City parks have long been understood as contested spaces. But creeping privatisation and commercialisation in an era of neoliberal austerity have heightened tensions between different user groups, and between local communities and park authorities. This chapter provides an in-depth case study of a contested green space in a global city. Finsbury Park in London opened in 1869 as the people’s park with the aim of improving the living conditions for the working classes. However, it is now a highly commercialised park, regularly hosting private events which are justified by the local authority as necessary to finance the maintenance of the park. The chapter focuses on the dispute between the local Friends group and Haringey Borough Council over music festivals staged in Finsbury Park. The Friends of Finsbury Park have challenged the legality of these events in the UK courts as they affect the accessibility of public space. Wireless—billed as the UK’s biggest and most famous urban music festival—is particularly controversial. This is an expensive and disruptive event, but one that celebrates urban and youth cultures, suggesting it may have positive as well as negative effects on park accessibility. Based on field work conducted from 2017 to 2020, and the analysis of documents covering the dispute, this case study assesses the ways that music festivals affect the status of Finsbury Park as a people’s park. The chapter highlights the wider implications of this local dispute and outlines the socio-spatial impacts of the shift in London towards parks financed by commercial income.

Attempts to revitalise the centres of British towns and cities in the 1990s drew on the concept of the 24-hour city and, by extension, into liquor licensing reform. The protagonists for the 24-hour city, and many magistrates and local authorities, assumed that a relaxation of British licensing laws would bring about a more civilised mode of alcohol consumption and deliver a 'continental ambience' to urban life that would extend into the night. This paper brings forward evidence from a cross-cultural comparison of four European cities to demonstrate that a 'continental' style of alcohol consumption is supported by a variety of controls and enforcement measures. It concludes that British free market attitudes to licensing reform will undermine the government's professed aspirations for an 'urban renaissance' of cultural inclusion and animation.

This paper examines the interrelationship between law and lifestyle sports, viewed through the lens of parkour. We argue that the literature relating to legal approaches to lifestyle sport is currently underdeveloped and so seek to partially fill this lacuna. Hitherto, we argue, the law has been viewed as a largely negative presence, seen particularly in terms of the ways in which counter-cultural activities are policed and regulated, and where such activities are viewed as transgressive or undesirable. We argue that this is a somewhat unsophisticated take on how the law can operate, with law constructed as an outcome of constraints to behaviour (where the law authorises or prohibits), distinct from the legal contexts, environments and spaces in which these relationships occur. We argue that the distinctive settings in which lifestyle sports are practiced needs a more fine-grained analysis as they are settings which bear, and bring to life, laws and regulations that shape how space is to be experienced. We examine specifically the interrelationship between risk and benefit and how the law recognises issues of social utility or value, particularly within the context of lifestyle sport. We seek to move from user-centred constructions of law as an imposition, to a more nuanced position that looks at parkour at the intersections of law, space and lifestyle sport, in order to reveal how law can be used to support and extend claims to space.

This paper concerns the origination, development and emergence of what might be termed ‘Olympic law’. This has an impact across borders and with transnational effect. It examines the unique process of creation of these laws, laws created by a national legislature to satisfy the commercial demands of a private body, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It begins by critically locating the IOC and Olympic law and examining Olympic law as a transnational force. Using two case studies, those of ambush marketing and ticket touting, it demonstrates how private entities can be the drivers of specific, self-interested legislation when operating as a transnational organisation from within the global administrative space and notes the potential dangers of such legal transplants.

The general commercial rights associated with the Olympic Movement are protected in the UK by the Olympic Symbols etc (Protection) Act 1995. In addition, the UK Government, in response to a requirement of the Host City Contract with the International Olympic Committee, created the London Olympic Association Right under section 33 and Schedule 4 of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006. These provisions enable the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games to exploit, to the fullest extent, the commercial rights associated with the London Olympic Games. This article questions whether the IOC's requirement for legislative protection and state enforcement of the commercial rights are compatible with the Fundamental Principles of Olympism as defined in the Olympic Charter, and its stated aim of being a celebration of sporting endeavour, culture and education.