Local Impacts of Major Sporting Events

Why a sporting event changes its host locality

A major sporting event brings athletes, spectators and media attention to a place. Hosting it may require new venues, accommodation and transport, so its effects begin before the competition and can continue for years afterwards. These lasting effects form its legacy.

The impacts are economic, social and environmental. Economic impacts concern jobs, income and costs; social impacts concern people's lives and communities; environmental impacts concern land, habitats, pollution and resources. These categories connect: a new sports centre can create jobs, improve access to exercise and increase energy use.

London's 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games provide an example. The Olympic Park at Stratford in east London, now the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, was developed largely on brownfield land. Former industrial land was transformed into venues, housing and parkland. This was urban regeneration: improving the area's buildings, infrastructure and environment.

Jobs, visitors and investment

Preparing for an event creates construction work, while running it requires staff in security, catering and event management. Visitors spend money in hotels, restaurants and shops, increasing business income. Media coverage can raise the city's profile and encourage future tourism and investment.

However, an increase in employment does not mean that all local residents benefit. Jobs may go to workers from elsewhere, and construction or event-management posts may end when the event finishes. Training matters because it can help residents gain skills that remain useful afterwards. Volunteers may also gain experience and confidence, even though their work is unpaid.

London 2012 brought investment in east London's transport. An assessment published in 2015 found that greatly improved rail infrastructure continued to benefit the area after the Games. Better connections make it easier for residents to reach employment and for customers and workers to reach businesses. Unlike a brief increase in visitor spending, these benefits can continue beyond the event.

There are costs as well as gains. Building venues and infrastructure requires substantial investment, and facilities need maintenance afterwards. Public funding has an opportunity cost: money spent on the event cannot also be spent on other services. Local taxpayers may face costs associated with facilities and their upkeep. Businesses can also lose out: the salmon-smoking firm H. Forman and Sons had to relocate to make way for the London Olympic development.

Homes, facilities and community life

A successful legacy gives facilities a useful role after spectators leave. London's Aquatics Centre provides swimming facilities for the community and schools as well as elite athletes. Continued access can support participation in sport and better health. Hosting an event can also build community spirit through shared experiences and volunteering.

The athletes' village was converted into East Village, providing 2,818 homes. Reusing accommodation helps turn a temporary event into a longer-term housing benefit. However, the number of homes is only part of the judgement: their rents, prices and suitability for local households matter too. Housing described as affordable may still be beyond the means of the poorest residents.

Regeneration can also involve displacement. Around 450 housing association flats were demolished to make way for the Olympic site. Rising rents and property prices can benefit owners while making life harder for tenants. If an improved area attracts wealthier residents but existing residents struggle to remain, gentrification may accompany regeneration. An attractive new neighbourhood is therefore not automatically evidence that everyone who lived there has benefited.

During the event, residents may experience noise, litter, parking pressure and crowded transport. High-profile events also raise security concerns. These short-term disadvantages should be weighed against the longer-term benefits rather than ignored.

Environmental improvements and environmental costs

At the Olympic Park, former industrial land became public parkland with ponds, woodland and new wildlife habitats. Around 4,000 trees were planted. This gave residents access to green space while bringing previously developed land back into use.

Nevertheless, construction can disturb habitats, and materials require resources and transport. For London 2012, animals including newts, toads and lizards had to be relocated. A post-Games assessment estimated that construction accounted for 60% of the greenhouse gases released over the Olympic project's lifetime. Greener land after the event does not cancel the emissions produced while building it.

Reaching a balanced judgement

To evaluate an event, compare who benefits, who bears the costs and how long each impact lasts. A visitor's enjoyable experience may coincide with disruption for a nearby resident. A landlord may gain from higher property values while a tenant faces higher rent. National publicity is valuable, but it does not prove that local poverty has been solved.

For London 2012, lasting transport improvements, reused venues, housing and public green space support a positive judgement about regeneration. Displacement, affordability problems, public costs and construction emissions qualify that judgement. Overall, the Games produced an important physical legacy in east London, but the benefits were uneven. The strongest test of success is not simply whether the event ran well: it is whether facilities remain useful and existing local communities share in the improvements.

Main impacts

• Economic gains: visitor spending, construction and event jobs, investment, publicity and improved transport.
• Economic costs: construction and maintenance spending; some jobs disappear; businesses may be displaced.
• Social gains: sports access, housing, community spirit and volunteer skills.
• Social costs: disruption, security concerns, displacement and housing that local people cannot afford.
• Environmental gains: brownfield regeneration, public green space and new habitats.
• Environmental costs: habitat disturbance, resource use and greenhouse gas emissions.

London 2012 evidence

• Stratford's Olympic Park: former industrial land regenerated.
• Improved rail infrastructure: benefits continued after the Games.
• Aquatics Centre: community and school use alongside elite sport.
• East Village: 2,818 homes, but affordability remained an issue.
• Around 450 housing association flats demolished.
• Around 4,000 trees planted.
• Construction: estimated 60% of the Olympic project's greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall judgement

Compare short term with long term, and different stakeholders. London gained a lasting physical legacy, but costs and benefits were uneven. Continued use and access for existing residents are key tests of success.