Introduction: Security and Surveillance at SportMega Events

Richard Giulianotti and Francisco Klauser

Introduction

In recent times, sport mega events havegrown into major global spectacles thatpossess huge economic, political and socialsignificance. Cities and nations competeintensively for the right to host mega eventssuch as the Olympic Games, the Superbowlin American football, the ChampionsLeague final in European football or the‘World Cup finals’ of various sports. Forthe organisers, these events are seen as con-ferring high levels of national and interna-tional prestige on host cities, as well as avariety of other benefits such as urbanregeneration, increased tourism and newpartnerships with global corporations. Forexample, the 2006 World Cup finals inGermany were estimated to have attracted5 million international visitors, combinedglobal television audiences of 26 billion anda national economic boost of US$12.5 bil-lion (Giulianotti and Klauser, 2010).

One issue which has become central tothe planning and implementation of sportmega events is security, particularly since

the 9/11 attacks on the United States.Granted, security concerns in sport do gofurther back, as most obviously demon-strated by the 1972 Munich Olympicattacks, at which 17 people were killed whenPalestinian terrorists held Israeli athleteshostage, and also by the concerted attemptsby various authorities to prevent spectatorviolence at major football tournamentssince the mid 1970s onwards. Yet, in thepost-9/11 environment, rising expenditureson security demonstrate the intensificationof the issue of sport and security. For exam-ple, while security spending at the 1992Barcelona Olympics came to US$66 million,the budget for London 2012 stands at a pro-jected US$1.7 billion (The Telegraph, 9September 2010; Daily Telegraph, 11December 2007). Such expenditures are rea-lised through the mobilisation of moresecurity personnel, such as the 60 000 addi-tional police officers to be drafted in forLondon 2012, and the implementation ofhigh-tech security technologies. As security

Richard Giulianotti is in the School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, LoughboroughUniversity, Ashby Road, Loughborough, LEII 3TU, UK. E-mail: r.giulianotti@lboro.ac.uk.

Francisco Klauser is in the Institute of Geography, Universite de Neuchatel, Espace Louis Agassiz 1,Neuchatel, 2000, Switzerland. E-mail: francisco.klauser@unine.ch.

1Published in Urban Studies 48, issue 15, 3157-3168, 2011which should be used for any reference to this work

at sport mega events has grown exponen-tially in recent times, so the diverse effectsof these processes on the host cities andnations become increasingly complex andproblematic.

Approach

The focus of this Special Issue of UrbanStudies is on the interplay between security,sport mega events and cities. Sport megaevents are typically moving from host cityto host city. Their organisation and securi-tisation thus mainly constitute urban phe-nomena, even if their economic and socialoutputs are often expected and experiencedon a broader scale. Emphasising the urban-centrism of sport mega events is of majorimportance to elucidate the conditions,needs and impacts of event security.

For the 2008 European FootballChampionships in Switzerland and Austria,for example, UEFA produced more than 15km of tarpaulin to cover the most promi-nently positioned fences, demarcating amultitude of access-restricted and con-trolled spatial entities, from the stadia tothe referee headquarters and from teamhotels to fan zones (UEFA, 2008). Megaevent host cities thus exemplify the splin-tering of the contemporary urban environ-ment into a wide range of more or lesshermetically enclosed and tightly controlledenclaves that are supported by advancedsurveillance technologies and increasednumbers of security personnel (Klauser,2010). Such spatialised security measuresare driven by the need to monitor andmanage a context of increased diversity anddensity, that is the object of escalating secu-rity concern. Yet the aim of these spatialenclosures is not only to secure specificallyarranged and hierarchically organised partsof the urban environment, but also tochannel spectator flows throughout the

host cities, from railway stations to stadia,from event location to event location, fromfan zone to fan zone. Small and larger por-tions of space are cut off and networkedwith the rest of the cities through a multi-tude of access- or passage-points, somecontrolled more highly than others. Whatis emerging is a temporally limited,security-related form of ‘passage-pointurbanism’ (Graham, 2010).

Yet besides emphasising the urban logics,implications and legacies of mega eventsecurity, attention must also be paid moregenerally to the role of mega events in thecurrent dynamics and global recalibrationsof security governance. From a security per-spective, the ‘politics of the event’ is one ofthe central political issues in the worldtoday. This raises a series of importantquestions with regards to mega event secu-rity as both the product, and as the pro-ducer, of a broader set of developments incontemporary security governance, rangingfrom the militarisation and commercialisa-tion of public safety to the increasing tech-nologisation of urban-centred security andsurveillance measures.

The Special Issue thus not only providescritical accounts of the effects and condi-tions of mega event security in specificurban settings. The papers which are con-tained here also aim to understand and tosituate contemporary mega event securityas a symptomatic expression of a broadercluster of developments in contemporarysecurity governance, which are in turngiving rise to new and profound socialquestions. It is at this junction, of course,that the Special Issue draws heavily uponthe realms of security and surveillance stud-ies. Both fields have insisted strongly and atlength upon the shifting modes of globalsecurity governance in general (Dillon andReid, 2001) and on questions of how con-temporary security practices and surveil-lance impact upon the urban environment

2

more specifically (Coleman, 2005; Graham,2010). Yet the existing literatures on secu-rity and surveillance in the urban contextwidely overlook the question of how excep-tional occasions such as sport mega eventsmay function as catalysts in the formationof urban-centred security governance.

Positioning

In substantive terms, the Special Issue bringstogether four main fields of research, each ofwhich deserves some discussion here.

First, the Special Issue draws upon thesophisticated body of literature focusing onthe economic impacts of sport mega events,notably in relation to urban regenerationand gentrification, and in terms of urbanentrepreneurialism (Harvey, 1989) and‘place selling’ (Kearns and Philo, 1993).Perhaps the most substantial debates in thisregard have centred on the claimed ‘lega-cies’ of sport mega events for hosting citiesand nations. These range from urban infra-structural improvements and regeneration(Burbank et al., 2002) to increased employ-ment and tourism revenues (Euchner,1999). Thus there are extensive studiesarguing that sport mega events enable hostcities and nations to plug into different cir-cuits and flows of global capital. Local andnational business figures and political lead-ers seek to cement forms of bridging socialcapital which may be established with thevisiting ‘transnational capitalist class’(Sklair, 2000). Urban redevelopment opensnew, neo-liberal, commercialised spaces toglobal retail chains as part of the broader‘brandscaping’ of cities (Hall, 2006;Klingmann, 2007). Host cities and nationsmay also project themselves as ‘festival’locations, to attract other events and‘expos’, particularly where the competitionfor hosting rights is highly competitive andwidely covered in international media(Roche, 2000).

In interrogating the economic logics andimplications of mega events, different scho-lars have suggested a strong connectionbetween the hosting of high-visibility sportstournaments and new kinds of politicaleconomy, as one powerful index of theways in which post-industrial cities havecome to utilise cultural fields in order toestablish economic growth (Hall, 2006;Miller, 2000). Much of this mega eventresearch into urban entrepreneurialism hasbeen influenced by North American studiesthat explore the economics of sport teamfranchises, stadium-building and urban‘boosterism’ in global cities which host eliteprofessional (or ‘major league’) sportsclubs (Coates and Humphreys, 2000; Leeand Taylor, 2005; Noll and Zimbalist, 1997;Siegfried and Zimbalist, 2006; Spilling,1996; Whitson and Horne, 2006). In addi-tion, a growing international body of workhas addressed this problematic from a per-spective centred on the global South, show-ing that sport may also serve to establishemerging nations such as Brazil, Russia,India, China and South Africa on the worldstage (Alegi, 2008; Close et al., 2006;Matheson and Baade, 2004; McRoskey,2010). In these literatures, however, little issaid about the link between urban entrepre-neurialism and security issues and dis-courses associated with mega events. Manyof the papers in this collection focus onprecisely this fundamental point.

Secondly, sociologists and anthropolo-gists have been most prominent in examin-ing the socio-cultural politics and impacts ofsport mega events. This work has addressedthe ways in which dominant civic ornational solidarities and identities are con-structed through these mega events (DCMS,2008) and how marginalised or resistantcommunities have challenged these pro-cesses (Hargreaves, 2000; Lenskyj, 2000;Marivoet, 2006; Morgan, 2003; Shaikin,1988). While both of these approaches offer

3

important insights into the roles of megaevents as catalysts to promote wider socio-economic, urban, political or cultural out-puts, relatively little critical attention is paidto the implications of sport mega events interms of security governance and surveil-lance. This Special Issue contributes towardsfilling that research gap.

Thirdly, substantial research into sport-related violence has centred on footballhooliganism and the heightened security stra-tegies that have been imposed in responseboth inside and outside stadia (Armstrong,1998; Giulianotti and Armstrong, 1998; 2002;Murphy et al., 1990; O’Neill, 2005; Spaaij,2006; Stott and Reicher, 1998; Tsoukala,2009). The more nuanced social research hasexplored how anti-hooliganism control mea-sures may intensify (rather than eradicate)the phenomenon, undermine civil libertiesand give rise to security technologies (such asCCTV) which have been transferred intowider public settings.

Fourthly, in the past decade, humangeography, urban sociology and criminol-ogy have contributed most to research intoissues of security and social control at indi-vidual sport mega events (Bennett andHaggerty, 2011; Boyle and Haggerty, 2009;Chang and Singh, 1990; Floridis, 2004;Klauser, 2008a, 2008b; Samatas, 2007).Although a lack of truly empirical andcomparative work in this field of researchpersists, these investigations allow for aninitial understanding of the importance ofurban space as the locus, medium and toolof mega event security, and of its widersocio-spatial implications. Studied exam-ples include the 2004 Athens Olympics(Samatas, 2007), the 2006 Turin (Fonioand Pisapia, 2011), the 2008 Beijing (Yuet al., 2009) the 2010 Vancouver (Boyle andHaggerty, 2009) and the 2012 LondonGames (Fussey and Coaffee, 2011; Fusseyet al., 2011); as well as the 2006 FIFAWorld Cup in Germany (Klauser, 2008a,

2008b; Eick, 2011; Baasch, 2011) and the2008 European Football Championships2008 (Hagemann, 2010; Klauser, 2011).This fourth field of research into sportmega events provides the most obviouslocation for the papers presented here,although readers will recognise the signifi-cance of the other three domains for ourcontributors.

Structure of the Special Issue

The papers contained in this Special Issuecapture both the contemporary interna-tional complexity of sport mega events andthe interdisciplinarity of scholarly inquiryinto this subject. We feature contributorswith expertise in the fields of urban studies,anthropology, criminology, history, humangeography, political science, sociology andsport studies, and who are based in the UK,mainland Europe, North America, Africa,east Asia and Australasia. The papers exam-ine a diversity of sport mega events, notablyfive Olympic Games, three World Cup finalsin football, one European football cham-pionship and various national events inEurope, North America and Australasia.

We locate these papers within three mainsections. Part 1 focuses on sport mega eventsecurity issues and debates with respect totheir urban, national and global contexts. Itfeatures papers by Armstrong, Hobbs andLindsay; Boyle and Haggerty; Klauser;Cornelissen; and, Murakami Wood andAbe. Part 2 examines the complex interplaybetween security techniques and strategiesinside and beyond the urban stadium, alongwith their various impacts on the develop-ment of sports. It includes papers by Taylorand Toohey; Schimmel; and, Giulianotti.Part 3 explores the interrelations of sport-focused security technologies and the citiesthat are hosting these mega events. This sec-tion features papers by Coaffee, Fussey and

4

Moore; Eick; and, Samatas. In the remain-der of this introduction, we explore eachsection in more detail, while briefly settingout the contents of each paper.

Part 1: Local, National and InternationalContexts and Driving Forces in Mega EventSecurity

Part 1 of the Special Issue positions eventsecurity issues and debates within theircomplex local, national and global policydynamics and contexts. In recent years, thevarious forms, effects and driving-forces ofcontemporary security governance havebeen acknowledged both from a generalperspective (for example, Power, 2007;Amoore and de Goede, 2005) and from theviewpoint of mega event securitisationmore specifically (Samatas, 2007; Klauser,2008a). These studies have positioned megaevent security within a complex field ofagencies, driving-forces and motivations,including a range of international processesand stipulations, as well as diverse nationaland local predispositions and impulses insecurity matters. There are a number ofimportant issues to be found here, but twoof these are especially important.

First, and stemming from a concern withneo-liberal urban governance more gener-ally, debates have focused on the capacityof mega event security to trigger and tofacilitate public policies and developments,driven by various interests and agenciesboth internationally, nationally and locally.For many analysts, urban revanchism(Smith, 1996) is strongly at play here.Revanchist stadium developments mayinvolve the ‘reclaiming’ of urban spaces forbourgeois audiences and the clearing ofunwanted or marginal populations fromnewly sanitised commercial zones. In theUS, for example, Super Bowl host citieshave hired private security agencies tosqueeze the homeless from event locales. In

Delhi, urban redevelopment for the 2010Commonwealth Games included the demo-lition of slum housing for over 250 000people to enable construction of stadia andthe Athletes Village (Michigan Daily, 1February 2006; Guardian, 22 February2010). Conflicts arise as marginalisedgroups and their supporters contest theseprocesses, although most substantial resis-tance invariably emerges from the best-resourced social groups. More broadly, newsocial movements often spring up in protestat the bidding for, or the staging of, sportmega events. In Toronto, the ‘Bread NotCircuses’ movement organised high-profileprotests to oppose the city’s bid to host the2008 Summer Olympics, while the 2010Winter Olympics in Vancouver also drewpublic protests (Lenskyj, 2000). In Sydney,the Anti-Olympic Alliance organised vari-ous public and virtual (website) demonstra-tions against the hosting of the 2000Olympics.

Secondly, and complementing the firstpoint, a series of studies have highlighted thenormative weight of best practices providedby security experts moving from country tocountry and from event to event. Theseinvestigations have shown local stakeholdersto be increasingly exposed to globalised net-works of expertise that are pushing towardsthe reproduction of previously tested colla-borations and templates in security matters(Samatas, 2007; Yu et al., 2009; Boyle, 2011).Indeed, there are many good reasons forunderstanding sport mega events as highlyvisible and prestigious projects, whosesecuritisation is firmly embedded in more orless coercive transnational circuits of imita-tion and standardisation. Yet, the role oflocal motivations and specificities in eventsecurity should not be underplayed, or for-gotten completely.

Focusing on both the role of local agency,motivation and expertise and on the weightof international stipulations in mega event

5

security, this Special Issue underlines theneed to apprehend mega event securitisationas a combination of processes and projectswhich bring together various public–private,local, national and transnational actors whoseown positions are defined by interwoveninterests and concerns.

This section features five papers fromEurope, North America, Africa and eastAsia. The paper by Gary Armstrong, DickHobbs and Iain Lindsay provides a stronglyethnographic account of the specific localpolitical and social issues and conflicts sur-rounding the hosting of the 2012 Olympicsin the London borough of Newham. Thesite of the Olympic stadium and athlete vil-lage, Newham is one of England’s poorest,youngest and most ethnically diverse bor-oughs. The authors focus particularly on thework of one local social movement—TheEast London Communities Organisation(TELCO)—in seeking to influence the plan-ning for, and proposed legacy of, London2012, often in marked contrast to the inter-ests and goals of the powerful Olympic‘hegemon’.

The paper by Philip Boyle and KevinHaggerty advances a critical political socio-logical analysis of the hosting of the 2010Winter Olympics by the city of Vancouver.Focusing particularly on the city’s ProjectCivil City initiative, Boyle and Haggertyreveal how the staging of this sport megaevent has served to promote new andexemplary forms of neo-liberal urban gov-ernance in concert with intensified levels ofpolicing and securitisation. These processeshave led to greater scales of social fragmen-tation and exclusion, despite statementsfrom city authorities that the oppositeeffects are intended.

The next paper, by Francisco Klauser,engages with the policy transfer of specific‘security exemplars’ between differentevents. The paper addresses this issuethrough the discussion of fan zones at the

European Football Championships 2008 inSwitzerland and Austria. Fan zones, such isthe basic assumption, must be understoodas a previously tested and ‘exemplified’solution to the problem of how to deal withsecurity and branding in the context ofincreased density and diversity of the eventcity. The paper thus examines the mediat-ing mechanisms through which the ‘fanzones exemplar’ was transferred from the2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany toEuro 2008 in Austria/Switzerland. On thisbasis, the paper also brings to the fore anumber of more fundamental insights intothe public–private coalitions of authorityand into the interactions of scale in con-temporary security governance at megaevents.

The paper by Scarlett Cornelissen exam-ines the hosting of the 2010 World CupFinals by South Africa. Drawing inter alia ontheories of urban revanchism, Cornelissenexplores the extent to which the host citiesintensified social controls on urban spacesthrough new methods of policing and sur-veillance. In this way, rather than reinventcities for the post-apartheid era, the tourna-ment’s main urban legacy appears to lie insharpening socio-spatial divisions whileproviding market-friendly images to outsideaudiences.

The final paper in this section, by DavidMurakami Wood and Kiyoshi Abe, exploresthe historical relationships between sportand other mega events, and the making ofparticular urban aesthetics and forms ofsocio-spatial order, in Japanese society.Wood and Abe argue that sport megaevents have been key contributors to theproliferation and normalisation of ‘techno-cratic surveillance’ in Japanese urban societ-ies. At the same time, Japanese urban spacesare becoming increasingly abstracted, soul-less, homogenised and corporatised, mean-ing that ‘other’ architectural forms andmarginal social groups (such as the

6

homeless) are increasingly being eradicatedor disappeared.

Part 2: Stadium Security, SportTransformation and the City

Part 2 examines the complex interplaybetween security techniques and strategiesfrom the stadium to the event city, alongwith their various impacts on the develop-ment of sports. To begin here, control strate-gies within stadia have distinctive effects onspectator experiences, enjoyment of thespectacle and external social relations. Insome sports, notably football, the physicalseparation or ‘segregation’ of opposing fansinside and outside stadia has served uninten-tionally to promote distinctive intragroupand intergroup social dynamics, by intensi-fying, for example, the forms of solidaritywithin supporter groups, the social expres-sions of rivalry and hostility between rivalgroups, and the potential for negative orconfrontational exchanges between specta-tors and police officers (Giulianotti andArmstrong, 2002; Stott and Reicher, 1998).The mixture of security and commercialconcerns can also serve to undermineenjoyment at sports events—for example,some sports fans complain that crowdatmosphere can be dampened when infor-mal standing areas inside stadia arereplaced by individuating and more expen-sive all-seated zones. In the post-9/11 con-text, the effect of intensified security uponthe enjoyment of sports events by specta-tors has been difficult to gauge (see Taylorand Toohey, 2006).

In the past two decades, the commercialexpansion (and, indeed, neo-liberalisation)of elite-level sports has been closely tied tothe demonstration of effective and efficientsecuritisation in and around stadia. Pacifiedsports venues provide a more stable socialenvironment for commercial activities andare intended to appeal to the more ‘civilised’

habitus of wealthier prospective spectators(Murphy et al., 1990).

In this context, we need also to considerthe many ways in which the urban geogra-phies of social control that are centred onsport mega events have become increasinglystretched. As sports mega events haveexpanded in scale since the 1970s, so securityfocuses have extended more and more to thehundreds of thousands of visiting fans, asthey travel to and from host nations, andspend days or weeks in the main cities. Thevirtual sport mega event has mushroomedsince the early 1990s—for example, as gianttelevision screens in major urban centresenable hundreds of thousands of ticketlessfans to watch the major events ‘live’ (Bale,1998; Klauser, 2008a; Hagemann, 2010).These ‘fan zones’ germinate new kinds ofsecurity concerns and, if poorly managed,can contribute to major breakdowns inpublic order, as witnessed in 2008, whentens of thousands of fans of the Scottishside, Rangers, rioted in Manchester after theUEFA Cup Final (Millward, 2009). Furthersecurity concerns may centre on the possibleoutbreak of terrorism, violence or disorderin locations that are far from the megaevent’s host city.1 Finally here, we wouldargue that, as their spatial effects andimpacts have become stretched, so too wemay rethink sport mega events in regard totheir temporal dimensions. In other words,we may extend our definition of megaevents to encompass tournaments thatoccur beyond specified time-periods (suchas a fortnight or month). Thus, tournamentslike the NFL in American football, EnglishPremier League (EPL) in football, or NRL inAustralian rugby league, which take placeover several months, may be viewed asextended mega events that generate recur-ring security issues for cities that host com-peting clubs or ‘franchises’.

The section features three papers that aredrawn from Europe, North America and

7

Australasia. Tracy Taylor and KristineToohey examine how event organisers inAustralia have extended their security focusat sport stadia to the surrounding streets andprecincts. The authors argue that many secu-rity measures have come at the expense ofspectator enjoyment, through the banning ofinformal and pleasurable practices typicallyassociated with sports fans, such as bangingdrums or waving flags. These constrainingand alienating forms of security practice areremarkably incongruous within the contextof an increasingly multicultural, sociallydiverse and leisure-orientated society.

The paper by Kim Schimmel exploresthe post-9/11 security context for sports inNorth America through a case study analy-sis of the annual Super Bowl in Americanfootball, which is staged by the NationalFootball League (NFL). Schimmel examineshow cities bidding to host this mega eventmust demonstrate to the NFL their anti-terrorist resilience across many urban set-tings. At the same time, the hegemonicforces in US society promote discoursesthat try to reconcile two conflicting aspectsof sport mega events: on the one hand, therequirement to establish extensive, expen-sive and socially invasive anti-terrorist mea-sures in urban settings; on the other hand,the retention of older, pro-growth argu-ments on the economic, political and socialbenefits of hosting such events.

The paper by Richard Giulianotti usesthe case of football’s English PremierLeague (EPL) to examine how intensifiedsecurity measures in sports are deeply con-nected with the commodification of leisurespheres and the expansion of wider socialcontrol agendas. Drawing particularly ontheories of urban revanchism and govern-mentality, Giulianotti argues that the infor-mal and ‘carnivalesque’ sociability ofsupporters has been systematically margin-alised by the promotion of more sanitisedand commercially orientated forms of fan

activity within the football ‘funhouse’. Heexplores how, despite constraining marketand security environments, some instancesof resistance and opposition to these pro-cesses have occurred among particularspectator groups.

Part 3: Security Technologies andEvent Cities

Part 3 explores the interrelations of sport-focused security technologies and the eventcities that are hosting these mega events.Sport mega events often provide a crucial set-ting, or laboratory, for the testing of newsecurity technologies and strategies that arediffused among wider populations. Onestrong illustration comes from the UK, whereCCTV was effectively piloted in sport stadiain the late 1980s before being widely installedacross public settings throughout the 1990s(Giulianotti and Armstrong, 1998, 2002).

It is evident too that, as sport megaevents have grown in size and budget, sosecurity expertise and technologies for theseoccasions have become both increasinglyspecialised and evermore marketable. Thus,the transfer of knowledge, security personneland technological hardware now occurs ona routine basis between the host cities ofsport mega events. This trend is channelledthrough specific policy handbooks andguidelines (such as the 2004 EU handbookon securing against terrorist acts at majorsporting events), standardised norms andprocedures from the bidding process to thestaging of the event, progress monitoring bythe organising bodies, but also a range ofmore informal mechanisms which facilitate‘institutional learning’ and ‘fast policy trans-fer’ (Peck and Theodore, 2001) from eventto event (technology fairs, expert confer-ences, exercises, etc.). Besides such mechan-isms, an important part is played simply bythe global circulation of public and privatestakeholders in security matters, travelling

8

from place to place and from event to event.As Siemens announces on its website

Siemens delivers complete infrastructure

solutions for major sport events all over the

world. Examples are the Olympic Games

2004 in Athens, the Asian Games 2006, the

European Soccer Cup 2004 in Portugal or the

Soccer World Cup 2006 in Germany, where

Siemens equipped all twelve stadia with latest

technology. In Portugal various Siemens

Groups bundled application knowledge and

synergies in the field of sport infrastructures

and contributed most advanced technologies

to nine of the ten stadia (Siemens, 2007).

Moreover, the various forms of policytransfer in security matters extend beyondthe sporting sphere, to mega events in otherdomains, such as Expos, rock concerts andmajor political gatherings (Warren, 2004).For example, since NATO began to give airsurveillance support in 2001, as part of theAlliance’s contribution to the defenceagainst global terrorism, Awac planes havebeen deployed for the Summer OlympicGames in Athens 2004, the 2005 WinterGames in Turin, the Pope’s visit to Polandin 2006, the Spanish royal wedding inMadrid, the 2005 G8 Economic Summit inthe UK, the 2007 European DefenceMinisterial meeting, etc. (NATO, 2006).

It is also important to consider the interac-tion between the specific security strategiesand technologies at sports events and thewider society. On one side, sport mega eventsleave distinctive security legacies for hostcities and nations, notably in regard to theimplementation of more advanced surveil-lance and data-gathering technologies, thetesting of strategies for the urban ‘clearing’ ofmarginal populations and the introductionof social order legislation that may constraincivil liberties such as the right to free associa-tion and public gathering. On the other hand,we may consider how security planning for

sport mega events is influenced by emergentand contemporary strategies and technolo-gies in the management and control of urbanspaces. For example, Graham (2010) hasexamined in detail the rise of ‘military urban-ism’, wherein the logics and techniques ofmilitary planners come to influence or shapeurban architectures and public geographies.Inevitably, the design of sport stadia and themanagement of their crowds will show atleast some traces of these processes.

In this section, we feature three papers thatdraw on research related to three OlympicGames—Athens 2004, Bejing 2008 andLondon 2012—as well as focusing on theFIFA World Cup 2006 in Germany. Thepaper by Jon Coaffee, Pete Fussey and CerwynMoore draws on research around London2012, as well as work at other sport events, toexplore the impact of security strategies (par-ticularly anti-terrorist measures) upon urbansettings. The authors compare and contrastthe London 2012 security model with stan-dard security strategies at other Olympicevents, while also examining the way in whichthese event-focused anti-terrorist measuresoverlie existing and broader initiatives tosecure ‘crowded places’.

The paper by Volker Eick focuses on the2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. Startingfrom a critical assessment of FIFA’s neo-liberalist event agenda, it studies how commer-cial considerations have become increasinglyintertwined with (FIFA-imposed) securitymeasures and strategies at the event. To addressthis issue, emphasis is placed on two examples:the RFID-based access control system for theWorld Cup stadia and the deployment of videosurveillance systems in and around the stadiaand at other official sites. On this basis, thepaper also studies and questions the (uneven)security legacies of the event.

The final paper in this Special Issue,by Minas Samatas, advances a highlycritical, comparative analysis of the ‘securityand surveillance industrial complexes’

9

enveloping the Summer Olympics in Athens(2004) and Beijing (2008). Highlighting thenegative effects on civil liberties, Samatasargues that panoptic ‘Olympic authoritar-ianism’ (OA) can have long-lasting conse-quences for populations living under bothdemocratic and authoritarian regimes,while contributing to the crystallisation of a‘global authoritarian surveillance society’.

Note

1. For example, in June/July 2010, 74 peoplewere killed in Uganda in a terrorist attack onWorld Cup television viewers, while inSomalia, Islamic militias banned the viewingof televised football, leading to at least twopeople being killed and scores being arrested(Guardian, 12 July 2010; Telegraph, 14 June2010).

Funding Statement

This research received no specific grant from anyfunding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements

This Special Issue emerges from the GuestEditors’ collaborative work within the Instituteof Hazard and Risk Research at DurhamUniversity (2007–10). Many papers includedhere were first presented at an internationalconference organised by Klauser at Durham inApril 2008. The Guest Editors would like tothank Stuart Lane, Gerald Chan and SteveGraham for the support provided at differentstages of this endeavour.

References

Alegi, P. (2008) ‘A nation to be reckoned with’: Thepolitics of World Cup Stadium construction inCape Town and Durban, South Africa, AfricanStudies, 67(3), pp. 397–422.

Amoore, L. and Goede, M. de (2005) Govern-ance, risk and dataveillance in the war onterror, Crime, Law & Social Change, 43, pp.149–173.

Armstrong, G. (1998) Football Hooligans: Know-ing the Score. Oxford: Berg.

Baasch, S. (2011) Event-driven security policiesand spatial control: the 2006 FIFA WorldCup, in: C. J. Bennett and K. D. Haggerty(Eds) Security Games: Surveillance and Con-trol at Mega-events, pp. 103–119. London:Routledge.

Bale, J. (1998) Virtual fandom: futurescapes offootball, in: A. Brown (Ed.) Fanatics!, pp.265–278. London: Routledge.

Bennett, C. J. and Haggerty, K. D. (Eds) (2011)Security Games: Surveillance and Control atMega-events. London: Routledge.

Boyle, P. (2011) Knowledge networks: mega-events and security expertise, in: C. J. Bennettand K. D. Haggerty (Eds) Security Games:Surveillance and Control at Mega-events, pp.169–184. London: Routledge.

Boyle, P. and Haggerty, K. D. (2009) Spectacularsecurity: mega-events and the security com-plex, Political Sociology, 3(3), pp. 257–274.

Burbank, M. J., Andranovich, G. and Heying, C. H.(2002) Mega-events, urban development, andpublic policy, Review of Policy Research, 19(3),pp. 179–202.

Chang, P. C. and Singh, K. K. (1990) Risk man-agement for mega-events: the 1988 OlympicWinter Games, Tourism Management, 11(1),pp. 45–52.

Close, P., Askew, D. and Xin, X. (2006) TheBeijing Olympiad: The Political Economy of aSporting Mega-event. London: Routledge.

Coates, D. and Humphreys, B. R. (2000) Thestadium gambit and local economic develop-ment, Regulation, 23(2), pp. 15–20.

Coleman, R. (2005) Surveillance in the city: pri-mary definition and urban spatial order,Crime, Media and Culture, 1(2), pp. 131–148.

DCMS (Department for Culture, Media andSport) (2008) Before, during and after: makingthe most of the London 2012 Games. DCMS,London.

Dillon, M. and Reid, J. (2001) Global governance,liberal peace and complex emergency, Alter-natives, 25(1), pp. 117–143.

Eick, V. (2011) ‘Secure our profits!’ the FIFATM

in Germany 2006, in: C. J. Bennett and K. D.Haggerty (Eds) Security Games: Surveillanceand Control at Mega-events, pp. 87–102.London: Routledge.

10

Euchner, C. C. (1999) Tourism and sports: theserious competition for play, in: D. R. Juddand S. S. Fainstein (Eds) The Tourist City, pp.215–232. London: Yale University Press.

Floridis, G. (2004) Security for the 2004 AthensOlympic Games, Mediterranean Quarterly,15(2), pp. 1–5.

Fonio, C. and Pisapia, G. (2011) Gran Torino:social and security implications of the XXWinter Olympic Games, in: C. J. Bennett andK. D. Haggerty (Eds) Security Games: Surveil-lance and Control at Mega-events, pp. 137–149. London: Routledge.

Fussey, P. and Coaffee, J. (2011) Olympic rings ofsteel: constructing security for 2012 andbeyond, in: C. J. Bennett and K. D. Haggerty(Eds) Security Games: Surveillance and Controlat Mega-events, pp. 36–54. London: Routledge.

Fussey, P., Coaffee, J., Armstrong, G. andHobbs, D. (2011) Securing and Sustaining theOlympic City: Reconfiguring London for 2012and beyond. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Giulianotti, R. and Armstrong, G. (1998) Fromanother angle: police surveillance and footballsupporters, in: C. Norris, G. Armstrong and J.Moran (Eds) Surveillance, CCTV and Social Con-trol, pp. 113–135. Aldershot: Gower/Ashgate.

Giulianotti, R. and Armstrong, G. (2002) Ave-nues of contestation: football hooligans run-ning and ruling urban spaces, SocialAnthropology, 10(2), pp. 211–238.

Giulianotti, R. and Klauser, F. R. (2010)Security governance and sport mega-events:towards an interdisciplinary research agenda,Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(1), pp.49–61.

Graham, S. (2010) Cities under Siege: New Mili-tary Urbanism. London: Verso.

Hagemann, A. (2010) From the stadium to thefan zone: host cities in a state of emergency,Soccer & Society, 11(6), pp. 723–736.

Hall, C. M. (2006) Urban entrepreneurship, cor-porate interests and sports mega-events: thethin policies of competitiveness within thehard outcomes of neoliberalism, SociologicalReview, 54(2), pp. 59–70.

Hargreaves, J. (2000) Freedom for Catalonia?Catalan Nationalism, Spanish Identity andthe Barcelona Olympic Games. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entre-preneurialism: the transformation in urban

governance in late capitalism, GeografiskaAnnaler, 71B, pp. 3–17.

Kearns, G. and Philo, C. (Eds) (1993) SellingPlaces: The City as Cultural Capital, Past andPresent. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Klauser, F. (2008a) FIFA land 2006TM: alliancesbetween security politics and business interestsfor Germany’s city network, in: Architecturesof Fear, pp. 173–188. Centre of ContemporaryCulture of Barcelona, Barcelona.

Klauser, F. (2008b) Spatial articulations of sur-veillance at the FIFA World Cup 2006TM inGermany, in: K. Franko Aas, H. Oppen Gund-hus and H. Mork Lomell (Eds) Technologies ofInsecurity, pp. 61–80. London: Routledge.

Klauser, F. (2010) Splintering spheres of secu-rity: Peter Sloterdijk and the contemporaryfortress city, Environment and Planning D,28(2), pp. 326–340.

Klauser, F. (2011) Interpretative flexibility of theevent-city: security, branding and urbanentrepreneurialism at the European FootballChampionships 2008, International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01064.x.

Klingmann, A. (2007) Brandscapes: Architecturein the Experience Economy. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Lee, C.-K. and Taylor, T. (2005) Critical reflec-tions on the economic impact assessment of amega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup,Tourism Management, 26(4), pp. 595–603.

Lenskyj, H. (2000) Inside the Olympic Industry.Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress.

Marivoet, S. (2006) UEFA Euro 2004� Portugal:the social construction of a sports mega-eventand spectacle, Sociological Review, 54(2), pp.127–143.

Matheson, V. A. and Baade, R. A. (2004) Mega-sporting events in developing nations: playingthe way to prosperity?, South African Journalof Economics, 72(5), pp. 1084–1095.

McRoskey, S. (2010) Security and the OlympicGames: making Rio an example, Yale Journalof International Affairs, 5(2) (http://yalejournal.org/2010/07/security-and-the-olympic-games-making-rio-an-example/; accessedNovember 2010).

Miller, H. H. (2000) Mega-events, urban boos-terism and growth strategies: an analysis ofthe objectives and legitimations of the Cape

11

Town 2004 Olympic bid, International Jour-nal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2),pp. 439–458.

Millward, P. (2009) Glasgow Rangers supportersin the city of Manchester: the degenerationof a ‘fan party’ into a ‘hooligan riot’, Interna-tional Review for the Sociology of Sport, 44(4),pp. 381–399.

Morgan, G. (2003) Aboriginal protest and the SydneyOlympic Games, Olympika, 12, pp. 23–38.

Murphy, P., Williams, J. and Dunning, E. (1990)Football on Trial. London: Routledge.

NATO (2006) NATO support for FIFA WorldCup in Germany, Shape News, 6 June (http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2006/06/060606a.htm; accessed June 2011).

Noll, R. G. and Zimbalist, A. S. (1997) Sports,Jobs and Taxes: Economic Impact of SportsTeams and Facilities. Washington, DC: Brook-ings Institution Press.

O’Neill, M. (2005) Policing Football: Social Inter-action and Negotiated Disorder. Basingstoke:Palgrave.

Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2001) Exportingworkfare/importing welfare-to-work: explor-ing the politics of Third Way policy transfer,Political Geography, 20(4), pp. 427–460.

Power, M. (2007) Organized Uncertainty: Orga-nizing a World of Risk Management. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Roche, M. (2000) Mega-events and Modernity:Olympics and Expos in the Growth of GlobalCulture. London: Routledge.

Samatas, M. (2007) Security and surveillance inthe Athens 2004 Olympics: some lessons froma troubled story, International Criminal JusticeReview, 17(3), pp. 220–238.

Shaikin, B. (1988) Sport and Politics: The Olym-pics and the Los Angeles Games. New York:Praeger.

Siegfried, J. and Zimbalist, A. (2006) The eco-nomic impact of sports facilities, teams andmega-events, Australian Economic Review,39(4), pp. 420–427.

Siemens (2007) Integrated solutions at Alvaladestadium, Lisbon, Press release, 16 October(http://www.buildingtechnologies.siemens.com/BT/GLOBAL/EN/PRESS/PRESS_RELEASE/SUBCHANNEL_PRESS_RELEASE_2007/Pag

es/integrated_solutions_at_alvalade_stadium.aspx; accessed March 2010).

Sklair, L. (2000) The Transnational CapitalistClass. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Slater, T. (2006) The eviction of critical perspec-tives from gentrification research, Interna-tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research,30(4), pp. 737–757.

Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gen-trification and the Revanchist City. London:Routledge.

Spaaij, R. (2006) Understanding Football Hooli-ganism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UniversityPress.

Spilling, O. R. (1996) Mega-event as strategy forregional development: the case of the 1994 Lil-lehammer Winter Olympics, Entrepreneurshipand Regional Development, 8(4), pp. 321–343.

Stott, C. J. and Reicher, S. D. (1998) How conflictescalates: the inter-group dynamics of collec-tive football crowd ‘violence’, Sociology, 32,pp. 353–377.

Taylor, T. and Toohey, K. (2006) Security, per-ceived safety, and event attendee enjoyment atthe 2003 Rugby World Cup, Tourism ReviewInternational, 10(4), pp. 257–267.

Tsoukala, A. (2009) Football Hooliganism inEurope: Security and Civil Liberties in the Bal-ance. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

UEFA (Union of European Football Associa-tions) (2008) Medienmitteilung Nr. 74.(http://de.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/MediaRelease/Competitions/MediaServices/70/28/52/702852_DOWNLOAD.pdf; accessedJune 2011).

Warren, R. (2004) City streets: the war zonesof globalization: democracy and militaryoperations on urban terrain in the earlytwenty-first century, in: S. Graham (Ed.)Cities, War and Terrorism, pp. 214–230.Blackwell: Oxford.

Whitson, D. and Horne, J. (2006) Underesti-mated costs and overestimated benefits?Comparing the outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan, SociologicalReview, 54(2), pp. 73–89.

Yu, Y., Klauser, F. and Chan, G. (2009) Govern-ing security at the 2008 Beijing Olympics,International Journal of the History of Sport,26(3), pp. 390–405.

12