Planetizen - Urban Planning News, Jobs, and Education

Blog post

Why Hosting a World Cup Doesn't Matter for Cities, and How it Can

Two major international decisions are being made today: which countries will host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The selected hosts will undoubtedly celebrate their victories, and look forward to the soft and hard benefits of hosting this most watched of sporting events. The host countries should also take care to prepare for negative impacts – short- and long-term effects that play out in physical, social and economic ways. Who gets selected is surely important in some ways, but when considering these mega-events in terms of their potential impact on the places in which they're held, who hosts the World Cup doesn't really matter.
Nate Berg | December 2, 2010, 1am PST
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Comments
Two major international decisions are being made today: which countries will host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The selected hosts will undoubtedly celebrate their victories, and look forward to the soft and hard benefits of hosting this most watched of sporting events. The host countries should also take care to prepare for negative impacts – short- and long-term effects that play out in physical, social and economic ways. Who gets selected is surely important in some ways, but when considering these mega-events in terms of their potential impact on the places in which they're held, who hosts the World Cup doesn't really matter.

It should, though. But because of the minimal requirements made of the cities hosting World Cup matches, how cities prepare for the event is hardly a concern to FIFA, soccer's international governing body. Whether hosting the World Cup makes a city exponentially better or terrifyingly less efficient is irrelevant to FIFA, based on how it guides the cities intending to host this event. The long-term impact of the event is hardly considered, and its potential to create the sort of vast civic improvement projects often resulting from such international event hosting is ignored. By not acknowledging the urban interventions made by host cities in preparation for World Cup hosting, FIFA is essentially turning a blind eye to the possible great things its event can bring to or inspire in cities.

This is an unfortunate reality, and one I've explored at length in an academic-type article, included below. I wrote this article for an international conference focusing on mega-events and cities, and it should be stated very clearly that I am not an academic, nor am I really qualified to write anything that portrays itself as academic work. My paper was not peer-reviewed, as many articles are, and if it were it would likely be subject to many, many edits and possibly a simple toss to the garbage bin. Either way, I wrote this thing, and I feel like it makes some valid arguments/suggestions about how FIFA can improve its requirements of World Cup host cities to instigate more civic-minded and long-lasting positive urban impacts. The intent is to change the way we and FIFA think about what a World Cup host cities can and should be and do. These are topics I've been tracking on my newsblog World Cup Planning, and realities I've seen in South Africa during the 2010 World Cup and in Rio de Janeiro ahead of its hosting duties for the 2014 World Cup. I'm hopeful that by the time they pick the host of the 2026 World Cup the ways cities prepare to host this major event will be more seriously considered.

Here's the paper: 

Improving FIFA's World Cup Hosting Requirements to Create Better Cities


This paper examines the requirements set for cities hosting the FIFA World Cup, focusing specifically on the event's potential for significant urban change and the apparent indifference the event's requirements have for that potential. By exploring the requirements set by the event's governing body, FIFA, and reviewing the impact large sporting events of this nature can have on cities and urban development, this paper suggests that FIFA should place more emphasis on encouraging urban improvements as part of its host city requirements.


This paper will discuss the current rules and regulations Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has created for prospective World Cup host cities, and how those rules could be improved to correspond with and more purposefully direct host city investment towards long-term infrastructural benefits. As it stands now, World Cup host countries invest billions of U.S. dollars to prepare stadia, update transportation networks and market their host cities to international travelers and sponsors. But based on the requirements FIFA has set, host cities don't really have to do very much: they need to have a stadium, training facilities, locations for public viewing venues, and some modest adjustments to public transit systems on game days. It's not surprising that most if not all host cities go above and beyond these minimum requirements. Cities often view hosting duties for events at the scale of the World Cup and the Olympics to be opportunities to invest in citywide improvements – some of them vast. But FIFA's current rules do little if anything to encourage this sort of broad-scale urban thinking; it just happens organically. But it happens over and over again, and by keeping its same or very similar host city guidelines, FIFA is ignoring the impact its event has on cities. Arguably, the organization is concerned primarily with football so it doesn't need to worry about the urban impact its tournament has. But maybe it should. Due to the large investments cities and countries make, the extensive and goal-oriented bid books they create to try to lure the tournament to their land, and the potential for immense urban change as a result of being selected, FIFA should be more aggressive about what sort of urban environment is right for a World Cup. The cities already think of it that way, so why shouldn't FIFA? By exploring the intricacies of the World Cup host application process, the bid writing, the efforts of cities to play host and the regulations that guide their preparations, this paper seeks to bring greater attention to the potential for improvement in this process, which is unofficially aimed at improving urban areas. Through an examination of FIFA's World Cup host city requirements, pending bids for upcoming World Cup tournaments, experiences in host cities of previous World Cup tournaments, and previous scholarly work on the urban impact of mega-events like World Cup tournaments and the Olympic Games, this paper will illuminate various ways that FIFA can expand the impact of its tournament on future World Cup hosts by accepting that its event has a major effect on the cities in which it takes place far beyond the extent of the 30-day tournament.

Requirements for Hosting a World Cup

The FIFA World Cup is an international football tournament held every four years. The current form of the tournament takes place over 30 days and is typically hosted by 8-12 cities spread across one country. Though the event is relatively short, campaigns to win the right to host the event and the completion of its related preparations can take years. For example, countries are currently in the bidding process to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments. The 2010 World Cup host country, South Africa, was selected as host in 2004, and work to prepare the country for the event began shortly after. The bidding process can be an intense marketing effort, with bidding documents running hundreds of pages and high-profile politicians and officials adding their support to national efforts at securing hosting duties. Though the event is considered a national event, much of the work and preparation filters down to the individual cities hosting the actual matches of the tournament. The 2006 tournament in Germany took place in 12 venues in 12 cities. The 2010 tournament in South Africa took place in 10 venues in 9 cities. The 2014 tournament, to be held in Brazil, is expected to take place in 12 venues in 12 host cities. While these few cities have the responsibility of representing their home countries during the event, they also see the benefit of being the few chosen cities to experience the investment and excitement related to hosting the event. Before discussing the potential positive impacts hosting duties can provide cities, a better understanding is needed of what exactly is required of cities interested in hosting part of the tournament.

Aside from various marketing efforts and guarantees of cooperation with the various groups involved with running the World Cup, FIFA's physical requirements for potential World Cup host cities are relatively few. Much of the organization related to the World Cup is undertaken by an entity known as the Local Organizing Committee (LOC), which is in charge of organizing the bid and nationwide efforts of hosting the event. These include marketing, ticketing, media management, finance, and general management of the competition.[i] The actual governments of the cities hosting the event are less involved in the broader scale of World Cup-related preparations, but are responsible for certain physical preparations. The main physical preparation is the provision of a FIFA-compliant stadium. Cities proposed as potential host cities typically have a compliant stadium already, though some (or some business entity within the city) commit to building new stadia should they be chosen as hosts. South Africa, for example, built five new stadia for its 2010 World Cup, and performed significant renovations on five others. The host city must also agree to provide training sites to be used by teams ahead of and during the tournament. Four proposed venue-specific training sites are required by FIFA, which eventually chooses one per venue and one back-up.[ii] The host city is also required to maintain a controlled area around its World Cup venues, enabling security and preventing unauthorized commerce, concessions or promotional activities.[iii] This is mainly a security issue related to physical preparations. The city must also provide venues for Fan Fests, public viewing areas to be operated by the FIFA and the LOC. Aside from the stadia, the other major requirement of host cities is related to transportation. Host cities are required to have a detailed traffic management plan no later than three years prior to event hosting. This plan is supposed to include information on how the city plans to manage traffic around major thoroughfares and roads leading to the event venue on match days, how it will provide public transit options and increased airport capacity on match days and how it will provide parking on match days.[iv] These are not the only requirements FIFA has of World Cup host cities, but they represent the most significant requirements of host cities. As will be further explored in the literature review section, these requirements are far more simplified than the actual preparations made by event host cities.

The competitive bidding process for World Cup hosting duties helps to make the realities of hosting more intricate than the requirements might suggest. There are currently five bids to host the 2018 World Cup: England, Russia, the United States, and two joint bids from Spain and Portugal and Belgium and the Netherlands. All five groups are also bidding for the 2022 World Cup, along with Australia, Japan, Qatar and South Korea. The host of the 2018 World Cup and the 2022 World Cup will be decided in December 2010. Because of the competitive nature of the bidding process, potential host countries try to make a good case that they will be the best possible host of the event. Much of this case is based around the potential host's ability to provide the venues for the event and to pull in enough spectators and sponsors to provide a generous profit to FIFA. Increasingly, many bidding countries take the opportunity in the bidding process to highlight other features, including tourist destinations, cultural heritage, urban amenities and political stability. The bid itself is contained in a bidding document, commonly referred to as a bid book. Bid books can run hundreds of pages and are highly designed and intricately detailed documents. For example, the main bidding document for the joint bid between Spain and Portugal – one of four volumes – totals more than 200 pages.[v] This document outlines the two countries' plans for hosting the event and the impact they hope it will have on a variety of realms. In addition to explanations of such basics as stadium provision, training sites, security during the event, and financing, the bid also includes sections on environmental protection and sustainable social and human development. The bid also highlights the two countries' existing transportation infrastructure and plans to expand it.

Hall's work in "urban reimaging strategies" observes an increasing competitiveness amongst cities vying for large-scale events like the Olympics, the World Cup and other conferences and gatherings. His research suggests that cities are now placing their hopes of becoming "world-class cities" on major event hosting duties.[vi] Because of this competitive aspect, the owners of such events have significant leverage in terms of making requests and demands from bidders. The work of Getz argues that groups like the International Olympic Committee have benefited from the strong desire of many nations to be selected as host of an Olympic event.[vii] The countries bidding to host the 2018 and/or 2022 World Cup tournaments seem to recognize the strength of the competition they face, and the power of FIFA to select the country best able to play host. A promotional summary of Australia's bid for the 2018/2022 bid (printed before the country withdrew from the 2018 running) touts Australia as a friendly and safe country with a high amount of middle class consumers. The document also highlights the stadia it will either upgrade or build new for the tournament.[viii] These are common concepts for bidding nations to publicize. While they do argue that the bidder is capable of hosting the event, they only hint at the potential importance such hosting duties would have to the cities involved. However, it can be argued that places bidding for such mega-events are indeed thinking about these large-scale impacts. London, host of the 2012 Summer Olympics, has created an Olympic Legacy Plan focused on creating both nationwide and local benefits over the long term. As Smith explains, the plan targets a nationwide goal of enhancing sport performance, increasing sporting opportunities for youth and improving the national image. The plan also focuses more specifically on improving the environmental sustainability of East London, site of the Olympics, and encouraging an economic regeneration in the depressed area.[ix] That London's plan has more of an urban focus than Australia's is mainly a product of that city already securing the right to host the 2012 Olympics. Should Australia be granted hosting duties of the 2022 World Cup, it is likely that a plan more focused on the urban legacy of the event would emerge. The places hosting or planning to host major events like the World Cup understand that they can create opportunities for urban improvements that might not otherwise be available or politically viable. The upcoming literature review section shows various ways event bidders have viewed their possible or achieved hosting duties as opportunities for vast civic and urban improvement projects.

Literature Review

The urban impact of large-scale events has been discussed extensively in academic literature, though much of the discourse on sport-related events focuses on the Olympics. There are some significant differences between the Olympics and the World Cup, the major one being that Olympics take place in one city while World Cup tournaments take place in many cities. The proximity of Olympic events therefore creates a concentrated impact, and potentially citywide improvements or projects. Much of the literature herein is related to Olympic impacts, but has a strong connection with World Cup preparation and hosting as well. Though World Cups are more distributed and infrastructure-focused, the efforts of individual host cities are proportionately scaled-down but similar to Olympic host city efforts.

The potential of mega-events like these to catalyze urban improvements first emerged during the 1960 Olympics held in Rome. As Liao and Pitts explain, the clustering of the event venues in three separate areas created a need for connectivity between. As a result, the city created a new thoroughfare to connect the sites. The city also invested in non-Olympics projects like a new water supply system, street lighting, urban landscaping and other infrastructure projects. The major urban impact was the creation of a vast street network connecting the center of Rome to the Olympic venues, all three clusters of which were located on the city's outskirts.[x] This was a concentrated set of urban infrastructure projects that came to foreshadow the impact of the Olympics on host cities. As Short argues, the Olympic games went from being a small part of the World Fairs and Expositions in the first half of the 20th Century – then the dominant urbanizing spectacle – to replacing those events as the new event with the capability to "restructure, reimagine and represent the city".[xi] Interestingly, that status as a city reimaginer has evolved from an opportunity to a justification. Many cities feel the need to include vast citywide improvement projects like public transit development or housing creation to justify the growing expenditures associated with hosting the modern Olympic games.[xii] The same could be said of countries trying to host the World Cup. There also exists, in Olympics and World Cups, the incidental benefit of an improved global reputation. The large spotlight of media attention lured by these mega sporting events gives the hosts not only a reason to develop itself physically but a stage on which to show off its improvements.[xiii] Swart further argues that the successful hosting of a big event helps to secure a place's reputation as an event host, thus creating future opportunities to host other major events.[xiv] But much of the literature on cities as hosts of major events focuses on the civic improvements these events enable. Not all of the literature looks fondly on these investments, and history has shown that some investments in major events like the Olympics have been poor decisions in the long-run. Athens serves as the most potent example. After hosting the 2004 Summer Olympics, the city struggled greatly to find further uses of the various Olympics-related sporting infrastructure it had built. Unfortunate delays in construction nearly quintupled the costs of building it.[xv] Now, much of that sporting infrastructure sits unused or abandoned. When construction is not expensively delayed, however, big events like the Olympics and the World Cup can play a big role in getting long-sought or long-needed projects off the ground. With a hard-set deadline for beginning these events, existing plans can be "fast-tracked" so that they'll be completed in time for the international spotlight.[xvi]

But Essex and Chalkley, among others, warn that the opportunity to create eye-catching or importance civic works in time for these events can also cause local officials to overlook or temporarily forget about the pressing needs of underprivileged populations. This has been a major criticism of the South African bid and hosting of the 2010 World Cup, and remains a point of contention in the country even after the event has ended. Various media reports include criticisms arguing that with roughly a quarter of the country's working age population unemployed and millions in dire poverty, the $4.3 billion (USD) spent by the South African government to host the World Cup could have been used to address some of the country's social problems.[xvii] Of course, any discussion of the "legacy" of a mega-event like the World Cup or the Olympics can be framed by a variety of interests. For example, as Hiller discusses, the demolition of a housing project to make room for a sport venue will be looked upon as a positive legacy for sports officials, but housing advocates and the locals displaced by the demolition will look upon that project as a negative legacy of the event.[xviii] Preuss and Holger argue that there are four ways major urban reconstruction related to a mega-event can affect a city. The first is that scant resources will be directed towards the event and away from more pressing social or civic problems. The second is that event-related projects were already part of an urban plan – a reality that can play out three ways, in their estimation: a) that the host city is able to develop this pre-determined plan faster than it would have had it not hosted the event; b) that the existence of the event helps create political consensus around controversial or especially expensive projects; and c) that some event-related projects or infrastructure will be financed by groups outside the host city, like the federal government, sports associations or from within the private sector. The third effect of event-related urban reconstruction is the potential for "white elephants" – those buildings or projects that are used for the event but unable to generate use or revenue after the event. This is a reality that has spurred much more consideration of temporary or capacity-flexible venues. The fourth effect is that the existence of the event causes locals and officials to look at their city in a different way, a way that considers the needs of the place both during the event and after the event is over.[xix] Their last point, that the event will cause people to think more about the urban impact of the event, seems to be increasingly accurate. During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, various groups and officials were observed to have specific World Cup legacy policies or programs. The Cape Town Partnership, a collaboration between the public and private sectors to improve the city's central business district, used the upcoming 2010 World Cup as an opportunity in the late-2000s to set up a city improvement district (also known as a business improvement district). Because safety is a major concern in South African cities, a major element of the city improvement district was to increase the presence of security officers in the CBD. Andrew Boraine, chief executive of the Cape Town Partnership, says that the influx of security in the CBD years ahead of the World Cup helped to establish the area's safety in the minds of locals, and that by the time of the World Cup it was seen as a place to safely experience the event in public.[xx]

Another of the major trends shaping urban planning/development responses to major event hosting is the emphasis on sustainability – in terms of the environment, but especially in terms of the economy. Smith's work discusses the increasing importance of keeping economic benefits within the local area of the event hosting, but acknowledges, as many other authors have, that these mega-events tend not to bring major economic benefits.[xxi] Keeping benefits local makes sense for residents in hosting areas, but for events like the World Cup, with host cities around the country, there is an implied feeling that the benefits should be nationwide. This was the case in South Africa and in some cases the benefits could be considered nationwide: improved airport capacity, increased national identity and pride, improved tourism potential. But some have argued that the vast amount expended on stadia directed money away from more wide-reaching improvements, like better public transportation infrastructure and provision of water and electricity hookups to informal settlements.[xxii] And, indeed, public transportation has become one of the major urban elements associated with successfully hosting such mega events. Essex and Chalkley's exploration of the history of urban impacts form the Winter Olympics argues that an efficient transport infrastructure is an essential element in successful events.[xxiii] In their examination of the history of urban developments related to the Summer Olympics, Liao and Pitts highlight the new metro and tram lines built for the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, one of the few positive (albeit expensive) legacies to come from that economically troubled event.[xxiv] But even the cost of this metro and tram is hard to link directly with the Olympics. As mentioned earlier, the work of Preuss and Holger argue that long-planned projects, though possibly spurred to construction by the event, may not necessarily be considered event-related infrastructure.[xxv] Perhaps they are better considered pre-planned but event-enabled infrastructure. In terms of accounting for the economic benefits and costs of mega-events, these sorts of pre-planned projects are difficult to place in one column of the ledger or another.[xxvi] However one wants to account for these legacies, it's easy to recognize the fact that such civic improvement projects as public space creation or public transit expansion have indeed happened. And it seems clear that host cities will continue to include these sorts of long-lasting physical projects and urban improvements in their event plans and preparations. But as Liao and Pitts show, this inclusion of urban-oriented projects developed organically as the Olympics increased in importance.[xxvii] It's hard to argue which influenced the other more over the years, but there is a clear relationship between (1) the rise of the urban project-focused Olympics beginning in 1960, (2) the increasing cost of these sorts of mega-events and (3) the increasing competition amongst potentials hosts. As those three dynamics continue to affect and react to each other, the amount of potential hosts of mega events like the Olympics and the World Cup has decreased significantly. Especially in the case of the Olympics, only the world's major cities are capable of hosting such an expensive spectacle.[xxviii] This is true to a lesser extent of World Cups, as the high populations of temporary residents are distributed among more cities. But even World Cups have a few major city hubs. The 2010 World Cup in South Africa, for example, mainly occurred in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Of the 64 matches, these four cities hosted 38. Johannesburg, with two World Cup venues, hosted 15 matches, the most of any World Cup host city since Montevideo, Uruguay was the sole host city during the first World Cup in 1930. The work of Liao and Pitts suggests that the mega-ness of these mega-events is not likely to decline, and therefore mega-cities will of necessity play their hosts.[xxix] They, and others, also discuss how the history of recent Olympic events has shown that those cities that linked the event to a pre-held long-term plan were most successful at creating well-used and needed public amenities that served both the event and the citizens of the host city after the event ended.[xxx] Having long-term plans that do not necessarily rely on winning a mega-event hosting bid tends to be a solid strategy that has a welcome side-effect of being fast-tracked by the winning of a mega-event bid.[xxxi] As described in this literature review, there is a very strong connection between hosting a mega-event and creating a long-lasting improvement to the function and mobility of the host city.

Event Requirements

Despite the clear connection between urban planning-related projects and the hosting of mega-events, the requirements for playing host have not until recently taken a stronger role in encouraging that connection. This is especially true of FIFA and its World Cup. The International Olympic Committee, on the other hand, has gradually become more interested and invested in the potential urban legacy its events can have on host cities. In 2000, the IOC created the "Olympic Games Global Impact" – an effort to better understand the overall impacts of the event on its host cities. The project covers a time-span of 11 years, from bidding to two years after the event. The evaluation focuses mainly on economic, environmental and social sustainability, but urban effects are also recognized. Some have argued the two-year post-event period is not long enough to assess the impact of event-related or -enabled projects and urban improvements, but the evaluation methodology is largely seen as a positive step towards accepting the urban impact the Olympics have developed.[xxxii] The IOC's Olympic Study Commission decided in 2003 to focus more on the legacy of the event. Now, hosts (beginning with London in 2012) are required to consider legacy issues through all stages of event planning.[xxxiii] And the IOC has indicated its preference for a compact main Olympic site, both for the convenience of attendees and for the reduced footprint of what had become a sprawling and potentially urban-scarring event.[xxxiv] In these ways, the IOC is becoming more attuned to the impact its event carries. FIFA, by comparison, has shown little similar concern. Even the once-a-year single-game Super Bowl of American football receives bid books of 100 pages or more arguing the reasons why a particular city (not just its stadium) should host the game.[xxxv] And in a possible nod to the role of the urban realm in the experience of the Super Bowl, the 2011 Super Bowl will take place in the brand new and light rail-accessible Texas Stadium just outside of Dallas in Arlington, Texas.


The urban impact of mega-events like World Cup tournaments and the Olympic Games is undeniable. As many have argued, this urban impact is likely to continue in the coming years. But for the World Cup, the host city requirements that guide the approach taken to hosting the event do not acknowledge the potential hosting duties have to create long-lasting urban impacts. By requiring only the most basic event-related urban improvements – many of which are only required on match days – FIFA's rules miss the opportunity to inspire longer-lasting urban impacts from what is increasingly a very expensive event hosting job. But it's not that host cities and countries don't recognize this potential. Past World Cup hosts and future World Cup hosts have taken notice of the possibility to tie in major urban regeneration efforts with their hosting duties. South Africa made long-needed major upgrades to airports in Johannesburg (the busiest airport in Africa) and in Cape Town, and built a completely new airport in Durban. Johannesburg and Cape Town also used the World Cup as an opportunity to begin development of bus rapid transit systems that began operations ahead of the World Cup and which continue to expand. Johannesburg opened the first leg of a regional rail line, the Gautrain, just days before the World Cup began. Brazil, which will play host to the World Cup in 2014 has also made urban transportation a priority. Local and federal funding totaling nearly $6.5 billion (USD) has been set aside for "urban mobility" projects in the 12 cities chosen to host the 2014 tournament, part of a roughly $19 billion (USD) effort to upgrade the country's infrastructure.[xxxvi] It's clear that host cities and countries are capable of taking the initiative to create these sorts of long-lasting urban impacts. Because of that initiative, it's arguable that FIFA doesn't need to say anything to make these host cities act to leverage their hosting duties for vast urban improvement projects. But it's also arguable that a future host could decide that it doesn't need to create any long-term legacies and simply spends its billions of dollars of funding on a huge party that lasts just 30 days. Rather, FIFA should follow the lead of the International Olympic Committee in accepting the fact that its event has a major urban impact that lasts for many years, and try to encourage a more future-minded approach towards preparing for what is essentially a temporary one-off event. By creating similar policies focused on the footprint of the event, the legacy of the event, and the urban mobility challenges and solutions it can create, FIFA could take more responsibility for the long-term and potentially city-changing urban impact of what is one of the biggest events any city will ever host. Such a change in host city requirements would undoubtedly help to foster the creation of better host cities and more equitable, long-lasting, and civic-minded city improvement projects.

[i] England 2018, "Applicant Host City Engagement Process", 2010.

[ii] FIFA, '2018 Host City Agreement', 2010.

[iii] FIFA.

[iv] FIFA.

[v] Spanish/Portuguese Bid Committee Foundation, 'Bidding Document', 2010.

[vi] Hall, C. M. (1996) Hallmark Events and Urban Reimaging Strategies. Coercion, Community and the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Practicing Responsible Tourism. In Harrison, L. C. & Husbands, W. (Eds.), International Case Studies in Tourism, Planning, Policy, and Development (pp.336–379). New York: Wiley.

[vii] Getz, Donald(2004) 'Bidding on Events', Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 5: 2, 1 - 24.

[viii] Football Federation Australia (2010), "Come Play!: Australia's Bid for the 2018 FIFA World Cup or 2022 FIFA World Cup".

[ix] Smith, Andrew (2009) 'Spreading the positive effects of major events to peripheral areas', Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1: 3, 231 - 246.

[x] Liao, Hanwen and Pitts, Adrian (2006) 'A brief historical review of Olympic urbanization', International Journal of the History of Sport, 23: 7, 1232 - 1252.

[xi] Short, John R. (2008) 'Globalization, cities and the Summer Olympics', City, 12: 3, 321 - 340.

[xii] Essex, Stephen and Chalkley, Brian (2004) 'Mega-sporting events in urban and regional policy: a history of the Winter Olympics', Planning Perspectives, 19: 2, 201 - 204 (201-232).

[xiii] Short.

[xiv] Swart, Kamilla (2005) 'Strategic planning -- implivations for the bidding of sport events in South Africa', Journal of Sport Tourism 10 (1), 37-46.

[xv] Liao and Pitts.

[xvi] Essex, Stephen and Chalkley, Brian (2004) 'The Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change', University of Plymouth School of Geography.

[xvii] Marcus, Jeffrey (2010) "South Africa Wonders What Lies Beyond the Cup", The New York Times, 12 July 2010.

[xviii] Hiller, Harry H. (2006) 'Post-event Outcomes and the Post-modern Turn: The Olympics and Urban Transformations', European Sport Management Quarterly, 6: 4, 317 - 332.

[xix] Preuss, Holger(2007) 'The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Event Legacies', Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12: 3, 207 - 228.

[xx] Boraine, Andrew, Personal Interview, 7 July 2010.

[xxi] Smith.

[xxii] Wehmhoerner, Arnold, 'FIFA and Development: The South African Football World Cup, 2010', Foundation for European Progressive Studies, April 2010.

[xxiii] Essex, Stephen and Chalkley, Brian (2004) 'Mega-sporting events in urban and regional policy: a history of the Winter Olympics', Planning Perspectives, 19: 2, 201 - 204 (201-232)

[xxiv] Liao and Pitts.

[xxv] Preuss and Holger.

[xxvi] Kurtzman, Joseph (2005) 'Economic impact: sport tourism and the city', Journal of Sport & Tourism, 10: 1, 47 - 71.

[xxvii] Liao and Pitts.

[xxviii] Liao and Pitts.

[xxix] Liao and Pitts.

[xxx] Liao and Pitts.

[xxxi] Essex, Stephen and Chalkley, Brian (2004) 'Mega-sporting events in urban and regional policy: a history of the Winter Olympics', Planning Perspectives, 19: 2, 201 - 204 (201-232).

[xxxii] Preuss and Holger.

[xxxiii] Essex, Stephen and Chalkley, Brian (2004) 'The Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change', University of Plymouth School of Geography.

[xxxiv] Munoz, F. (2006) Olympic urbanism and Olympic Villages: Planning strategies in Olympic host cities, London 1908 to London 2012, Sociological Review, 54(S2), pp. 175–187.

[xxxv] Catherwood, D., & Van Kirk, R. (1992). The Complete Guide to Special Event Management. New York: Wiley.

[xxxvi] Marcus, Jeffrey (2010) "Brazil on Track for 2014 Despite Early Criticism of Stadium Plan", The New York Times, 28 July 2010.

Share Tweet LinkedIn Email