Planning for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic legacy: a figurational analysis

The legacy costs of delivering the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games through regulatory capitalism

“…While some of the confidentiality around contracts was a consequence of the 'need' to protect commercial interests, some of it might reflect an ever increasing pre-occupation with fear of terrorism (Toohey and Taylor, 2010), and some was created by the general veil of secrecy drawn across proceedings by the International Olympic Committee (Martyn, personal communication, October 15, 2012). Some guarding of information was probably to ensure a consistent message of 'inspiration' and possibly reduce critical debate (Bloyce and Lovett, 2012). A changed economic climate and government between the bid and delivery stages may have exacerbated cost-cutting concerns and strengthened the hand of commercial interests in providing sponsorship with protected rights, such as sponsorship of the torch relay.…”

“…Another potential justification is that before the Games LOCOG felt it was very important to 'ensure that all members were singing off the same hymn sheet' as part of achieving a sense of unity in an organisation brought together for a relatively short period of time (Girginov and Gold, 2013, p. 13) and with a rapid change in staff numbers. A further motive might have been a desire to avoid any alternative to the view of a legacy engendered by the 'notion of an inherent inspiration' which Bloyce and Lovett (2012) found dominated virtually all the 102 official publications they analysed.…”

Post-Event Volunteering Legacy: Did the London 2012 Games Induce a Sustainable Volunteer Engagement?

“…In addition, the claims of sport volunteering and participation legacy from London 2012 have been criticised as a political rhetoric to justify the £9.3 billion public investment [39]. Indeed, the organising committee of the London Games, LOCOG, was a private organisation and followed a governance structure that limited the degree to which a sport volunteering or participation legacy could be achieved, as it prioritised the delivery of the Games over the plans for legacy [23,31].…”

Evaluating the London 2012 Games’ impact on sport participation in a non-hosting region: a practical application of realist evaluation

“…London 2012-related events were delivered largely in London but also in a number of other venues (in the cases for example of sailing or football) and although government emphasised the concept of a 'UK Games' hosted in London, from the outset commentators noted the disproportionate benefit to London's economy and the potential negative impacts on other regions (Blake, 2005). However there appears to have been little subsequent systematic focus on the impact of the Games in non-hosting regions, as illustrated by Bloyce and Lovett's (2012) analysis of legacy discourses in Olympic related documents. In this study 102 documents were sourced from government departments and Olympic bodies (and subsequent snowball sampling), but none of the studies reviewed focused on regional leverage of benefits by non-hosting regions.…”