Leveraging Mega Events for Capacity Building in Voluntary Sport Organisations

Abstract

Strengthening the work of national voluntary sport organisations (VSOs) is of strategic importance as they are considered custodians of their sport and have been entrusted with its governance, management of significant public funds and provision of services to a vast network of clubs and millions of participants. Using a mixed method approach, the study examined how VSOs in the UK and Russia leveraged the 2012 London and 2014 Sochi Olympics for capacity building. The political framing of the Games as a leverageable resource stimulated VSOs' engagement, but it was more on a tactical than strategic basis. Three main leveraging processes were employed by VSOs including aligning organisational objectives with the Games' strategic visions, using structured Olympic programmes and teaming up with a development partner. VSOs used the Games to enhance their organisational capacity in three areas of staff qualifications, organisational learning and performance management and created public value.

An exploration of the corporate objectives of the Rio 2016 Olympic Sponsors

“…Another company stressed the need to build a positive relation between employees' satisfaction with employers' retention, and as one of the Olympic sponsors sees value in a goal "to engage employees and students, generate the feeling and pride of belonging, it reflects to employers' retention" (Company 5). This finding agrees with prior research which supports that sport sponsorship has become a useful tool for some sponsors in their attempt to motivate and engage the employees (Girginov et al, 2017;Cornforth, 2011;Pichot, 2008).…”

Event Leveraging in a Nonhost Region: Challenges and Opportunities

“…Leveraging together with strategic partners is reinforced by several authors (Bell & Gallimore, 2015;Girginov et al, 2017;Kellett, et al, 2008). Particularly, we argue that the centrality of the Leicestershire London 2012 leveraging partnerships is significant in the process of leverage planning, in terms of defining a strategic vision, formulating objectives and lobbying for local support.…”

“…O'Brien (2006) added that local stakeholders can get access to multiple networks if some medium can be established. In addition, as suggested by Girginov, Peshin andBelousov (2017, p.2087), leveraging is 'a system phenomenon and a collective' activity, which requires the contribution from more than one individual or one organisation. In their study of voluntary sport organisations' engagement with leveraging the London 2012 and the Sochi 2014 Olympics, Girginov, Peshin and Belousov (2017) identified the existence of three different types of leveraging, i.e., aligning organisational objectives with the Olympic Games' strategic visions, leveraging nation-wide Olympic programmes, and engaging with strategic partners nationally and internationally.…”

“…In addition, as suggested by Girginov, Peshin andBelousov (2017, p.2087), leveraging is 'a system phenomenon and a collective' activity, which requires the contribution from more than one individual or one organisation. In their study of voluntary sport organisations' engagement with leveraging the London 2012 and the Sochi 2014 Olympics, Girginov, Peshin and Belousov (2017) identified the existence of three different types of leveraging, i.e., aligning organisational objectives with the Olympic Games' strategic visions, leveraging nation-wide Olympic programmes, and engaging with strategic partners nationally and internationally. Furthermore, for event leverage to be effective, there is a need to consider existing local strategies, resources, sociocultural, and political conditions more broadly (Beesley & Chalip, 2011;Kellett, et al, 2008).…”

Perspectives on the Volunteering Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games: The Development of an Event Legacy Stakeholder Engagement Matrix

“…There is tentative evidence that this level of stakeholder engagement does not always occur (Minneart, 2012) and there have been calls for urgent research to "explore the stakeholders involved in the legacy governance process" (Leopkey & Parent, 2017, p. 449). In spite of the discourse of the IOC and host cities in championing Olympic legacies (Leopkey & Parent, 2012), host cities have often failed to optimize longerterm benefits (Chalip, 2006;Girginov et al, 2017;Kennelly, 2016), with Nitsch and Wendland (2017) concluding that hosting of the summer Olympic including new infrastructure, event venues, residential and commercial developments, and landscaping (Nitsch & Wendland, 2016;Smith, 2012). Muller (2017) contends such mega-events are paradoxical, at once drawing a focus on the immediacy of event delivery in tandem with future considerations of legacy.…”