Leveraging the sport participation legacy of the London 2012 Olympics: senior managers’ perceptions

Abstract

AQ1 ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to understand how a sports mega event (SME) was leveraged to try and increase participation, through the investigation of national governing bodies (NGBs) opinions and attitudes. Critical realism (CR) was used as a tool to aid understanding of 10 leveraging and legacy conceptualisation, through an empirical investigation. An extensive, mixed method online survey was conducted post London 2012 with senior staff members of NGBs, the main delivery agent chosen to support the participation initiatives associated with the London 2012 Olympics. This research provides valuable findings 15 surrounding the use of CR as a tool to investigate legacy creation, whilst at the same time offering insights to enhance the policy implementation process within the sports development sector. The importance of communication, competitive nature of sports system, media, club engagement, organisational capacity and monitoring and evaluation were 20 highlighted, which provided useful insights into the multi dimensional constructs that can aid future leveraging strategies prior to hosting SMEs. ARTICLE HISTORY

The role of voluntary sport organisations in leveraging the London 2012 sport participation legacy

“…Chalip et al (2017) also notes the importance contextual and resource considerations to facilitating MSE leveraging, as for example, policy changes, the economic situation and external environment were noted as inhibitors in leveraging the LOPG legacy in North West England (Lovett & Bloyce, 2017). Hayday et al (2017) noted the constraining effect of VSOs' having limited resources to support their club network, who themselves have insufficient human and physical resources (May, Harris & Collins, 2013;Taks et al, 2018). Chalip (2018) indicates greater understanding is needed into the parameters required to effectively leverage and generate sport participation.…”

“…To leverage this participation objective, eligible VSOs submitted Whole Sport Plans outlining their strategies and 46 VSOs, including both LOPG and non-LOPG sports received funding (Sport England, 2016a). Importantly, non-LOPG sports experienced disengagement and limited involvement in creating and leveraging a sport participation legacy (Hayday et al, 2017). Chalip et al (2017) notes although MSEs bring prominent media attention, less popular sports may have limited opportunities to attract this, threatening leveraging and event acceptance, this tension is only emphasised for non-LOPG sports (Girginov & Hills, 2008).…”

“…Leading to valuable insights into club capacity, inter club competition and the importance of partnerships and embedding strategies into an organisation's marketing mix (Taks, Green, Misener & Chalip, 2018;Taks, Chalip, & Green, 2015). Yet, few studies have investigated this within the context of a MSE, either at the national VSO level (Girginov et al, 2017;Hayday, Pappous & Koutrou, 2017) or local club level (Macrae, 2017;Pappous & Hayday, 2016); to identify the specific components that need to be considered by Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs), when working with sports organisations to increase sport participation.…”

“The Legacy Element . . . It Just Felt More Woolly”: Exploring the Reasons for the Decline in People With Disabilities’ Sport Participation in England 5 Years After the London 2012 Paralympic Games

“…Brittain (2016) postulated that cuts to benefits and negative media coverage of people with disabilities, as well as the wider budget cuts to local government, inhibited the social potential of the LPG. Hayday, Pappous, and Koutrou (2017) contended that a number of factors limited the leveraging potential of the 2012 Olympic Games. This included poor communication between the national governing bodies (NGBs) of sport and voluntary sports clubs (VSCs), lack of NGB resources to support VSCs' leveraging, and a mistrust between NGBs in knowledge sharing due to funding implications associated with APS targets (Hayday et al, 2017).…”

“…Hayday, Pappous, and Koutrou (2017) contended that a number of factors limited the leveraging potential of the 2012 Olympic Games. This included poor communication between the national governing bodies (NGBs) of sport and voluntary sports clubs (VSCs), lack of NGB resources to support VSCs’ leveraging, and a mistrust between NGBs in knowledge sharing due to funding implications associated with APS targets (Hayday et al, 2017). The budget made available for leveraging by organizers of mega events is often much smaller, comparatively, to the budget allocated for the event, which may suggest some organizers do not prioritize the potential benefits from the event as strategically as possible (Smith, 2014).…”