. Moreover, this evidence induces us to draw

nuanced conclusions that do justice to the context-dependent nature of the empirical

findings. It remains a challenge to examine the relationship between elite sport and

society due to the vast range of determinants and difficulties to isolate effects in

empirical studies. Because of the complicated nature of these influences, the available

research has not sufficiently succeeded in finding clear evidence for the full scope of

the 109 potential influence domains. Despite high expectations, the cumulative

evidence base for elite sport’s personal and societal impact remains incomplete. This

makes it difficult to ‘measure the balance’ between the positive and negative

outcomes of elite sport in society.

The scope of the proposed model is much broader than what is often considered,

especially with regard to elite sport specifically. In some cases the potential ascribes

increases or improvements, others are the product of decreases or reductions. The

model suggests not only that elite sport is a potential key driver of different types of

value formation, but that each cluster in turn influences both the elite sport ‘world’

and the other ‘clusters’. Thus, “forming a synergistic feedback network whose whole

is greater than the sum of its parts” (Bailey, Hillman, Arent, & Petitpas, 2013, p. 290).

Ultimately, the aim of the model is not to make definite categorical statements, but to

stimulate debate around this subject and give opportunity to map elite sport policy and

research. Policymakers need this knowledge to judge whether or not elite sport

funding can be the answer to a specific goal.

References Agha, N., Fairley, S., & Gibson, H. (2012). Considering legacy as a multi-

dimensional construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review, 15(1), 125-139. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2011.08.004

Bailey, R., Hillman, C., Arent, S., & Petitpas, A. (2013). Physical Activity: An Underestimated Investment in Human Capital? Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 10(3), 289-308.

Barclay, J. (2009). Predicting the Costs and Benefits of Mega-sporting Events: Misjudgement of Olympic Proportions? Economic affairs, 29(2), 62-66.

Booth, A. (2003). Bridging the Research-Practice Gap? The Role of Evidence Based Librarianship. New Review of Information and Library Research, 9(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1080/13614550410001687909

Bradbury, S. (2013). Institutional racism, whiteness and the under-representation of minorities in leadership positions in football in Europe. Soccer & Society, 14(3), 296-314.

Brown, A., & Massey, J. (2001). Literature Review: The Impact of Major Sporting Events.

The Sports Develompent Impact of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games: Initial Baseline Research.

Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1-21.

Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: who's keeping the score? : Routledge.

Coalter, F. (2013). 'There is loads of relationships here': Developing a programme theory for sport-for-change programmes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(5), 594-612. doi: 10.1177/1012690212446143

Couvelaere, V., & Richelieu, A. (2005). Brand strategy in professional sports: The case of French soccer teams. European Sport Management Quartely, 5(1), 23-46.

De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P., Van Bottenburg, M., & Shibli, S. (2006). A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(2), 185-215.

De Bosscher, V., Sotiriadou, P., & van Bottenburg, M. (2013). Scrutinizing the sport pyramid metaphor: an examination of the relationship between elite success and mass participation in Flanders. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 5(3), 319-339. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2013.806340

De Knop, P., Scheerder, J., & Vanreusel, B. (2002). Sportsociologie: het spel en de spelers: Elsevier gezondheidszorg.

Fredline, E. (2005). Host and guest relations and sport tourism. Sport in Society, 8(2), 263-279.

Girginov, V. (2012). Governance of the London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(5), 543-558. doi: 10.1177/1012690211413966

Gould, D., & Williams, J. (2011). After Heysel: how Italy lost the football ‘peace’ (Vol. 12, pp. 586-601).

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Green, M. (2004). Changing policy priorities for sport in England: the emergence of elite sport development as a key policy concern. Leisure Studies, 23(4), 365-385. doi: 10.1080/0261436042000231646

Green, M. (2009). Podium or participation? Analysing policy priorities under changing modes of sport governance in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2), 121-144. doi: 10.1080/19406940902950697

Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012a). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(1), 73-90. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2011.627358

Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012b). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy, 4(1), 73-90.

Hallmann, K., Breuer, C., & Kühnreich, B. (2013). Happiness, pride and elite sporting success: What population segments gain most from national athletic achievements? Sport Management Review, 16(2), 226-235. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2012.07.001

Higgins, J., & Green, S. C. H. f. S. R. o. I. V. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 G. S (Ed.) The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011

Hindson, A., Gidlow, B., & Peebles, C. (1994). The "trickle-down" effect of top-level sport: myth or reality? A case-study of the Olympics. Australian journal of leisure and recreation, 4(1), 16–31.

Hogan, K., & Norton, K. (2000). The 'Price' of Olympic Gold. Journal of Science and Medicine Sport, 3((2)), 203-218.

Houlihan, B., Bloyce, D., & Smith, A. (2009). Developing the research agenda in sport policy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1080/19406940802681186

Houlihan, B., & Zheng, J. (2013). The Olympics and Elite Sport Policy: Where Will It All End? The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(4), 338-355. doi: 10.1080/09523367.2013.765726

Kavetsos, G., & Szymanski, S. (2010). National well-being and international sports events. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(2), 158-171. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.11.005

Lee, S. P., Cornwell, T. B., & Babiak, K. (2013). Developing an Instrument to Measure the Social Impact of Sport: Social Capital, Collective Identities, Health Literacy, Weil-Being and Human Capital. Journal of Sport Management, 27(1), 24-42.

Loland, S., & McNamee, M. (2000). Fair Play and the Ethos of Sports: An Eclectic Philosophical Framework. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 27(1), 63.

McCartney, G., Thomas, S., Thomson, H., Scott, J., Hamilton, V., Hanlon, P., . . . Bond, L. (2010). The health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: systematic review (1978-2008). BMJ, 340, c2369. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2369

Merkel, U. (2013). Flags, Feuds and Frictions: North Korea and the London 2012 Olympics. International Journal of the History of Sport,

30(15), 1810-1822. doi: 10.1080/09523367.2013.796453 Muller, P. (2009). Sport : What is it Good for. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003). Evidence, hierarchies and typologies:

horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health(57), 527–529. Reiche, D. (2014). Investing in sporting success as a domestic and foreign

policy tool: the case of Qatar. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2014.966135

Sant, S.-L., & Mason, D. S. (2015). Framing Event Legacy in a Prospective Host City: Managing Vancouver's Olympic Bid. Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 42-56.

Shilling, C., & Mellor, P. A. (2014). Re-Conceptualizing Sport as a Sacred Phenomenon. Sociology of Sport Journal, 31(3), 349-376. doi: 10.1123/ssj.2013-0034

Shipway, R., Kirkup, N., Saayman, M., & Saayman, A. (2012). The economic impact of the Comrades Marathon. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 3(3), 220-235.

Simon, L. M., & Ward, D. C. (2014). Preparing for events for physically challenged athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep, 13(3), 163-168. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000058

Storm, R. K. (2012). he Discourse of the Trickle-Down Effect: An Assessment of the Consequences of Hegemonic Closure in Sport. Paper presented at the 20th EASM conference: “Sport Between Business and Civil Society”, Aalborg, Denmark.

Swart, K., & Bob, U. (2012). Mega sport event legacies and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation & Dance, 1-11.

Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity: Lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1-13.

Veal, A. J., Toohey, K., & Frawley, S. (2012). The sport participation legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and other international sporting events hosted in Australia. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(2), 155-184. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2012.662619

Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1-32. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2014.998695

Woodman, J., Thomas, J., & Dickson, K. (2012). How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions. Syst Rev, 1, 37. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-37

Zhang, M., Li, C., Ouyang, L., & Malone, C. (2013). Residents' Perceived Social-Economic Impact of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. ICHPER -- SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 8(2), 19-25.

Appendix 1

Keywords used for inclusion

Population

‘elite AND sport*’

‘high AND performance AND sport*’ ‘perform* AND sport*’ ‘elite AND athlete*’ ‘athlete*’ ‘elite AND sport AND policy’ ‘*olympic*’ OR ‘paralympic*’ ‘sport* AND *event*’ ‘*mega-event*’ ‘international* AND sport*’ ‘multination*AND sport*’ ‘international* AND event*’ ‘multination* AND event*’ ‘international* AND games*’ ‘multination* AND games*’ ‘multi-nation* AND games*’ ‘sport* AND franchise*’ ‘sport* AND team*’ ‘sport* AND star*’ ‘sport* AND celebrit*’ ‘achievement*' ‘sport* AND success*’ ‘victor*’ ‘medal*’ ‘win*’

AND

Exposure

‘society’ ‘sportsworld’ ‘inhabitant*’ ‘population*’ ‘consumer*’ ‘tourist*’ ‘attend*’ ‘*fan*’ ‘follow*’ ‘communit*’ ‘enthusiast*’ ‘enthousiast*’ ‘devot*’ ‘particip*’ ‘grassroot*’

AND

Outcome (ethics' OR 'fair' 'play' OR 'norms' OR 'values' OR 'standards' OR 'morality) AND 'sport*' (admission*' OR 'entry' 'ticket*' OR 'merchandis*' OR 'food' OR 'beverage*' AND

‘consumer*’ OR ‘tourist*’ OR ‘attend*’ OR ‘*fan*’ OR ‘follow*’)AND 'sport*' (negative' OR 'bad' 'public' 'figures' OR 'role' 'models' OR 'role' 'model*') AND 'sport' (family OR friends) AND impact AND negative ('anger' OR 'rage' OR 'aggression' AND 'sport' touris*' AND 'sport*' (self-esteem' OR 'self-respect')AND 'sport*' (sex' OR 'sexual') AND 'sport*'

(community' OR 'economic' OR 'entrepreneurship' OR 'industry) AND ('bad OR 'negative') AND 'sport*'

leadership' AND sport (alcohol' OR 'doping' OR 'steroids) AND 'sport*' (technological' OR 'knowledge) AND 'sport*' ('differences' OR 'awareness') AND 'sport*' AND ( 'disab*' OR 'para*' or 'special' ) ('boredom) AND 'sport*' (brings' 'down' 'enthusiasm') OR 'passion ('excitement' OR 'satisfaction) AND sport* ('anxiety' OR 'fear' OR 'confusion') AND sport* ('bullying' OR 'sledging' OR 'verbal' 'abuse' OR 'intimidat*) AND sport* ('enthusiasm' OR 'energy' OR 'passion') AND sport* ('safeness' OR 'trust' OR 'faith) AND sport* ('exploitation' OR 'human rights') AND sport* ('charity' OR 'fundraising') AND sport* ('social' AND 'norms ) AND sport* ('school' OR scholar* OR academic*) AND elite sport* 'communit*' AND 'host*' 'peace' AND 'sport*' communit* AND (negative OR bad) AND 'sport*' (skill* OR competenc* ) AND ( difference OR 'gap' ) AND elite ('venue*' OR 'facilit*' OR 'accommodat*' OR 'PPP' ) AND sport ('social' 'inclusion' OR 'acceptanc*' 'OR' 'minorit* OR disadvant*) AND ('elite' OR 'sport'

OR 'athletes') 'public order' AND ( 'elite' OR 'sport') 'crime' AND ( 'sport' OR 'elite' ) volunteer* AND ( 'elite' Or 'sport*') character' OR 'resilience' OR 'persistency' AND 'sport*' ('addiction' OR 'fanaticism' OR 'obsession' OR '' 'gambling ) AND sport* discourag* AND ( 'elite' OR 'sport*' ) ('competitive' AND ('trait' OR 'character*') ) AND ('elite' OR 'sport*') ('discipline' OR 'self-control ) AND ('elite' OR 'sport*') 'disappoint*' AND ('elite' OR 'sport*') smoking AND (‘venue' OR 'stadi*' OR 'attend*’ OR ‘*fan*’ OR ‘follow*’ OR

‘communit*’) AND ('sport*' OR 'elite') (sleep OR 'sleep pattern*) AND (‘attend*’ OR ‘*fan*’ OR ‘follow*’ OR

‘communit*’)AND sport* 'media' AND 'innovation' 'social*' AND 'sport*' AND ('awareness' OR 'engagement') doping (eating OR eat ) AND elite injur* AND elite ('social' AND 'skills') OR 'socializing') AND sport* ('marketing' AND 'city') AND sport* ('social' AND 'mobility) AND (sport* OR 'elite') (embarrass*' OR 'shameful*' OR 'incident*) AND (sport* OR 'elite') (employment' OR 'job') AND ('athlete*' OR 'elite') empowerment' AND ('elite' OR 'sport' OR 'consumption) hard work AND ('elite' OR 'sport') authorit* AND elite rebellion' 'sacrific*' AND ('elite' OR 'athlete*') ('striv* OR 'goal' OR 'aim*') AND ('achievements' OR 'success) AND elite (communit* AND harmon*) AND sport ('cultural*' AND (value OR apprec*) ) AND ( elite OR event OR sport) (‘health' OR 'fitness) AND 'elite' ('heroism' OR 'bravery' OR 'courage) AND 'sport*' 'legac*' AND ( sport OR event ) AND ('commun*' OR 'social*') 'engagement' AND 'sport*' ('physical' AND 'decline') AND ('age*' OR 'old*' OR 'post*' OR 'ex*') AND ( 'elite' OR

'athlete*' OR 'sport*') (feel* AND good*' AND 'factor*') OR 'enjoy*' OR 'fun*') AND ( watch* OR 'attend*'

OR 'fan*' OR 'touris*') 'ritual*' AND 'sport*' (outcast* OR 'belong*) AND 'sport*' ('leisure' AND 'time') AND ('sport*' OR 'fan' OR 'spectat*' OR attend*) ('famous' OR 'fame' OR 'recogniz*') AND sport* ('hate' OR 'unpopular*' OR 'critics*) AND sport* ('government*' OR 'public' AND ('spending OR 'fund*) ) AND sport* (gross' AND 'domestic' AND 'product) AND sport* 'hooligan*' OR 'vandal*' hospitalit* AND sport* 'identit*' AND elite* AND sport* ('scien* AND 'innov*) AND sport* ('awareness' AND ('health' OR 'care') ) AND sport* 'transport*' AND ('legac*' OR 'sport*' OR 'event' OR 'host*') ('national' AND 'identity) AND sport* 'pride' AND sport* 'nationalism' AND sport* 'social' AND ('elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*' OR 'host' OR 'event') 'wellbeing AND ( 'elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*' OR 'host' OR 'event') 'equity' AND ('sport' OR 'elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*' OR 'host' OR 'event') ('inequity' OR discrimin* OR 'inequalit*) AND ('sport' OR 'elite' OR 'fan' OR 'attend*'

OR 'host' OR 'event') (econom*' OR 'commercial') AND ('sport' OR 'elite' OR 'communit*' OR 'host' OR

'event') ( sedentary OR 'lifestyle') AND ('elite' OR 'communit*' OR 'fan' OR 'watching') AND

sport ('disable*' OR 'para*' OR disabilit*) AND ('equit*' OR 'aware*' ) AND ( 'sport' AND

'elite' ) racial* AND 'sport' ('selfish*' OR 'ego') AND 'sport*' ('social' AND 'network*') AND 'sport*' ('honest*' OR 'integrit*) AND 'sport*' 'religion*' AND 'sport*' ('soci*' AND 'economic*') OR 'status') AND ('sport*' AND 'elite') ('brain' AND 'structure') OR ('cognitive' AND 'function') OR 'concussion* ) AND ('sport*'

AND 'elite') ('homophobia' OR 'gay' OR 'lesbian') AND 'sport*' 'war' AND 'sport*' ('dishonesty' OR 'corruption) AND 'sport*' ('mortality' OR 'suicide ) AND sport* ('negative' OR 'bad') AND ('body' AND 'image') OR ('physique' AND 'anxiety) AND

sport* 'infrastructure* AND 'sport*' ('prestige' OR 'reputation' OR 'honor') AND 'sport*' (invest* OR 'fund*') AND ('legitim*' OR 'explanation*' OR 'advoca*') AND 'sport*' ('consumption' OR 'consuming') AND 'sport*' ('healthcare' AND 'costs') AND 'sport*' ('job' AND ('absenteeism' OR 'productivity' OR 'performance' OR 'commitment')AND

'sport*' ('overtraining' OR 'overpressure') AND 'sport*' 'manufactur*' AND 'sport*' ('prejudice*' Or 'stereotyp*') AND 'sport*' 'media' AND 'sport*' ('mental' OR 'psychological') AND ( 'sport*' AND (athlete*' OR 'elite') ) relationship* AND ( 'sport*' AND 'elite' ) ('responsibility' OR 'respect) AND ('sport*' AND 'elite') 'moral*' AND ( 'sport*' AND 'elite' ) 'patriot*' AND 'sport*'

(‘personal' AND 'development' ) AND ( 'sport*' AND 'elite' ) ('perception*' OR 'critics' OR 'opinion') AND 'host*' 'emotion*' AND ( ('fan' OR attend* OR 'follower*') AND 'sport' ) ('addiction' OR 'fanaticism' OR 'obsession' OR '' 'gambling') AND 'sport' (‘collaboration' OR 'teamwork') AND 'sport' 'integration' AND 'sport' 'drug*' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'ethnic' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'gender' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'justice' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('inclusion' OR ('minority' AND 'groups) ) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('relaxation' OR 'entertainment' OR 'liveliness) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('stress' OR 'depression') AND ('sport' AND ('elite') ) (('motor' AND 'skills') OR 'dexterity' OR 'skillfulness' OR 'ability' OR 'prowess') AND

('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) ('physical' AND 'appearance' OR 'beauty' OR 'aesthetics’) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR

athlete)) ('citizen*' OR 'citizenship' ) AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR athlete)) 'reinvestment*' AND ( 'sport' OR 'elite' OR athlete)) 'retail*' AND 'sport' ('retirement' OR 'career') AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'athlete')) 'stakeholders' AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'athlete')) ('environment' OR 'green' OR 'urban') AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'event')) (smug* OR 'trafficking') AND ('sport' AND ('elite' OR 'event')) ((special' OR 'unique' AND 'brand') OR ('marketable' AND 'value) ) AND ( sport AND

('athlete' OR 'elite') ('wage*' OR 'salar*') AND (sport AND ('athlete' OR 'elite' ) ('diet*' OR 'nutrition*') AND 'elite' ('educational' AND ('attainment' OR 'engagement' OR 'performance)) AND ('sport' OR

'elite') ('self-efficacy' OR 'ambition' OR ('goal' AND 'setting) ) AND ('sport' AND 'elite') ('sport' OR 'participation') AND legac* ('participation' AND 'sport' ) AND ('success' OR 'win' OR 'medal' OR 'victor') ('participation' AND 'sport') AND ('elite' OR 'professional' AND ('equipment' 'and'

'facilities')) (‘participation' AND 'sport') AND ('professional' AND 'structur*) (('specific' OR 'group') AND 'polic* ) AND ('participation' AND 'sport' ) 'demonstration' AND ('participation' AND 'sport') ('rule*' OR 'regulation*') AND (elite AND sport) (television' AND ('rights OR 'payment*')) AND sport ('debate' OR 'revolution) AND sport ('volunteer*' AND ('skills' OR 'life')) AND sport (illegal AND ticketing') OR ('black AND market') ( sexual AND (abuse OR harassment)) AND sport

Appendix 2

Eligibi

lity832 full-text articles retrieved for review

To date exclusion, or directly or indirectly unrelated to topic/non-

applied to elite sport

Identif

ication25958 records excluded on the basis of initial filtering: title and

reference type, duplicated references, generic reference, non-

English language papers

30450 articles where initially identified from database searches

3660 excluded on the basis of title and abstract, unrelated to topic,

unable to be sourced from reference

4492 records screenedScreen

ing

To date on going process of including final articles in review

Inclu

ded

Appendix 3

Capital 9: ‘Fans development’, cluster 9.2. ‘Sport participation’

9.2.1. Positive

1992 OG Barcelona impact on sport participation in New Zealand: 15 out of 35 sport clubs (43%) reported a positive effect on club membership (Hindson et al., 1994)

Membership rise Liatoppsprinten: correlation between OG/WC medals and registered athletes was: r = .60 (p < .05), between OG/WC medals and participants was: r = 0.75 (p < .01), between top fifteen WC places and registered athletes: r = 0.69 (p < .05), between the top fifteen WC places and participants was: r = 0.63 (p < .05 (Hanstad & Skille, 2010)

Growth of population participating in sport at least once a week: from 36% in 1983 to 47% in 1989 to 51% in 1995 (Truno, 1995 ).

OG London 2012 Legacy: Workplace Challenge Programme (WCP): increase in overall amount of physical activity’ [r= .43, n = 185, p<.000] and participation in new sports and leisure activities’ [r= .21, n = 184, p<.005] (Chen & Henry, 2012)

Positive significant correlation with tennis members (r 1⁄4 0.749) and courts (0.858); adjusted R Square: 38.2% of the total registered members explained by tennis success (V. De Bosscher, De Bosscher, De Knop, & Heyndels, 2003)

Increase participation; side/indirect effects related to programmes, increased resources and staff, increased exposure, identification (Frawley & Cush, 2011)

Manchester Commonwealth Games of 2002: increased participation of 7% in adults in the UK and 19% among 6 to 15-year-olds in the North West (Faber Maunsell, 2004)

An increasing number of rugby players in Australia in the first two years after organizing the 2003 World Cup (Veal & Frawley, 2009)

6% of respondents claimed that overall UK sporting success had resulted in them doing more sport (Sporting Motivations Survey; TNS, 2004)

9.2.1. Mixed

OG Sydney: Post-Games increases in participation in seven Olympic sports, declines in nine others, and a general increase in recreational and non-Olympic activities (Veal, 2003)

Curling OG success: raise in memberships but only 4% of the new curlers cited GB team success as the main reason for their participation (EdComs, 2007 , p. 43)

Australia: Sydney OG, Inconsistent results: only 4% had changed their participation (Veal, Toohey, & Frawley, 2012)

Growth in club membership due to successes of Dutch athletes, but only in a few sports: WC & OG Judo (in the early 1960s), the successful hosting of men’s and women’s hockey WC in 1998, and darts’ WC victories (1998, 1999) Van Bottenburg (2002, 2003)

Membership figures comparison: Flanders vs. Netherlands: Analysis across 20

sports revealed no consistent relationship. Positive correlations were notable in Flanders in four of the eight sports in which elite Flemish competitors achieved significant international successes during the study period (athletics, gymnastics, judo and tennis) (Veerle De Bosscher et al., 2013)

Elite sport success positive only for people (32%) already engaged in sport, for lapsed participants to re-engage (35%) and for activity switching. 32% of sub-criterion participants (participating between 2/month and 2x30/week) that are not club members are highly responsive to a demonstration effect for outcomes increasing participation frequency. 35% of lapsed participants (participating between 1/year and 1/month) are highly responsive to a demonstration effect for outcomes that re-engage former participants (M. Weed, 2009)

Capital 9: Fans development, cluster 9.9. ‘discouragement

Limited effect on club membership in the six sports; related to the lack of marketing and promotion in sports clubs; Demonstrations of sporting excellence by top-level athletes may hinder, rather than foster, attempts to promote sporting participation at the grassroots level (Hindson, Gidlow, & Peebles, 1994)

No positive effects of increasing elite sport success and elite sport spending: an increased sedentary adult population, as well as overweight (Hogan & Norton, 2000)

Participation rates for individuals over 16 years old remained the same for the years 2005–2006 and 2007–2008 and had decreased in the vicinity of the 2012 Olympic Park in East London (London Assembly, 2009).

No positive effects of ‘success interventions victory Boris Becker Wimbledon 1985’; decline in tennis membership figures after 1990: the strong growth of membership decreased by about 5,2%, still implying an absolute positive growth of 2,3% annually. Thus, there was a general trend towards reduced membership growth in German sports associations (Feddersen, Jacobsen, & Maennig, 2009)

No trickle down effect after Australian swimming successes at the 2000 Sydney Olympics (Toohey, 2008)

A lack of trickle down effect is not only applicable to organized sports (membership figures), but also to people’s exercise behaviour in general (Murphy & Bauman, 2007)

Appendix 4

1.

SOCIAL

EQUITY

+ 1.1. Integration of different cultures & religions

1.1.1. Bridging cultural differences

1.1.2. Bridging people with different religion

1.1.3. Stimulates cultural diversity

1.2. Social equality

1.2.1. Promotion racial equality

1.2.2. Promotion ethnic equality

1.3. Inclusion

1.3.1. Inclusion/recognition of people with mental disablilities (special

olympics)

1.3.2. Inclusion/recognition of people with physical disabilities

(paralympics)

1.3.3. Bridging age differences

1.4. Social Justice

1.4.1. Promotion of children rights

1.4.2. Platform for fighting for equal rights

1.5. Socio-economic equality

1.5.1. Chance for social mobility

1.5.2. Bridging people with different SES

- 1.6. Sexism

1.6.1. Sexual stereotyping

1.6.2. Under-representation of sportswoman

1.6.3. Sexual orientation/gender identity

1.7. Exclusion

1.7.1. Exclusion on the basis of physical characteristics

1.7.2. Exclusion on the basis of SES

1.8. Exploitation

1.8.1. Human trafficking

1.8.2. Deprivation

1.9. Discrimination

1.9.1. Racism

1.9.2. Nationality

2. + 2.1. Community image

2.1.1. Revitalize community image

2.1.2. City marketing tool

Appendix 5

Previous frameworks

The main legitimization for the development of our model lies in the point of fact that

there is rich literature suggesting and measuring the ways in which (mainly

grassroots) sport contributes to society, but no broad, encompassing conceptual map

has been developed for elite sport. Indeed, most frameworks give a valuable but

limited ‘slice’ of the evidence, but are less useful if they give only a partial picture

(Woodman et al., 2012). In the groundwork for mapping the social impact of sport,

there have been quit some frameworks but little agreement on how to approach it and

what core criteria should be installed (Lee et al., 2013). Indeed, there is an elite-sport

oriented framework of Zhang, Pease, and Hui (1996) on the perceptions of value

contributed to communities from professional sports. Their scale of items are solely

oriented to the value dimensions professional sport can bring to the community (Lee

et al., 2013). Their measurement includes eight dimensions: (a) community solidarity,

(b) public behavior, (c) pastime ecstasy, (d) excellence pursuit, (e) social equity, (f)

health awareness, (g) individual quality, and (h) business opportunity. In the case of

examining events, Horne and Manzenreiter (2006: 9) construe that ‘the legacies of

sports mega-events’ are the greatest attraction of hosting, but also form part of the

‘known unknowns’, as they classify it in (a) social, (b) cultural, (c) environmental, (d)

political, (e) economic and (f) sporting themes. According Brown & Massey (Brown

& Massey, 2001), is research concerning hallmark or major-events more or less

centered around six main subject areas: (a) Sports Participation and development, (b)

Social Impact (c) Legacies, (d) Urban Regeneration, (e) Tourism, (f) Economic

Impact (Brown & Massey, 2001). As the authors mention themselves, some of these

overlap considerably – issues of ‘social impact’ and ‘legacies’; issues of ‘economic

impact’ and ‘urban regeneration’, for instance. Even more, Henry (2012) concludes in

his meta-evaluation that previous evaluations of mega-events identified a range of

impacts and legacies, but all included: (a) economic; (b) social and (c) environmental.

Others regularly included are: (d) improvements in governance capacity; (f)

promoting national and/or regional identities; (g) the development of employment and

skills; (h) building up of social capital; (i) place marketing, reputation management

and branding; (j) Inclusion and well-being. The most comprehensive framework is

that of RAND Europe, who identified 13 key policy themes (in essence potential

families of impact) for mega-events to take into account: health; volunteering;

employment; governance and accountability; economic development; tourism;

transport; regeneration; land use; environment; civic engagement; multiculturalism;

and security. In addition, a none elite sport nor major event related framework of

Lawson (2005) has suggested that the broad base of sport and physical education can

contribute to 1) social networks, 2) collective identities, 3) health and health-

enhancing environment, 4) well-being and 5) human capital. On Chalip, Johnson, and

Stachura (1996) and Chalip (2006) outlined five legitimations for sport: health,

salubrious socialization, economic development, community development, and

national identity. Lee and colleagues (Lee et al., 2013) proposed a ‘Social Impact of

Sport Scale’ which include the dimensions of (a) social capital, (b) collective

identities, (c) health literacy, (d) well-being and (e) human capital.