Event Bidding

Politics, Persuasion and Resistance

David McGillivray, Daniel Turner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317193814
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

Bidding contests for sporting and cultural events are attracting increasing media and public attention. Yet, despite the cost, size and scale of these bidding contests, relatively little academic attention has been paid to the strategies and tactics used to develop successful bids. Event Bidding: Politics, Persuasion and Resistance develops a comprehensive, critical understanding of the bidding processes surrounding the award of major peripatetic events. This is achieved by drawing together existing knowledge on the subject of event bidding, combining this with historical and contemporary examples to enable a critical commentary on the bidding process itself and the struggle for power that it represents.

The text draws on case studies of 'mega events' including the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games as well as a range of smaller peripatetic events from across the world to analyse the bidding process and some of the increasingly controversial issues which emerge during often lengthy and expensive bid campaigns. Finally, the text reflects on a range of critical issues of contemporary significance in bidding contests, including the growing ethical and governance issues surrounding the development and award of events as well as the impact of growing oppositional movements surrounding each contest.

This timely volume brings theory and practice together in one place to produce a critical appraisal of a phenomenon with a relatively recent history and is particularly suitable for students, researchers and academics of sports, events, tourism and related subject fields focusing on the strategic and political dimensions of major events.

1

Introduction

It is a commonly held view that the toughest Olympic event is the marathon but, by comparison¸ there is another Olympic event which makes the marathon look gentle. It has only a handful of competitors, lasts many years, is fought out in every continent of the world, and ends with the presentation of just one medal.

(Scott, in Emery, 2001:90)

Bidding contests for major sporting and cultural events increasingly attract mainstream media and public attention. For example, controversies surrounding the award of the 2022 FIFA World Cup to Qatar and discussions over the value of hosting events such as the 2012 London Olympics and the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil are now covered both in academic circles (see Whitelegg, 2000; Shoval, 2002; Cornelissen, 2004; Black, 2007) and in the popular media. Despite moves by event awarding bodies such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to reform bidding processes through initiatives like Olympic Agenda 2020, host bid teams now invariably encounter well-organised movements from within the wider citizenry raising questions about the cost and impact of these bids (Lenskyj, 2010). Despite growing scepticism about the politics and practices of event bidding, a significant number of cities and nations continue to submit their expressions of interest to host peripatetic sporting, cultural or business-focused events. Furthermore, the cost of bids, even if unsuccessful, can often reach into many millions. And yet, despite the cost, size and scale of these bidding contests, relatively little academic attention has been paid to the strategies and tactics used to develop successful bids, beyond individual case studies of specific events. This book fills a gap in the literature by drawing together existing knowledge on the subject of event bidding, combining this with historical and contemporary examples to enable a critical commentary on the bidding process itself and the struggle for power that it represents. As more and more students of sports, events, tourism (studies, policy and management in each case) and related subject fields now focus on the strategic and political dimensions of major events in their curricula, there is a need for a text that brings theory and practice together in one place to help bring critical insights to a phenomenon with a relatively recent history. We deliberately use the term ‘critical’ here. Our use of the term refers to our intention to analyse the historical intersection between event bids and urban processes; assess power relations, conflicts, social inequalities and the unevenness of urban development approaches exemplified in event bids; draw attention to “marginalisations, exclusions and injustices” (Brenner, 2009:179) in the event bidding process and, finally, seek to offer progressive recommendations for how event bidding processes can be adapted to address the criticisms they encounter.

To adhere to this critical position we examine the rationale for undertaking bids for a range of event-types. We explore, critically, how ‘successful’ bids are developed, drawing on sporting mega events including the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympic Games, as well as a range of smaller peripatetic cultural events from across the world. As Brighenti, Clivaz, Délétroz & Favre (2005) highlight, the number of peripatetic events making use of bidding contests to award host destination rights and the number of destinations bidding to host such events has grown considerably in the last twenty years. We locate bid campaigns within the broader move towards event-led and event-themed (Smith & Fox, 2007) development agendas within destinations, highlighting the historical issues that have shaped the demands of awarding bodies in recent years. In the absence of a critical event bidding text, in this book we develop a broad conceptual understanding of the various strategies used in successful bids, moving beyond the case-by-case descriptive approach often found in previous publications. Finally, we reflect on a range of critical issues of contemporary significance in bidding contests, including growing ethical concerns around corruption, and protest movements in the development and award of events. Our aim is to offer the first detailed critical overview of the event bidding process, shining a light on the complex interplay between technical and strategic issues and offering insights into how destinations identify appropriate events, develop bids and manage a multifaceted stakeholder environment.

Event bidding: Why do it

In their text Event policy: from theory to strategy, Foley, McGillivray & McPherson (2012) argue that:

Events are of local, national and international importance. They are important signifiers of personal, community, national and globalized identity…A lot is known about how they can be organized more efficiently and effectively, how they can be marketed, how they can be managed safely and how appropriate venues can be selected for their delivery. Much less is known about how ownership of events might be evaluated; about who should resource them; about choosing among competing claims for support; about which other public investments should be curtailed at their expense; about how they can best be used to assuage social and economic problems.

(p.1)

When writing a book about event bidding, many of these same questions apply, albeit framed in a slightly different way. So, for example, in contemplating what this book would contain, we wanted to know more about who decides to bid for which events; where the resource to bid for these events comes from; which development priorities are curtailed to enable event bids to be lodged; what claims about the benefits of bidding for an event to a locality are made and on what basis; how bid committees are formed and with what implications for accountability, transparency and governance; and who are the various actors organising and mobilising to oppose event bids. These are just some of the questions we seek to answer in this book. One way of setting the scene is to look at the public pronouncements of those who are in the process of bidding for events or those who have bid in the past, to ensure we have a clear understanding of why bids are made in the first place and with what intended outcome(s).

Who bids for what

At the international, or global level, some commentators argue that event bidding is one part of a place war (Short & Kim, 1999), whereby entrepreneurial cities engage in inter-urban competition to ensure they are visible to potential residents, visitors and investors. The modern spectacles of large scale sporting events, in particular, are seen as an important means by which cities can express their personality and advertise their position on the global stage (Essex & Chalkley, 1998). Whereas sporting mega events used to be awarded without meaningful competition, from 1984 (and the Los Angeles Olympics) onwards, commercial success and growing media interest led to more ‘second rate’ cities (Shoval, 2002) joining the competition to lever these events for urban physical and economic regeneration. This analysis is borne out by a cursory glance at the bidding cities for the Summer Olympic Games over the course of the period from 1992 to 2016. Belgrade, Brisbane and Birmingham bid for the 1992 Olympic Games; Melbourne and Manchester for 1996; Stockholm, Lille, San Juan and Seville for 2000; Osaka, Bangkok, Cairo, Havana and Kuala Lumpur for 2004; Leipzig and Istanbul in 2012; and Baku, Doha and Prague for 2016. Each of these cities could be defined as either second or third tier (some may not even reach this status). Even the very act of announcing your candidacy for the world’s largest event (the Olympic Games) can, it is argued, bring your city to the attention of a global public.

However, more interesting still is that, vying for a slice of the attention economy, top tier cities are placed under significant pressure to bid for sporting mega events. Again, Shoval (2002) argues that London, New York and Paris, are “fearful of competition” (p.596) from other cities and need to stay ahead of their rivals by bidding for a sports event. Whilst we consider these arguments in more depth in forthcoming chapters, there is a growing trend evident in both sporting mega events and Capital of Culture (UK and European levels) bidding contests to suggest that strategies associated with becoming (or emerging) and maintaining position in global inter-urban competition are evident. When contemplating bidding for the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games, London did not objectively appear to need additional global awareness or image change, nor did it need a boost to its tourism industry. However, in the fierce battle for mobile capital, perhaps it needed to remind its competitors of its ongoing appeal, and what better way to do so than being at the forefront of the news cycle pre-bid, on award of the bid and, subsequently, on hosting. By contrast, Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, a former Soviet Republic from Central Asia, was an unknown proposition until it made an audacious bid in 1992 to host the 2000 Olympics that were eventually awarded to Sydney. As reported at the time, the Vice President of the Tashkent Olympic Committee suggested that “Of course it would be good for sports, we’ll build lots of facilities. But we also want the whole world to know about us in Uzbekistan” (L.A. Times, 1992 [online]). Had it been a realistic candidate and eventually awarded the right to host the Games, Tashkent would have had to build all new venues, hotels, hospitals and even an airport. Tashkent’s attempt to be a candidate city for the Olympic Games was short lived, but other former Soviet republics better represent the becoming (or emerging) position. Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, and Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan, have both sought to position themselves as internationally aspiring cities, partly through bidding for large scale sporting events. In the last decade Baku bid (unsuccessfully) for the Summer Olympic Games twice (2009 and 2013) and won the rights to host the European Games in 2015 uncontested. It is also jointly hosting the UEFA European Championships in 2020 and won the rights to host a Formula 1 Grand Prix which commenced in 2016. Almaty has bid for the Winter Olympic Games twice (in 2007 and again in 2015) and also has pretensions to host other second or third tier sport events.

At a national level, the becoming/maintaining narrative is also applicable to the contest in recent years to host both the UK and European Capital of Culture titles. For example, Liverpool won the rights to host the year-long European celebration of culture in 2008, beating off competition from more established ‘cultural’ destinations such as Newcastle-Gateshead. Liverpool’s bid strategy emphasised that the city needed the title more than others because it would enable it to become a vibrant cultural place rather than just maintaining its already privileged position. Moreover, over recent years the title of UK Capital of Culture, awarded every four years, has also been used by previously marginal or peripheral cities to attract attention when their other economic levers have been compromised.

Whereas in preceding decades, only the largest cities were involved in bidding for events because they were the only ones with the capacity to do so, a more recent development is the emergence of smaller, less recognisable cities bidding for events (at European or international levels) in order to enhance their position vis-à-vis their national competitors. A good example of a city in the UK which has used events (and event bidding) to extricate itself from the shadow of its capital city counterpart is Glasgow, Scotland. Since its successful hosting of the European Capital of Culture crown in 1990, Glasgow has utilised an event-led strategy as one of its main drivers for economic, social and cultural change. The city of Melbourne, Australia, has also been extremely successful at emerging from the shadow of Sydney, to become known as the event capital of the world because of the way it has, strategically, bid for a range of sporting, cultural, business and entertainment events to develop a year-round portfolio. Accompanying an intention or interest to bid for events as part of a strategy to compete nationally (and internationally) is invariably the formation of a strategic function within the city, to enable coordinated action from a variety of actors (including business, tourism, local economic development, sport and hospitality). Both Glasgow and Melbourne have strategic major event functions that compete for future events up to a decade in advance. Beyond the practice of bidding, they also have coordinated, multi-agency teams operating to ensure successful delivery of the events they secure – an important dimension of future bidding success.

At a local level, it might not appear that event bidding carries much importance. Yet, where international (or global) cities are bidding for events there is always a ‘local’ context (whether economic, cultural, social, political or environmental) that features in bidding rhetoric. Those offering a critique of event bidding often focus on the lack of concern for locality in the way bids are put together and the impact of potential success on the lives of residents, businesses or visitors to the event destination (Chalip, 2006; Paton, Mooney & McKee, 2012; Finkel, 2015). However, in recent years, something of a sea-change has taken place in terms of how ‘local’ concerns have been brought to the fore and influenced bidding processes for events. Partly, this issue relates to who makes decisions over what events to bid for and in whose name. Over the last decade, a number of cities have withdrawn from the bidding contest for major sporting events, in particular, due to expressed discontent from local people about the merits of bidding, most frequently associated with the burden of costs likely to fall on taxpayers to support the planning and delivery of the Games (Kassens-Noor, 2016). In 2005, Halifax, Canada, withdrew from bidding for the 2014 Commonwealth Games (eventually awarded to Glasgow) largely due to concern at the provincial and municipal levels of government that costs were prohibitively high. More recently, Toronto, Canada, and Boston, USA, decided not to bid for the 2024 Olympic Games due to similar concerns at the ‘exposure’ of taxpayers to cost overruns, and Rome, Italy, and Budapest, Hungary, withdrew bids late in the process citing similar concerns. Finally, only two cities were left in the race to become the host for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games because of a number of withdrawals, many associated with low levels of public support at the local level.

The need for an event bidding book

As the preceding discussion confirms, event bidding is important at international (global), national and local levels. Bids are not risk-free endeavours, nor do they take place outside political, economic and social policy considerations. The examples and illustrations presented here are intended to provide substantiation to the idea that bidding for events is not simply an operational or logistical activity. Instead, it involves economics (that bidding and winning events can lever additional economic activity which will trickle down to those most in need), politics (that pooling scarce resources to bid for a range of event types can lead to a more economically successful, socially just and culturally vibrant place to live, invest or visit), (urban) geography (that bidding for events can be used as a vehicle to enact plans to transform certain urban places and spaces), and marketing (that the act of bidding enables certain narratives of a city to be communicated to a national or international audience). Each of these considerations needs to be subjected to scrutiny from a range of critical, theoretically informed perspectives. In this text, we do not subscribe to what Rojek (2013) has called the self-congratulatory, laudatory and over-consensual ethos of professional event management literature. Instead, like Rojek, we are interested in foregrounding critiques of power, meaning, resistance and history as they apply to the context of event bidding and associated practices. We do not take the view that events are necessarily progressive or a force for good. We critique the ‘intercontinental consent engineering’ and ‘invisible government’ (government, media and multinationals) that use communicative power to shape social consciousness (Rojek, 2013). In the structure that follows, we are also conscious of the need to avoid collapsing different event genres together into one, obscuring the very real differences between sporting mega events such as the Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup and cultural events such as the European Capital of Culture. T...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• PART I: Politics: contexts and concepts
• PART II: Persuasion: competencies and campaigns
• PART III: Resistance: corruption and contestation
• PART IV: Case studies in event bidding
• Index