Chapter 3 Findings and Suggestion
3.5 Conclusion
76
77
evaluation, this study chose the sport legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, as a case study. According to the pilot study, sport policy could contribute to develop sport legacy and therefore this study analysed the process of Australian federal sport policy from the time the city of Sydney bid for the 2000 Olympics to date.
The summary of the findings in the analysis of sport policy, which were explained in Chapter 1, were as follows: 1. The Olympic Games affected Australian federal sport policy, which priority was elite sport development aiming at high performance success at the Olympic Games; 2. That trend was accelerated after the city of Sydney won hosting the 2000 Olympic Games and the federal sport policy injected the fund for the Olympic athletes and venue constructions; 3. Four years before the Olympic Games, the sport policy introduced the first national participation framework ‘Active Australia’ to improve health concern and the image of Australia; 4. After the success of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, some sport legacy events were started in 2001 separately from the sport policy; 5. The priority of Australian sport policy after the Games gradually shifted to grass-roots sport in response to social needs. The federal sport policy played an important role for the success of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, especially at early stage of the preparation.
Although it was not directly involved in the development of sport legacies, some sustainable positive sport legacies were found through the sport policy analysis. They are Australian Youth Olympic Festival (AYOF) organized by the AOC, Sydney Marathon owned by Athletics Australia, sport activities at the Sydney Olympic Park overseen by Sydney Olympic Park Authority. In addition, another sport legacy ‘Pierre de Coubertin Award’ conducted by the AOC was also analysed in this study. Chapter 2 examined them in detail, and found that Australian federal sport policy was not directly involved in the organization of the sport legacies but indirectly involved in them. For example, the AOC’s initiatives such as the AYOF and the Award contributed to sports participation and youth elite development for primary school and secondary school students through promoting Olympic values. On the other hand, Australian federal sport policy initiatives such as Aussie Sport and Active After-School contributed to sports participation for children and youth through the participation framework. Sydney Marathon was a local community event and used as a test event but inherited and organised by the Athletics Australia after the Games. The event matured into one of the biggest international marathon event now.
78
It contributed to sports participation for everyone from grass-roots to elite. Another sport-for-all legacy, sport activities at the Sydney Olympic Park, also contributed to sports participation for all people. The number of entrants in Sydney Marathon and the number of people who participated in sports in the Park were increasing, along with the trend that the federal sport policy placed a priority on participation gradually after the Sydney Olympics. It was clear that the national sport policy contributed to the success of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games in terms of its management and high performance. And the success leveraged the legacy creation. Therefore, it could be said that all the sport legacies and the national sport policy were interrelated in the case of the Sydney Olympics.
So, how a national sport policy could contribute to the development of sport legacy? Should the national sport policy be involved in it directly as a legacy actor?
Chapter 3 examined these questions based on the analysis of the sustainable sport legacies mentioned above. Findings are that the national sport policy would be able to contribute to the development of a nationwide legacy such as Olympic education program or a national participation framework. Those initiatives may require school curriculum review where the leadership and supervision of national government agency will normally be required. On the other hand, legacy events can be organised by a local organisation if it is a local event, and can be organised by a national organisation such as the NOC if it is a national event, for example, the one commemorating the Olympic Games the nation hosted. In either approach, it is important to consider the role-sharing or collaboration between the national sport policy and other sport related organisations or educational institutions. As this study has seen, a legacy is created, implemented, promoted and developed under the relationship between the sport policy (i.e. national government) and the NOC, NSOs, local government agency, or the OCOG. They are interrelated in a circle consisting of attitude, behaviour, and social system. It is important to establish a relationship or network among those stakeholders for developing Olympic legacy.
Finally, the author would like to emphasize the importance of developing a sport legacy according to the Olympism, a word/philosophy created by Pierre de Coubertin.
The Olympic Games is a pinnacle of the Olympic Movement, which aims to achieve the Olympism. For this reason, the IOC sets the following initiatives: Sport for All, Peace through sport, Development through sport, Women and sport, Sport and environment, and Education through sport (IOC 2014). All the initiatives are to be achieved through
79
sports. The organizers of the Olympic Games are part of the Olympic Movement and therefore it is supposed that Olympic organizers and other stakeholders should work with the initiatives to achieve the object of the Olympism.
80 References
Athletics Australia. 2001. “Annual Report 2000-2001.”
http://www.athletics.com.au/inside/athletics_australia/annual_reports/2000_2001.
———. 2002. “2001 Sydney success to grow into world’s greatest category.” February 28, 2002.
Melbourne: Athletics Australia.
———. 2004. “Official Newsletter of Athletics Australia - August 2004.” Melbourne: Athletics Australia.
Austliran Sport Commission. 1997. “Active Australia: A National Participation Framework.”
———. 2012. “Annual Report 2011-2012.”
———. 2011. “Annual Report 2010-2011.”
———. 2010. “Annual Report 2009-2010.”
———. 2009. “Annual Report 2008-2009.”
———. 2008. “Annual Report 2007-2008.”
———. 2007. “Annual Report 2006-2007.”
———. 2006. “Annual Report 2005-2006.”
———. 2005. “Annual Report 2004-2005.”
———. 2004. “Annual Report 2003-2004.”
———. 2003. “Annual Report 2002-2003.”
———. 2002. “Annual Report 2001-2002.”
———. 2001. “Annual Report 2000-2001.”
Australian Government. 2001. “BACKING AUSTRALIA ’ S SPORTING ABILITY: A More Active Australia.”
———. 2004. “BUILDING AUSTRALIAN C OMMUNITIES THROUGH SPORT.”
http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2006/buildingAustraliancommunities/buildingAustral iancommunities.pdf.
———. 2008. “Australian Sport : Emerging Challenges , New Directions.”
———. 2009. “The Future of Sport in Australia.”
———. 2010. “Australian Sport: The Pathway to Success.”
81
———. 2013. “Sports Funding: Federal Balancing Act.”
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/2550377/upload_binary/25503 77.pdf;fileType=application/pdf.
Australian Olympic Committee. “Barcelona 1992.”
http://corporate.olympics.com.au/games/1992-barcelona.
———. “Atlanta 1996.” http://corporate.olympics.com.au/games/1996-atlanta.
———. “Sydney 2000.” http://corporate.olympics.com.au/games/2000-sydney.
———. “SYOF 2001.” http://www.sopa.nsw.gov.au/our_park/legacy.
———. “A.s.p.i.r.e. School Network.” http://corporate.olympics.com.au/education/a-s-p-i-r-e-school-network.
———. 2010. “AOC Annual Report 2009.”
———. 2011. “AOC Annual Report 2010.”
———. 2012. “AOC Annual Report 2011.”
———. 2013. “AOC Annual Report 2012.”
Australian Sports Commission. 1989. “The_Australian Sports Kit.”
———. 1992. “Maintain the Momemtum.”
———. 1994a. “Olympic Athlete Program: Making Great Australians.”
———. 1994b. “Olympic Athlete Program Factsheet.”
———. 1997. “Active Australia: A National Participation Framework.”
Blackmores Sydney Running Festival. “Sydney Running Festival.”
http://www.sydneyrunningfestival.com.au/.
Brownlee, Helen. 2001. “The Pierre de Coubertin Award - Selected New South Wales Works 1993-2000.”
———. 2002. “Sharing the Spirit: The Involvement of School Students in the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Sydney.”
Cashman, Richard. 2002a. “Impact of the Games on Host Cities.”
———. 2002b. “What Is ‘Olympic Legacy’?” In The Legacy of the Olympic Games: 1984-2000, edited by M. Moragas, C. Kennett, and N. Puig. Lausanne.
http://doc.rero.ch/record/18259.
———. 2011. Sydney Olympic Park 2000 to 2010: History and Legacy. Walla Walla Press.
82
Chalip, Laurence. 2006. “Towards Social Leverage of Sport Events.” Journal of Sport &
Tourism 11 (2): 109–127.
Frawley, Stephen, and Adam Cush. 2011. “Major Sport Events and Participation Legacy: The Case of the 2003 Rugby World Cup.” Managing Leisure 16 (1): 65–76.
Furrer, Philippe. 2002. “Sustainable Olympic Games: A Dream or a Reality?” Bollettino Della Societa Geografica Italiiana VII: 1–31. http://www.omero.unito.it/web/Furrer (eng.).PDF.
Girginov, Vassil, and Laura Hills. 2009. “The Political Process of Constructing Sustainable London Olympics Sports Development Legacy.” Reader in Sport
Management/Development. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/4359/1/Girginov-The Political process of Olympic legacy creation.pdf.
Gratton, Chris, and Holger Preuss. 2008. “Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building Up Legacies.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 25 (14) (December): 1922–
1938. doi:10.1080/09523360802439023.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09523360802439023.
Hindson, Anne, Bob Gidlow, and Cath Peebles. 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): 16–24.
Hogan, Kieran, and Kevin Norton. 2000. “The ‘Price’ of Olympic Gold.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 3 (2): 203–218.
Hoye, Russell, and Matthew Nicholson. 2009. “Australia.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 1 (2): 229–240. doi:10.1080/19406940902950903.
International Olympic Committee (IOC). “A.s.p.i.r.e. School Network.”
http://www.olympic.org/australia-aspire-initiatives.
———. 2000. “Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21: Sport for Sustainable Development.”
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_300.pdf.
———. 2001. “Marketing Matters: Final Sydney 2000 Marketing Overview.”
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_274.pdf.
———. 2002. “Olympic Games Study Commission Interim Report to the 114th IOC Session.”
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_581.pdf.
———. 2003a. “International Symposium on Legacy of the Olympic Games, 1984-2000.”
http://olympicstudies.uab.es/os_series.asp.
———. 2003b. “Olympic Games Study Commission: Report to the 115th IOC Session.”
———. 2011a. “Guide on Olympic Legacy, 5th Update Cycle - Post Vancouver Winter Games.”
———. 2011b. “Technical Manual on Olympic Games Impact Study (5th Update Cycle - Post Vancouver Winter Games).”
83
———. 2011c. “Olympic Games : Legacies and Impacts Bibliography A List of Publications , Articles , Reports , Studies and Electronic Sources.” http://www.olympic.org/Assets/OSC Section/pdf/LRes_7E.pdf.
———. 2011d. “Olympic Charter.” http://www.olympic.org/.
———. 2012a. “Olympic Legacy.”
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Olympism_in_action/Legacy/Olympic_Legacy.pdf.
———. 2012b. “Factsheet Environment and Sustainable Development.” Lausanne. Retrieved Septembe.
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Environment_and_
substainable_developement.pdf.
———. 2014. “Olympism in Action. ” http://www.olympic.org/olympism-in-action.
LOCOG. 2010. “Olympic Games Impact Study – London 2012 Pre-Games Report Final October 2010.”
http://www.uel.ac.uk/geo-information/documents/UEL_TGIfS_PreGames_OGI_Release.pdf.
London East Research Institute. 2007. “A Lasting Legacy for London?: Assessing the Legacy of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games.”
MacAloon, John J. 2008. “‘Legacy’ as Managerial/Magical Discourse in Contemporary Olympic Affairs.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 25 (14): 2060–2071.
Magnay, J. 2002. “Marathon may be on its last legs.” September 11, 2002. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney.
NSW Government. 2002. “A Report on the Financial Contribution by the New South Wales Government to the Sydney 2000 Games.”
http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/nsw/fin_cont_report.pdf.
NSW Government Treasury. 1999. “1999-2000 Budget Statement 6. Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games.”
http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/4245/bp2_6.pdf.
Pont 3. “Kenyan Willy Koitile Wins the 2013 Blackmores Sydney Marathon.”
http://www.sydneyrunningfestival.com.au/general/news/kenyan-willy-koitile-wins-2013-blackmores-sydney-marathon.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority. “Olympic Legacy.”
http://www.sopa.nsw.gov.au/our_park/legacy.
———. “Sport Development.” http://www.sopa.nsw.gov.au/our_park/sports_development.
———. 2010. “SOPA Annual Report 2009.”
———. 2012. “Annual Report 2011-2012.”
http://www.sopa.nsw.gov.au/about_us/annual_report_2011-2012.
84
Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG). 2001. “Official Report of the XXVII Olympiad: Volume Two, Celebrating the Games”. Sydney.
The Cochrane Collaboration. “Evidence-Based Health Care and Systematic Reviews | The Cochrane Collaboration.” http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/evidence-based-health-care.
Toohey, Kristine. 2008. “The Sydney Olympics: Striving for Legacies - Overcoming Short-Term Disappointments and Long-Short-Term Deficiencies.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 25 (14): 1953–1971.
———. 2010. “Post-Sydney 2000 Australia: A Potential Clash of Aspirations Between Recreational and Elite Sport.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 27 (16-18): 2766–2799.
———. 2012. “Olympic Sustainability Reporting and Sport Participation.”
http://doc.rero.ch/record/29449/files/2012_- _Olympic_sustainability_reporting_and_sport_participation_2nd_v._-_TOOHEY_K..docx.pdf.
Toohey, Kristine, and A.J. Veal. 2007. The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective. 2nd ed. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Pub.
Truño, Enric. 1995. “Barcelona: City of Sport.” In The Keys to Success: The Social, Sporting, Economic and Communications Impact of Barcelona’92, edited by Miquel de Moragas and Miquel Botella, 43–56. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacion de la UAB.
Uman, Lindsay S. 2011. “Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.” Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l’Académie Canadienne de Psychiatrie de L'enfant et de L'adolescent 20 (1) (February): 57–9.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3024725&tool=pmcentrez&re ndertype=abstract.
VANOC. 2007. “Olympic Games Impact Program: Baseline Report.”
———. 2009. “Olympic Games Impact ( OGI ) Study for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Pre-Games Results Report.”
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/OGI-UBC-Pre-Games-RESULTS-Report-2009-12-01b.pdf.
Veal, A.J., and Stephen Frawley. 2009. “Working Paper 6 ‘Sport for All’ and Major Sporting Events: Trends in Sport Participation and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the 2003 Rugby World Cup and the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games.” School of Leisure , Sport and Tourism Working Paper Series (6).
Veal, A.J., Kristine Toohey, and Stephen Frawley. 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 (March 2012) (March 21): 1–30. doi:10.1080/19407963.2012.662619.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19407963.2012.662619.
Verbruggen, Hein. 2002. “The IOC, the Olympic Movement, the Host Cities: A Common Legacy.” In The Legacy of the Olympic Games: 1984-2000, edited by M. Moragas, C.
85
Kennett, and N. Puig. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.
http://doc.rero.ch/record/18259.
Weed, Mike, Esther Coren, Jo Fiore, Louise Mansfield, Ian Wellard, Dikaia Chatziefstathiou, and Suzanne Dowse. 2009. “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical Activity and Health Legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”
86 Appendix A: Interviewees and Questions
Interviews were conducted in semi-structured manner for those who were involved in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and/or Olympic legacy study or sport policy under the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of the Tokyo Metropolitan University.
The interviewees and the questions are as follows.
Interviewee A (face‐to‐face interview)
<Profile>
The person was involved in the information and knowledge management for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games as Program Manager, Communication Services of the SOCOG, and have written many papers and books about Olympic legacy, sports participation legacy and Australian sport policy.
<Interview questions and answers summary>
Q1. Could you please tell me your impressions about the OGI study?
OGI came in after the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. It’s hard to quantify everything.
Some can quantify but others are hard to quantify. Also, it’s very difficult to compare something between the Olympic Games. It’s more difficult to find the cause and effect between the Games and between what happened. Sports participation is a good example because it is difficult to prove if the increase or decrease was related to the Olympics.
Q2. Is this because sports participation legacy is intangible?
Sports participation should be a tangible legacy if it’s carefully planned. The problem is people don’t plan the legacy, but it’s just happened. It has to be planned in advance like other things in sport. Legacy is a social capital of a major event, so policy and programs should be in place. Also, policy and programs should be planned specifically for the sports participation.
Q3. How can we measure sports participation legacy if it is tangible?
There are some researches that measured sports participation legacy. For example, our study looked at the registration of local clubs. It is easy to track data in a certain period.
You don’t have to measure national level, looking at local level would be better. There
87
might be still a need to check if the increase in the registration was related to the Olympic Games. So, beyond the numbers, qualitative study can be performed in addition to the quantitative study. Go to the club and listen to the people, for example.
Q4. Are those clubs for Olympic sports?
There are many organized clubs in Australia and they link to Olympic sports. We looked into an increase in such organized sports. Another study accessed the ABS data in a good way to study whether the Commonwealth Games increased physical activity level. The conclusion was the same as ours that there was no real course or evidence that any mega event increased sports participation. There was no increase in 6 months after the event.
There are some types of physical activities, such as non-organised sports or recreation.
So, when we say ‘sports participation’, it is important to define what the ‘sports participation’ is. The definitions of ‘sports participation’ or ‘being active’ are different between statistics, making it difficult to analyse data. It is very important to define the term ‘sports participation’. I created a term ‘recreational sports participation’. ASC has the definition for the term.
Q5. Do you think sports participation is for the general public or elite development?
AIS put in talent identification of sport. They created 10-stage model. It is a quite evident model from recreation sport to elite sport where recreational/elite starts and ends. There is a strong link between elite and recreational sports. ASC provides the definitions for them.
Q6. Imbalanced government budget allocation between grass-roots sport and elite has been an issue in Australia, according to papers. Could you please tell me your thought about this issue.
There has been an either-or discussion whether more money should go to Olympic sports or grass-root sports. We should not argue within ourselves. Rather, we should argue more money should go to sports. People don’t understand where the money come from for sports. In Australia, there are three level governments: local, state and national. Each government has a different priority. For example, federal (national) government has a
88
different priority to other governments. So, it is important to differentiate them when analysing sport policy.
Q7. According to federal government reports, federal sport policy was focusing on elite sports but it was shifted to grass-roots after the new policy ‘Pathway to Success’.
Federal sport policy was reviewed in 2008, but it was just looking at money. Even after the policy review, federal government spends more money for elite sport leading up to the Olympic Games to promote Australia at the international stage. The other thing is Mr.
John Coats in the AOC has been very successful in lobbying to the federal government.
He collected lots of money for elite athletes and, as a result Australia was able to win medals. The federal sport policy budget goes to the AIS and each sport organisations, NSOs (National Sport Organisations). NSOs cover from grass-roots to elite but it is basically for elite development. There is a strong link between grass-roots and elite and a pyramid model for grass-roots to elite in Australia. Jason Galburn’s study suggests another model/pathway between grass-roots and elite rather than the pyramid. They are not separated entities. The reality is not either-or but both. For sport policy, it is a problem that there is no assessment report available.
Q8. Do you think current OGI is a good tool to measure impact or legacy of the Olympic Games?
The IOC invested a lot in the OGI. My question is what the real purpose of the OGI is. It requires the OCOGs to do a lot of work and the OCOGs cannot collect the required data.
It costs for the OCOGs. The OGI is partly good, but it needs to be improved in part. The measurement is not relevant also if it compares between the Games. The circumstances are changing rapidly, especially technology. Security increased after terrorist attacks and technology changed the management of the Games. Countries have different economic, environmental and social circumstances. What is important in a country may not be important in other countries. Although the contexts are not equivalent, the OGI is trying to use the same measurement. How can we measure the impact? You cannot attribute everything to the Olympics.