No abstract

Austerity was the driving principle behind the UK Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010, with local government facing a disproportionately high share of the spending cuts. Research has focused on the impact of 'austerity urbanism' (Peck, 2012;Watt and Minton, 2016) and urban regeneration (Dillon and Fanning, 2015;Pugalis, 2016), however there is relatively little focus on sports-led regeneration. This article presents case study research of the stadium-led regeneration project involving Tottenham Hotspur FC and the London Borough of Haringey, focusing on the community perceptions of urban regeneration. It has two aims: first, to understand the local authority's approach to regeneration in the context of the austerity agenda; and second, to understand how this approach was perceived by, and the impact on, those communities living within the geographical locality of the developments. Three themes emerged: first, that austerity led the local authority to adopt a pragmatic approach to regeneration; second, that regeneration in a period of austerity is perceived by local communities as a strategy of gentrification; and third, concerns over the lack of community consultation served as a stimulus for community engagement. Two implications arising from this research are that while community groups in Tottenham had limited success in gaining major changes to the stadium-led regeneration in Tottenham they have arguably been able to slow down the process. Moreover, they have been successful in bringing together diverse groups across the community to share knowledge in order to challenge further proposals from Haringey Council.

Austerity was the driving principle behind the UK Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010, with local government facing a disproportionately high share of the spending cuts. Research has focused on the impact of 'austerity urbanism' (Peck, 2012; Watt and Minton, 2016) and urban regeneration (Dillon and Fanning, 2015; Pugalis, 2016), however there is relatively little focus on sports-led regeneration. This article presents case study research of the stadium-led regeneration project involving Tottenham Hotspur FC and the London Borough of Haringey, focusing on the community perceptions of urban regeneration. It has two aims: first, to understand the local authority's approach to regeneration in the context of the austerity agenda; and second, to understand how this approach was perceived by, and the impact on, those communities living within the geographical locality of the developments. Three themes emerged: first, that austerity led the local authority to adopt a pragmatic approach to regeneration; second, that regeneration in a period of austerity is perceived by local communities as a strategy of gentrification; and third, concerns over the lack of community consultation served as a stimulus for community engagement. Two implications arising from this research are that while community groups in Tottenham had limited success in gaining major changes to the stadium-led regeneration in Tottenham they have arguably been able to slow down the process. Moreover, they have been successful in bringing together diverse groups across the community to share knowledge in order to challenge further proposals from Haringey Council.

Research question: Within sport management, there is a lack of empirical research on the reasons why stakeholders mobilise. This article identifies four antecedent factors underpinning the formation of the Our Tottenham community network: a network formed by community groups in Tottenham to challenge, inter-alia, the stadium-led regeneration scheme. Research methods: The research draws on a longitudinal, qualitative case study, involving interviews, participant observation of community meetings, and analysis of documents. Results and Findings: Four factors underpinned the development of the Our Tottenham community network. The erosion of local democracy and the violation of reciprocity are categorised as reactive forces, in which mobilisation occurred as a response to the behaviour of the Council and the football club. Protecting community interests and increasing salience were driven more by the needs of the community and are categorised as proactive forces underpinning mobilisation. Implications: In the context of this case study, we argue that mobilising efforts occurred due to the presence of both reactive and proactive forces. This helped the Our Tottenham network to build a salient stakeholder coalition. The findings also suggest that focal organisations need to recognise how their behaviour can create the antecedent conditions for stakeholder mobilisation and put in place structures that enable community stakeholders to have a voice during stadium-led regeneration.

No abstract