Report (2007) : 'The Olympic and Paralympic Games: What Can Yorkshire and Humber Expect From 2012?'

Jonathon Bailey BA (Hons) Business Studies
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................3
1.1 London winning the right to host the Games.............................................................3
1.2 Economic history of the Games.................................................................................3
1.3 The Yorkshire and Humber Region...........................................................................4
1.4 Yorkshire and Humber’s involvement in London 2012............................................5
1.5 Why research this region?.........................................................................................7
1.6 Aim............................................................................................................................7
1.7 Terms of reference.....................................................................................................8
2.0 Literature Review........................................................................................................9
2.1 Assessing major sporting events................................................................................9
2.1.1 Economic assessment of major events.............................................................10
2.2.1 Tourism.............................................................................................................13
2.2.2 How will tourism affect the UK economy?......................................................14
2.2.2 Previous Games:...............................................................................................17
2.2.3 Mega events in UK:..........................................................................................19
2.2.4 Summary of Tourism impact on the UK:.........................................................20
2.2.5 How will tourism affect Yorkshire and Humber?............................................22
2.2.6 Sport in Yorkshire and Humbers Economy:.....................................................23
2.2.7 Olympic Generated Tourism:...........................................................................24
2.3 Business Opportunities............................................................................................27
2.3.1 How will Business Opportunities affect the UK economy?.............................27
2.3.2 How will Business Opportunities affect the Yorkshire and Humber?.............29
2.4 Job Creation.............................................................................................................31
2.4.1 Employment generated by the 2012 Games:....................................................33
2.4.2 Previous Games:...............................................................................................34
2.4.3 Yorkshire and Humber:....................................................................................35
2.4.4 Summary of employment.................................................................................37
2.5 Costs of hosting the Olympics:................................................................................39
2.5.1 Overview of estimated costs of the 2012 Games:................................................39
2.5.2 Risk of over estimation:....................................................................................43
2.5.3 Opportunity cost:..............................................................................................44
2.5.4 Displacement effects:........................................................................................45
2.5.5 Opposition to London 2012..............................................................................46
2.6 Overall Impact of London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.........................47
2.6.1 When will the impacts occur?...............................................................................47
2.6.2 The major impacts............................................................................................48
2.6.2.1 Tourism Overview.........................................................................................49
2.6.2.2 Business Overview........................................................................................50
2.6.2.3 Job Creation Overview..................................................................................50
2.6.2.4 Costs of Hosting the Olympics......................................................................51
2.6.3 Overall estimated impact..................................................................................52
2.6.4 Yorkshire and Humber.....................................................................................53
1
3. Methodology.................................................................................................................54
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................54
3.2 Research Philosophy................................................................................................54
3.3 Research approach...................................................................................................55
3.4 Research Strategy....................................................................................................55
3.5 Secondary literature research...................................................................................56
3.5.1 Authority and Reputation of secondary literature research..............................57
3.5.2 Limitations to the Secondary literature research..............................................58
3.6 Primary Research.................................................................................................59
3.6.1 Data collection- Interviews...............................................................................60
3.6.1.2 Interview sample size....................................................................................61
3.6.2 Primary data collection limitations...................................................................62
3.6.2.3 Ethics and data collection..............................................................................63
3.6.3 Overcoming limitations to primary data collection..........................................63
3.6.3.1 Interviewee Bias............................................................................................63
3.6.3.2 Availability of Interviewees..........................................................................64
3.6.4 Reliability of data collected..............................................................................64
3.6.4.1 Validity of data collected...............................................................................65
3.5 Chapter Summary................................................................................................65
4.0 Primary Research......................................................................................................66
4.1 Chapter introduction................................................................................................66
4.2 Motivation for Yorkshire and Humber Region.......................................................67
4.3 How much have Yorkshire and Humber spent?......................................................68
4.4 Pre-Olympic Camps.................................................................................................69
4.5 Damage Limitation..................................................................................................71
4.6 Examples of benefits of previous Olympic Games.................................................72
4.7 Existing Examples of benefits.................................................................................73
4.8 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................75
5.0 Discussions..................................................................................................................77
5.1 Yorkshire and Humber do nothing scenario............................................................77
5.2 Negative impact.......................................................................................................79
5.3 Potential net benefits to Yorkshire and Humbers economy through intervention...81
5.4 Piggybacking London’s success..............................................................................82
5.5 Tourism as a positive or negative to Yorkshire and Humber..................................83
6.0 Recommendations......................................................................................................84
6.1 Business and Tourism recommendations................................................................84
6.2.1 Tourism recommendations...............................................................................85
6.2.2 Business recommendations...............................................................................86
7.0 References...................................................................................................................88
8.0 Bibliography...............................................................................................................98
List of Appendices...........................................................................................................108
2
Understanding the Olympic and Paralympic Games: What can Yorkshire and
Humber expect from London’s Hosting of the 2012 Games?
1.0 Introduction
1.1 London winning the right to host the Games
Nine cities were in the bidding process to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games,
on the 6th of July 2005, London won the vote and the right to host the Games ahead of
Paris with 54 votes to 50. The British Olympic Association began the bidding process in
1997, producing the first report shown to ministers in 2000.
The British decision to use London as the host city came after successive failed bids with
Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000. The majority of events are due to
take place in Stratford, Newham, with a huge plan in place to regenerate areas of East
London. The London bid file outlines the exact dates of the 2012 Olympic Games to
begin on 27th July 2012 and finish on 12th August 2012.
1.2 Economic history of the Games
Cities from around the world are increasingly choosing sport and the recent phenomena
of hosting high profile sports events as a potential growth strategy and a means to achieve
strategic corporate objectives (Bunce, 1995). Expectations of creating a financial surplus
are placed on the organising committee, with the expectation to develop the infrastructure
3
and image of the country placed on the politicians who were responsible for bidding for
the Olympic Games.
The first of the modern day Olympic Games opened in April 1896, where 300 athletes
competed in ten events representing thirteen countries in Athens, Greece. The Olympic
Games have continually developed to become the biggest and most peaceful multi-sport
event in the world. It is however since the Munich Games of 1972 that the Olympics have
experienced the greatest changes. The economic interest of host countries has become
prevalent in public debate, with the Olympics offering the host nation an opportunity to
become the centre of global interest.
‘The increased economic performance of Games Organisers, as well as the increased
economic impact of the Games is due to a larger market, particularly for television rights
to the Games, but also because the higher costs of the Games with larger competitor
numbers and higher expectations of the quality of Olympic venues has meant that
organising committees have had to justify these costs and therefore have been driven to
increase revenues and economic impacts’ Blake (2005)
1.3 The Yorkshire and Humber Region
Yorkshire and Humber has a population of over five million people, which makes it
larger than over eighty of the world’s countries, including New Zealand and Norway.
Yorkshire and Humber ranks alongside the top third of the worlds economies, with a total
4
GDP of £66bn. The Yorkshire and Humber Region’s proximity is approximately 200
miles from the proposed Olympic Village. Transport links to central London are very
good, with Trains from Leeds and York as fast as one hour fifty five minutes and the M1
motorway creating a direct link between the two areas.
Yorkshire has a long and proud sporting tradition, and the region has benefited from
significant investment in venues and facilities during recent years. Prior to the Olympic
bid a sporting facilities audit was carried out on the Yorkshire and Humber region by
Yorkshire Forward. The audit discovered that that the combined resources across the
region could already meet the needs of world class athletes in almost 75% of the 38
Olympic disciplines, and 80% of the 20 Paralympic disciplines.
1.4 Yorkshire and Humber’s involvement in London 2012
Yorkshire and Humbers regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, were the first
regional development agency ‘out of the blocks’ to produce an Olympic bid support
document. The document outlines what Yorkshire and Humber has to offer in support of
the 2012 Games. The document describes the 2012 Games as a ‘focus for promoting the
Yorkshire and Humber region to the world’. Terry Hodgkinson, Chair of Yorkshire
Forward says ‘I am proud to support the London 2012 and welcome the opportunity the
Olympic bid has brought to the region’.
5
Martin Havenhand, former Chief executive of Yorkshire Forward, illustrates Yorkshire
Forwards motivation to back the 2012 bid in an article entitled ‘A bid to benefit the
regions (2004)’. Havenhand (2004) states that ‘While Queensland had more national
training camps than any other, the other Australian states didn’t do badly either. New
South Wales hosted 36 nations; South Australia 20 nations; Western Australia seven
nations; Victoria two nations; and Tasmania one nation. This is the logic behind
Yorkshire Forward backing the London 2012 Olympic Bid. We see a huge economic
prize in our reach; it is offering an opportunity and challenge not just for London, but for
Yorkshire and Humber and for every region in the UK. It’s a prize we cannot afford to
miss. In Yorkshire and Humber, we see an opportunity for real economic development
and benefits to the region, and we intend to capitalise on these by engaging the best
people, best structures, and best partnerships, both at home and abroad.’
This is reinforced by Leeds Culture (2005) stating that, ‘By engaging with London 2012
now, the region can expect to share in the economic and social boost the Games will
bring to the whole of the Yorkshire and Humbers support of the 2012 bidding process has
been reciprocated by the Local Olympic Organising Committee (LOCOG), with
Yorkshire and Humber the only region outside of London being visited by Lord
Sebastian Coe on the 2012 promotional tour in 2006.
6
1.5 Why research this region?
The regional economic strategy (RES) 2006-2015, states that ‘The 2012 Olympics in
London will be more than a festival of sport. It will bring major benefits to the nation and
to regions. Further knock on impacts may affect distribution of infrastructure investment
and construction capacity and this needs to be closely monitored’
The Yorkshire and Humber region was very enthusiastic about backing the 2012 Olympic
Games bid and remains firmly behind the 2012 Games. However with very little research
into the potential benefits of the Games to the region, it is necessary to conduct research
in order to understand what Yorkshire and Humber’s economy can expect from the 2012
Games. May (2005) states that ‘there has been very little research into the benefits and
problems of mega events.’
1.6 Aim
To understand the affects of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, with particular
focus on what aspects of the Yorkshire and Humber economy may be affected.
7
1.7 Terms of reference
 To realise the potential 2012 Games opportunity to the UK economy
 To understand what aspects of the Yorkshire and Humber economy may be
affected by the 2012 Games
 To understand what would happen should Yorkshire and Humber not invest in the
2012 Games
 To realise the potential net benefits of the 2012 Games, based upon past Games
and predictions
 To provide recommendations based on evidence, as to how Yorkshire and
Humber can maximise opportunities resulting from the 2012 Games.
8
2.0 Literature Review
This section of the dissertation identifies published work relating to the area surrounding
the research question, with the purpose of identifying theory behind the impact on non
host cities before, during and after major sporting events.
2.1 Assessing major sporting events
Sporting events can be described as major by virtue of their size in terms of; their
attendance, target market, level of public financial involvement, political effects, extent
of TV coverage, construction of facilities and impact on the economic and social fabric of
the host community (Hall, 1992). The Olympics certainly constitutes the title of a ‘major
sporting event’, having continually developed to become the largest and most peaceful
multi-sport event in the world.
Chalkey and Essex (1999), describe how; ‘Mega sporting events are used as catalysts of
change and development at local and national level as a key instrument of development
policies’. One of the key development policies of any regional or national government is
economic growth. Dodouras & James, (2004) reinforce the economic benefit of hosting
mega events stating that ‘Mega-sport events have a wide range of effects; i.e. economic,
political, commercial, physical, socio-cultural and psychological’.
9
Kirkpatrick and Hume (2005) describe impact assessments as ‘the process of identifying
the anticipated or actual impacts of a development intervention, on those social,
economic and environmental factors which the intervention is designed to affect or may
inadvertently affect’.
2.1.1 Economic assessment of major events
In order to understand how the Yorkshire and Humber economy may or may not benefit
from London hosting the 2012 Olympic Games, it is necessary to realise what is meant
by economic impact.
Economic impacts, and usually the positive ones, clearly receive the greatest attention by
those concerned with evaluating the costs and benefits associated with a particular event
(Ritchie and Lyons, 1987)
SQW Consultancy (2005) describes economic assessments as studies that ‘assess the way
in which an initiative or policy, an event or series of activities affects the local or regional
economy. Such research may be conducted as part of an appraisal of options (before a
decision is made), or after a project has been implemented’.
UK Sport (2005) defines the economic impact of a major event as; ‘The total amount of
additional expenditure generated within a host nation that can be directly or indirectly
10
attributed to the staging of a major sporting event’. This figure factors in money spent on
hosting the major event and money that is retained within the host nation.
However Armstrong and Taylor, (1993) disagree stating that; ‘The evaluation of the
impacts of any mega-sporting event is a complex and difficult task and it involves far
more than simply estimating its potential revenue and expenditure, other parameters such
as the number of jobs created have to be factored in’. Hayes (2001) points out that
although the Atlanta Games presented profits in its budget, there were no real long term
benefits to the city after the Games, thus deeming the Games unsuccessful.
Bowdin et al (2006) point out that ‘When looking at the economic impacts of major
events it is important to realise events have a range of impacts both positive and
negative’. This study focuses on the economic factors of hosting a major event, with
figure 2.0 highlighting the potential economic factors.
Figure 2.0 (Adapted from Hall 1989)
Positive
Negative
 Destination promotion and increased
tourist visits.  Opportunity Cost
 Higher Yield  Inflated prices
 Increased Tax revenue  Exploitation
 Business Opportunities  Community resistance to tourism
 Commercial Activity  Financial loss
 Job Creation  Financial management
11
Effects on economies hosting major sporting events are realised not just in the year of
hosting the event, but also the years before and after the event. Blake (2005) highlights
the importance of ‘Analysing the full impact of hosting the 2012 Games (in terms of both
benefits and costs) as possible’. Blake discusses that the impacts should be grouped into
three categories: pre-Games, during-Games and post-Games:
The pre-Games impact takes into account;
 The construction phase (Olympic village, facilities etc)
 Other pre-Games costs (Security, advertising/promotion etc)
 Visitor impacts in the run up to the Games (pre Games tourisms)
The during-Games impact consists of;
 Revenues from staging the Games (Merchandise, increased spending etc)
 During-Games visitor impact (Tourists, spectators etc)
 Cost of staging the Games (Staff, security etc)
The post-Games impact;
 Legacy visitor impacts (repeat tourism due to Games)
 Legacy infrastructure impacts (fixed assets such as stadiums)
As previously discussed by Armstrong and Taylor (1993), an increase in income and
costs to an economy (Primary impact) are not the only factors that will effect an
12
economy. When looking at the economic impacts of a major event, Bowdin et al (2006)
points out three clear areas that need to be addressed (secondary impacts); The effects of
tourism, Business opportunities, Commercial activities and Employment creation.
2.2.1 Tourism
Tourism can be a catalyst to stimulate investment, revitalise deprived areas and
encourage growth in other employment sectors. The Olympics and other major sporting
events can develop high profiles for host cities and are claimed to be good for attracting
future tourists long after the event has been staged (Masterman 2003, p. 460). Price
Waterhouse Cooper, responsible for the feasibility study of the 2012 Games pre-bid,
states that tourism is the only sector that can benefit from the Olympics during all three
stages, pre, during and post Olympics.
This section of the report will focus on a variety of aspects of Olympic tourism that will
affect the UK economy. Preuss (2004) illustrates three important aspects of Olympic
Tourism;
 The spectators in the stadium create the atmosphere that the television audience
notice unconsciously and that also make the Olympics one of the sport events
most highly sort after. This aspect is important to attract television audiences and
high television rates which increase the revenues from selling the television
rights.
13
 Foreign tourists create a significant part of the economic impact during the
Games. Based on hotel capacity, accessibility and availability of tickets the
number of tourists is different from Games to Games. The more foreign tourists
that visit the country, the bigger the economic impact.
 When tourists return home from the Games, stories about their experiences trigger
off a multiplying effect of visitors by changing the perception of friends and
relatives about the host city and country in general. That may motivate them to
visit the country and increase post-Games tourism.
Preuss (2004) illustrates that although tourism can generate direct income to an economy,
tourism is a major factor in generating legacy effects of the Olympic Games. Carlsen and
Williams (1997) reinforce this stating that the long term benefits to tourism from
increased awareness and enhanced tourism image are far more significant than the short
term effects from the event itself.
2.2.2 How will tourism affect the UK economy?
Hanson (2007) of Visit London states that “Tourism is of huge, and often underestimated
value to the economy; in London alone it supports 280,000 jobs, and annual visitor spend
is at the £15 billion mark - 10% of London’s GDP. It will be responsible for the majority
of economic benefit to the nation following the Games. As London’s tourism industry is
14
more developed than many previous Olympic cities, the 2012 Games give the capital a
chance to reach a broader audience than almost any other host city”.
The economic impact to the UK economy of the 2012 Olympic Games is dependent on
the number of foreign tourists, because they bring new money into the economy.
Krajasits (1995) states that the total number of tourists heavily depends on the
attractiveness of the region and other conditions such as the political and economical
situation. As Hanson (2007) points out London’s tourism industry is more developed that
many previous Olympic cities, and therefore has the capacity to cope with potential high
demands. Roaf et al. (1996) points out that ‘it is difficult to predict tourist figures’,
however three different reports published show a varying degree of the impact of the
2012 Games on tourism; VisitBritain (2004) predict at least £2 billion for the visitor
economy, the Department for Culture Media and Sport (2007) identify a slightly less
amount, indicating a benefit to the UK tourism sector of between £1.4 billion and £2
billion and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2005) highlight that the expected impact on
tourism, expressed as an overall change in Gross Value Added over the period 2005-
2016, was a lower figure: £762 million across the UK
A report commissioned by the ETOA (European Tour Operators Association, 2006)
entitled ‘Olympic Report’, generates debate as to whether the 2012 Games will in fact
benefit the UK tourism industry. The report focuses on ‘the reality that the audiences
cited for such events as the Olympics are exaggerated’. This point is reinforced by Preuss
(2004) who states that ‘It must be assumed that most figures in pre-Olympic forecasts are
15
over estimated. The true number of foreign visitors to the Olympic Games is probably
only between 400,000 and 800,000’. This can be demonstrated using the Sydney Games
as an example, where Sydney had expected 487,000 visitors of which 132,000 were
expected to be Olympic specific, and in reality only 53,000 overseas visitors arrived
above the average (Australian Bureau of statistics, 1999-200).
The ETOA report highlights the issue of displacement of tourists stating that the arrival
of Olympic Tourists, Athletes and Officials effectively ‘scares off’ normal tourists.
Regular tourists assume the congestion and increased prices are a feature of mega events.
The ETOA report highlights the anecdotal evidence of tourists being scared off through
evidence of the Atlanta Games in 1996. Owen (2005) illustrates that in 1996 hotel
occupancy in Georgia fell from 72.9% in 1995 to 68% in 1996 despite the Olympics.
French et al (1997) states that ‘many hotels and restaurants reported significantly lower
than normal sales volume… Even shops in areas up to 150 miles away reported slower
than normal business during the summer of 1996’.
This point is extended highlighting the significantly different spending patterns of
Olympic tourists. Blake (2005) states that ‘Olympic visitors are not interested in tourism
they are interested in sport. They tend to spend money on leisure and entertainment, and
when not at the stadia they watch events on the TV rather than engaging in other
activities’.
16
2.2.2 Previous Games:
When attempting to understand the potential impact of tourism in the UK due to the 2012
Games, it is necessary to reflect on some of the previous Olympic Games to gain an
understanding.
Barcelona 1992:
Barcelona is the best example of modern day Olympic cities where the legacy of the
Olympics has been positive. Figures by Visit Britain (2004) show that the Olympic
Games in 1992 generated an estimated $16.6bn for the Spanish economy, between the
years of 1986-1993. Prior to the Olympic Games in 1992, tourism accounted for only 1-
2% of Barcelona’s GDP, now the post Olympic GDP is represented by 12% generated
through tourism. Papanikos (1999) comments that ‘the fact that many consider the
Olympic Games of 1992 as being a catalyst that changed the tourism prospects of the city
is justifiable and demonstrates the important impact Olympic Games can have on
tourism’.
17
Sydney 2000:
The Sydney Olympic Games of 2000, are said to have generated over $4.5bn in tourism
export earnings between 1997 and 2004 (Tourism Forecasting Council, 1998). The events
of September 11th have made studies into legacy impacts hard to be proven, as there was
a world wide recession which impacted significantly on the tourism industry. Sydney saw
visitor numbers for 2000 as a whole up by 11% on 1999 and 1.6 million Olympic
motivated visitors over 1997-2004, spending US $3.5 billion (Australia Tourism
Commission, 2002). When assessing the London legacy, unforeseen impacts need to be
realised as they can result in a substantially less than predicted forecasts.
Athens 2004:
Prior to the 2004 Games in Athens Papanikos (1999) estimated that over the fourteen
year period; before, during and after the Games, the Greek economy would benefit by
$10.6bn due to tourism in Athens. Papanikos (1999) also estimated that during the
Olympic year GDP would rise by 1.4 per cent due to Olympic tourism. According to the
culture minister in charge of Athens 2004, ‘Visitors to Greece were up by 13 percent in
2005.
18
2.2.3 Mega events in UK:
Although the UK has not hosted the Olympics for over 80 years, it is possible to reflect
back on other mega events that have been hosted within the UK;
Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games:
1 million people visited Manchester in the Games period; these visitors brought £29
million into the local economy during the Games year. Inbound visitor numbers to the
city increased from 550,000 in 2001 to 590,000 in 2002 and 740,000 in 2003. Hotel
occupancy increased by 6% in 2002 and revenue per room by 17.5%. (ETOA, Ensuring
tourism is the winner 2005)
Euro 1996 Football Tournament:
Euro ’96 attracted over 280,000 overseas visitors, providing the eight host cities with a
cash injection of around £120 million (ETOA, Ensuring tourism is the winner 2005).
19
2.2.4 Summary of Tourism impact on the UK:
Having studied a variety of sources it can be concluded that there is considerable
uncertainty surrounding the impact of the 2012 Games on tourism. VisitBritain (2005)
calculates that there is a potential benefit ‘of at least £2 billion for the visitor economy
from overseas visitors, plus an even greater benefit to the domestic visitor economy’. The
department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) identify a slightly less amount,
indicating a benefit to the UK tourism sector of between £1.4 billion and £2 billion. An
Olympic Games Impact Study commissioned by DCMS (2005) from
PriceWaterhouseCoopers report that the expected impact on tourism, expressed as an
overall change in Gross Value Added over the period 2005-2016, was a lower figure:
£762 million across UK, £146 million of which would occur during the events
themselves.
The official estimate is that London is expected to achieve a permanent tourism effect of
an additional 2% and 3% in international tourism arrivals over the 2006-2011 and 2012-
16 period respectively. There is also an upside to this estimate with the legacy impact
rising to 8% in the high scenario (Department for Culture Media and Sport).
Preuss (2004) states that ‘It must be assumed that most figures in pre-Olympic forecasts
are over estimated. The true number of foreign visitors to the Olympic Games is probably
only between 400,000 and 800,000’. It has to be assumed that the projected financial
20
benefits to the UK are over estimated, as this has been the case in the majority of
previous Games studied.
Evidence shows that there is a need to be cautious as to the degree in which tourism will
benefit the UK economy. Previous Olympic Games have highlighted displacement of
‘normal tourists’ by that of Olympic tourists. The Atlanta Games demonstrate this
negative impact with French et al (1997) stating that ‘many hotels and restaurants
reported significantly lower than normal sales volume… Even shops in areas up to 150
miles away reported slower than normal business during the summer of 1996’
Major events held in the UK in the past few years include the Commonwealth Games and
the European football championships. Both of these events generated a net positive gain
in tourism with the Commonwealth Games generating a £29 million cash injection and
the European football Championships generating a £120 million positive impact through
tourism (ETOA, Ensuring tourism is the winner 2005).
21
2.2.5 How will tourism affect Yorkshire and Humber?
Yorkshire and Humber Tourism:
Tourism is critical to the success of the urban and rural economies of Yorkshire and the
Humber. It is estimated that the region’s tourism sector is worth over £4 billion each
year, and accounts for approximately ten per cent of the region’s total employment.
(Yorkshire Tourist Board, 2005).
The tourism sector in Yorkshire and Humber is diverse, ranging from relatively un-
developed areas to internationally-renowned tourist and day visitor destinations, holiday
and business destinations, and rural and urban destinations. The important role of tourism
within the economy of the region was highlighted clearly during the foot and mouth crisis
in 2001, when visitor levels declined considerably on previous year levels. (Yorkshire
Futures, 2002)
Figure 2.2.5 highlights Yorkshire and Humbers performance in comparison to other
region with regards to foreign tourism; it highlights that only Northumbria and Cumbria
attracted fewer foreign tourist visits in 2000. Yorkshire and Humbers market share of
overseas tourism spending is particularly small. In 2000, Yorkshire and Humber only
captured 2.3 per cent of total overseas tourism spending in England. (Yorkshire Futures,
2002). With the range and quality of tourism product in Yorkshire and Humber, there
appears to be significant potential to improve the region’s market position
22
Figure 2.2.5
Volume and Value of Foreign Tourism, by English Tourist Board Region, 2000
(Ranked by No. of Trips)
Source: English Tourism Council (2002)

Tourist Board No. of % of No. of % of Total Total % of
Region Trips (m) Total Nights Nights Spend (£ Total
Trips (m) m) Spend
London 31.65 16.2% 124.5 20.6% 9,972 32.6%
South West 20.23 12.3% 88.6 14.7% 3,676 12.0%
Southern 16.81 10.2% 64.3 10.7% 2,827 9.3%
England
North West 16.12 9.8% 50.3 8.3% 2,423 7.9%
East of England 15.00 9.1% 54.6 9.1% 2,218 7.3%
South East 14.24 8.6% 54.3 9.0% 2,195 7.2%
England
Yorkshire 14.02 8.5% 48.6 8.1% 1,950 6.4%
Northumbria 6.04 3.7% 20.5 3.4% 907 3.0%
Cumbria 5.22 3.2% 17.8 3.0% 822 2.7%
Total 165.01 100% 603.1 100% 30,553 100%
2.2.6 Sport in Yorkshire and Humbers Economy:
41,700 people are employed in sports-related activities in the Yorkshire and Humber
region which makes up 2% of all employment in the region. This figure is higher than the
proportion for England as a whole which is 1.75%. 19,600 of these jobs are in the
Commercial Non-Sport sector 13,700 people are employed in Commercial Sport,
including 5,600 in spectator sport, 3,600 in participation sports, 2,700 in retailing and just
500 in sports-related manufacturing. (The Value of the Sports Economy in the Regions,
2003)
23
Sport generates £2.5bn in annual turnover and £940m in annual value-added in Yorkshire
and Humber, this accounts for about 1.5% of the region’s economy. Sport generates
£571m in annual household incomes, mainly in Commercial Sport and Commercial Non-
Sport. (The Value of the Sports Economy in the Regions, 2003)
2.2.7 Olympic Generated Tourism:
Tourism is highlighted in the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Economic Strategy (RES)
2006, which states ‘the London Olympics in 2012 will provide opportunities for this
region in tourism, construction, sports development and training camps’.
The large number of international visitors to the Games presents a key opportunity to
lever long-term growth in international tourism for Yorkshire and Humber.
The 2012 Olympic Games will bring together a huge number of participants and even
more people in their support teams. The Games will attract an abundance of spectators,
tourists and volunteers from all over the world, with many more spectators watching via
television.
The economic and social benefits to host cities from hosting the Games have been well
researched. However, most studies of major sporting events concentrate on the benefits to
the host city, rather than the surrounding regions. A key reason for this may be that
events have had very specific and local regeneration mandates (e.g. Barcelona), with no
24
broader geographical development objectives. (East of England Development Agency,
Economic impact assessment of 2012 Games, 2006)
There is little evidence of the economic impact to non-host regions from previous
Olympic Games; however the Sydney Games demonstrate some benefits to non-host
regions. For instance, regional New South Wales experienced some business and tourism
benefits from the Sydney Games. In order to identify the potential benefits learned from
previous Olympic Games, Yorkshire Forward, the regions regional development agency
has teamed up with Queensland in Australia to realise the impact of the 2000 Games on
that region. Yorkshire Forward has commissioned a piece of joint research activity with
Queensland’s Gold Coast City Council to asses the economic impact of the 2000 Sydney
Olympic Games on the Gold Coast. (Yorkshire Forward, 2007).
The Games will undoubtedly influence the region in a range of tourism matters.
Yorkshire Forward estimates an additional economic benefit to the region of £600
million. This is based on projected figures of 2,500 extra overseas athletes and officials
being based in Yorkshire for pre-Olympic preparation and training camps (London 2012
Olympics, Leeds City Council 2007). Using figures from the regions only other
experience from hosting a large number of athletes, the World Student Games 1991; it is
possible to gain a clearer understanding of the potential tourism benefits to the region.
Foley (1991) produced a report entitled ‘A case study of the World Student Games and
Sheffield’, which highlights that ‘1700 athletes over two weeks of the student Games
25
would result in estimated visitor spend of between £3.4million and £4.3million,
depending on the multiplier used’. Visitor spend in 1991 of £4.3million, based on an
average rate of inflation of 1.5% equates to £5.2million in 2006. As Yorkshire Forward
predicts 2500 athletes to be based in the region, this equates to 147% of the 1700 that
attended the Student Games and spend by athletes alone can be estimated at £7.6m.
2.3 Business Opportunities
Major events can provide their host communities with a strong platform for showcasing
their expertise, hosting potential investors and promoting new business opportunities
(Bowdin et al. 2006).
26
The Department for Trade and Industry (2005) describe the 2012 Olympic Games as ‘a
unique opportunity for showcasing UK capability in new technologies such as low
emission vehicles, intelligent transport systems and low carbon energy technologies.’ The
DTI, through its innovation programmes, is working with LOCOG to develop a
technology vision for the Games.
The procurement phase of the 2012 Games is due to begin from the middle of 2007 up to
and beyond 2012. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Organising
Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) are the organisations responsible for
awarding contracts to successful businesses.
2.3.1 How will Business Opportunities affect the UK economy?
The 2012 Games are a massive project and offer a unique opportunity for UK businesses
either directly as contractors, as part of the supply chain or indirectly by benefiting from
the overall boost to the UK Economy. According to Ellis (2006) ‘Capital expenditure for
London 2012 is expected to total £9.9 billion. The majority of this sum (72%) is allocated
for improving transport infrastructure. Expenditure on Olympic facilities will total £2.7
billion. In addition, it is estimated that the Games will boost the rate of economic growth
in London by an average of 0.5% per annum.
27
According to the East of England development Agency (2006) ‘procurement and
business opportunities from the 2012 Games for the whole of London and the UK are
estimated to be valued at over £3.8 billion’.
The Prime Minister said: "The economic benefits are clear. An Olympic Games hosted in
London would create significant opportunities for companies up and down the UK in
sectors as diverse as construction, tourism, merchandise, catering, design and IT.
Sandra Nori (2005), a Minister with the NSW Government in Australia which financed
the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, states ‘The contracts and procurement opportunities
for UK companies are enormous, the experience from Sydney showed that New South
Wales business won the equivalent of £400million in contracts for the Games, over
£115million from regional companies with 55,000 people receiving employment related
training. And Queensland businesses won the equivalent of £150million worth of
Olympic Games related business.’
2.3.2 How will Business Opportunities affect the Yorkshire and Humber?
Yorkshire and Humber has a strong economy with Gross Value Added (GVA) increasing
to £14,928 per head in 2007 – which is a considerable 5% rise on the previous year. This
28
5% rise mirrors that of the national average, with Yorkshire and Humber’s GVA per head
87% of the England average (Government Office, 2007).
Yorkshire and Humber business VAT registrations in 2004 averaged 32 per 10,000
resident adults compared to a UK rate of 39. There were 131,390 businesses registered
for VAT in Yorkshire and the Humber at the start of 2005 – an increase of 1,745 over the
previous year. This represented 7.2% of VAT registered businesses in the UK and 8.4%
of the England total (Government Office, 2007).
Business Survival Rates in Yorkshire and Humber indicates that 69.8% of businesses
now survive at least 3 years. This is 2.4% percentage points above baseline, and more
significantly, has now risen from below the England average (68.8%) to above it
(Government Office, 2007).
Modeling by Blake (2005) points to the potential for a negative impact on the region's
GVA from the 2012 Games. A key issue is a drain of activity from the region to London,
with less activity taking place in the region.
Businesses in the Yorkshire and Humber will potentially be able to benefit from
procurement and business opportunities emanating from the London Games.
The largest procurement opportunities will be offered in the area of construction. It is
estimated by constructionSkills and SummitSkills that the construction of the 2012
29
Games will involve £2.8 billion of work (constructionSkills 2005). This includes the
construction of the venues at Stratford for the 2012 Games, as well as the refitting after
the event for their legacy uses.
In addition, there will be direct business opportunities for firms offering goods and
services to tourists attending the Games. Such opportunities include catering, transport,
accommodation and retail. There will also be opportunities to businesses training people
in Olympic related skills, including vocational training providers and universities (EEDA,
2006)
Terry Hodgkinson, Chair, Yorkshire Forward (the Yorkshire & Humber Development
Agency) said: "There is everything to play for. By preparing now, everyone wins. In
Yorkshire and the Humber over the last twelve months our focus on the Bid has already
led to a number of benefits. These include new partnerships, a greater understanding of
the possibilities such major events hold, and a more strategic approach to being ready to
grasp those opportunities. These are benefits that are unrelated to hosting the Olympic
Games but have been inspired by our bid for them."
The exact size of the opportunities for each industry is uncertain, with procurement for
the Games at an early stage. Nevertheless, it appears to be clear that the largest
procurement opportunities in economic terms will be in the construction industry. The
greatest overall business opportunities are likely to be in the tourism industry through
hosting teams in pre-Olympic training camps.
30
2.4 Job Creation
Preuss (2004) highlights that ‘the overall economic effect of the Olympic Games have on
a host city can be expressed not only by the increased income but also by the employment
generated by the Olympics.’ This section of the report attempts to highlight through
published texts the effect of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games will have on
employment and subsequently on the economy. The issue is the extent to which hosting
the Olympic Games generates employment and how long it is sustained.
Bowdin et al (2004) points out that ‘by stimulating activity in the economy, expenditure
on events can have a positive effect on employment’. However Faulkner (1993)
highlights that ‘It is easy to over estimate the number of jobs created by major events in
the short term, because demand for additional services is short lived’.
The Olympics have the potential to create higher labour costs in various sectors through
employment opportunities. KPMG Peat Marwick (1993) investigated the labour market
for the Sydney 2000 Games and discovered that bottlenecks might appear in some
professions (for example, physiotherapists), pointing out that if a sector experiences an
economic boom, higher labour costs are likely to be the consequence. Preuss (2004)
indicates that the Munich Games of 1972 led to bottlenecks in the Schleswig-Holstein
labour market, which caused high labour costs.
31
The Olympic Games has the potential to create an opportunity cost in the labour market,
with the Games creating an opportunity that may draw labour away from other markets
into those associated with the Games. Braun (1984) however states that ‘all new Games-
related jobs are directly or indirectly filled by unemployed people’. He assumes that at
the end of each job rotation chain an unemployed person will be employed (Braun, 1984).
Braun (1984) believes that ‘the employment of unemployed persons even increases the
gross national product through the additionally produced goods and, thus, has a positive
effect’. Plath (1973) counteracts this argument stating that ‘the payment of
unemployment relief is a mere financial state transfer affecting the welfare criterion not
in an allocative but in a distributive manner’.
2.4.1 Employment generated by the 2012 Games:
Official estimates come in the form of a report commissioned by the Learning and Skills
Council (LSC) entitled ‘Employment and skills for the 2012 Games (2006)’ estimating
that the Games will generate:
32
• 60,000 person years of employment in construction;
 around 5,000 person years of employment in construction, each year between
now and 2012, equating to 35,500 person years of construction employment in
total;
 Around 11,000 additional person years of construction and other employment
due to the multiplier effect;
 A further 15,000 person years of construction employment after the Games due
to the planned legacy work;
• 30,000 jobs in staging the Games;
 Around 3,000 staff employed directly by LOCOG;
 Around 27,000 temporary staff contracted by LOCOG;
• 6,700 jobs in showcasing London;
 Around 6,700 service jobs in retail, hotels and restaurants, transport and
entertainment.
The LSC highlight the difference between ‘person years of employment’ and ‘jobs’ – a
person-year is the equivalent of one person employed for a full year.
2.4.2 Previous Games:
The report commissioned by the LSC (2006) states that; ‘In general, the literature on
recent Games reports that they have had some positive economic impacts on their host
cities, such as an enhancing international reputation, galvanizing infrastructure
33
improvements and boosting employment. However, some literature also highlights
negative impacts, such as crowding out and displacement of other investment. The
amount of new jobs attributed to Games ranges widely, from 6,300 in Manchester to
77,000 in Atlanta to 445,000 in Athens. Determining why these employment figures
differ so greatly is difficult due to the incompatibility of methods used to estimate the
numbers in the first place.’
The figure 2.4.2 below highlights the average duration of employment and the effect in
percentage the 1996 and 1984 Games had on employment in the host regions. It can be
established that the Tourism sector was the only sector to benefit significantly in the long
term, with other sectors either not benefiting at all, or having short term effects.
Figure 2.4.2
Sector Average duration of job Atlanta 1996 Overall LA 1984

Primary
Effect in % effect in %
Service Short-term 35 35
Tourism Long/Medium-term 18 41
Trade Short-term 11 3
34
Administration Medium/Short-term 10 0
Building Sector Medium-term 4 8
Security Short-term 3 0
Transport Long-term 3 0
Organisation Medium/Short-term 1 0
Leisure Long-term 1 0
Telecoms Long-term 1 0
Others 13 13
(Source: Preuss 2004)
The 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games was estimated to have generated 6100 jobs,
of which 2400 are additional jobs in Manchester (Cambridge Policy Consultants, 2002).
From this figure it is possible to state that 3700 jobs were generated outside of
Manchester.
2.4.3 Yorkshire and Humber:
41,700 people are employed in sports-related activities in the Yorkshire and Humber
region which makes up 2% of all employment in the region. This figure is higher than the
proportion for England as a whole which is 1.75%. 19,600 of these jobs are in the
Commercial Non-Sport sector 13,700 people are employed in Commercial Sport,
including 5,600 in spectator sport, 3,600 in participation sports, 2,700 in retailing and just
500 in sports-related manufacturing. (The Value of the Sports Economy in the Regions,
2003)
35
Sport therefore makes a contribution to the regions economy, although slightly lower
than the average for England as a whole. A substantial proportion of this relates to the
sale of sports goods and sport related products. The softer economic benefits of sport
(quality of life, social interaction, improved health and fitness etc.) are not as easily
quantified in financial terms. (EEDA 2006)
However new employment and business opportunities in London are likely to increase
net commuting out of the Yorkshire and Humber region, temporary and/or permanent
regional migration and business relocation.
Some sectors may experience declines as resources are diverted away from their sectors.
Sectors that experience declines (manufacturing) do so because they gain little or no
direct benefit from construction activities or the tourism legacy effect but compete for
similar labour (and therefore have to pay higher wage rates than they would otherwise
do). (EEDA 2006)
2.4.4 Summary of employment
Preuss (2004) highlights that ‘it must be kept in mind that even short term employment is
beneficial to an economy’.
36
The LSC (2006) point out that; ‘in general, the literature on recent Games reports that
they have had some positive economic impacts on their host cities, such as an enhancing
international reputation, galvanizing infrastructure improvements and boosting
employment. However, some literature also highlights negative impacts, such as
crowding out and displacement of other investment’.
There is no literature to suggest that employment opportunities in Yorkshire and Humber
will be directly affected by the 2012 Games, however there are opportunities that could
arise resulting in enhanced employment opportunities in the region. If for example
Yorkshire firms win business contracts for the 2012 Games, it could result in jobs in the
region to work on the contracts. Also should the Yorkshire and Humber region be
successful in hosting training camps prior to the Games, employment opportunities will
arise.
It has to be noted that hosting the 2012 Games could bring about negative affects for the
Yorkshire and Humber region. As new employment and business opportunities in
London are likely to increase net commuting out of the Yorkshire and Humber region,
temporary and/or permanent regional migration and business relocation. A report by
EEDA (2006) also illustrates the potential for; ‘Some sectors to experience declines as
resources are diverted away from their sectors. Sectors that experience declines
(manufacturing) do so because they gain little or no direct benefit from construction
activities or the tourism legacy effect but compete for similar labour (and therefore have
to pay higher wage rates than they would otherwise do)’.
37
Official figures however highlight the Olympic Games will generate; 60,000 person years
of employment in construction, 30,000 jobs in staging the Games and 6,700 jobs in
showcasing London (LSC 2006).
2.5 Costs of hosting the Olympics:
‘Mega-events’ such as the Olympic Games require large sums of public money to be
spent on improving venues and infrastructure. It is important to understand how the 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games are to be financed, and realise the estimated cost to the
38
UK economy. This section of the report highlights studies into the costs of hosting
Mega-events, with the aim of realising the pottential risk that the Olympics could bring to
both the UK and Yorkshire and Humber economy.
2.5.1 Overview of estimated costs of the 2012 Games:
The budget for ‘running’ the 2012 Games outlined in the candidature file was £1.5bn,
which with inflation is now regarded as being £2bn (London Candidate File, 2004).
LOCOG state that ‘It is absolutely our expectation to be able to contain the budget’
(London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: funding and legacy, 2007).
The costs of running the 2012 Games are broken down in the following table (Figure
2.5.1) taken from the London Candidate File (2004):
Figure 2.5.1
Figures in Candidature File
(Expressed in 2004 prices) Percentage of budget
39
Sports venues £261 million 17%
Information systems £204 million 13%
Games workforce £117 million 8%
Ceremonies and culture £57 million 3%
Transport £124 million 8%
Paralympic Games £90 million 6%
Administration £159 million 10%
Contingency £66 million 4%
Remaining costs £460 million 31%
The cost to the UK economy comes in the form of the finances that are required to pay
for the 2012 Games and infrastructure. The London Candidate File highlights where the
£2bn is to come from in figure 2.5.2:
Figure 2.5.2
2004 Sums Percentage of overall revenue

International Olympic
Commission contribution
& worldwide sponsorship £562 million 36%
Local sponsorship £272 million 18%
Official suppliers £181 million 12%
40
Ticket sales £310 million 20%
Licensing £57 million 4%
Other £156 million 10%
The costs of ‘running’ the Games are separate to those for building the venues and
infrastructure, and redeveloping the land for the Olympic Park. The Games are privately
funded, the venues and Park costs are met largely by public money.
On 15 March 2007 Tessa Jowell announced a budget of £3.1bn to cover building the
venues and infrastructure for the 2012 Games. An additional contingency fund of £2.2bn,
security and policing costs of £600m, VAT of £800m and elite sport and Paralympic
funding of nearly £400m.These figures total £9.345 billion, resulting in the most
expensive Olympic Games ever (Cost of Olympics, BBC 2007).
According to LOCOG (2007), the funding for this budget breaks down as: 63% from
Central Government; 23% from National Lottery; and 13% from the Mayor of London
and the London Development Agency. It can therefore be established that the cost to the
UK economy breaks down to, extra Taxation (£1bn) and loss of Lottery good cause
donations to other projetcs (£2.2bn) (Nathan and Kornblatt, 2007)
41
Blake (2005) highlights the way in which the Olympic Games are financed as a concern
to the host nations Economy. Blake states that ‘debts are balanced against the acquisition
of infrastructure, there is no guarantee that the actual value of the infrastructure matches
the level of debts incurred, if for example the infrastructure includes press facilities and
miles of high-tech cables linking press centres with stadiums, much of which may not be
used again’
42
2.5.2 Risk of over estimation:
Jenkins (2006) illustrates how over estimating potential revenue and underestimating
costs from the Games can affect a host nations economy. Jenkins states that ‘Financial
risks associated with hosting the Games were demonstrated by Montréal 1976. Montréal
Mayor Jean Drapeau declared: ‘the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can
have a baby’. Montréal proceeded to incur a budget deficit of over $1 billion. Over the
past thirty years, staging costs have varied, but typically the final figures have far
outreached initial estimates. Total costs for Athens 2004 escalated from £3.2bn to
£6.3bn’.
Blake (2005) states that ‘Over optimistic pre-Games evaluations are criticised. This can
be in terms of the numbers of tourists that are expected because of the Games, their
average spend, an over optimistic assessment of the proportion of ticket sales purchased
by non-residents, or because the construction impacts are over estimated’.
Flyvbjerg (2005) reiterates this point stating that ‘Mega events like the Olympics are very
complex, and it is very hard to predict costs with 100 per cent accuracy. As such, budget
overruns of 50 per cent or more are common’.
43
2.5.3 Opportunity cost:
The economist (2007) defines opportunity cost as the ‘true cost of something as what you
give up to get it, this includes not only the money spent in buying (or doing) the
something, but also the economic benefits that you did without because you bought (or
did) that particular something and thus can no longer buy (or do) something else.’
Blake (2005) illustrates that ‘tax revenues are needed to pay for the Games, which means
that those required to pay higher taxes to finance the Games may lose out.’ In a study by
LSE (2005), it states a need for a rise in taxation, in order to fund the Olympics, therfore
every tax payer is subject to the oppurtunity cost of an expected amount of £22 pounds in
tax per year.
LOCOG state that 63% of the £9.345bn will come from central government, this reflects
£5.88bn coming from central government funds. This money that will be spent on the
2012 Olympics could be used for funding other projects such as health care or education,
reflecting a high opportunity cost of hosting the Olympics. Blake (2005) highlights ‘the
Games must be diverting public investment from other more worthwhile investment
projects, such as health and education’.
The National Lottery is a key funding partner for the LOCOG and will contribute 23% of
the funds required to host the 2012 Games (LOCOG, 2007). Blake (2005) reiterates that
‘Lottery funding is likely to be displaced from other good causes’. This is yet another
44
opportunity cost of hosting the 2012 Games, with UK residents set to ‘give up’ the
opportunity of other benefits in place of hosting the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games.
2.5.4 Displacement effects:
A potential cost to the UK economy is the effect of displacement in the economy. A
report by ETOA (2006) highlights the effect of displacement on an economy stating that
‘During the Olympics, a destination effectively closes for normal business. The
repercussions are felt before and after: both tourists and the tour operators that supply
them are scared off immediately before and during the events. This “absence” then
creates its own effect, as the normal conveyor belt of contented customers begetting new
arrivals has been broken.’
Blake (2005) picks up this point as a critique to hosting the Games stating ‘Tourists who
would normally arrive during the Games period are discouraged from visiting because of
the perception of high prices and congestion caused by hosting the Games, and for the
same reasons residents are encouraged to leave the host region for the duration of the
Games’.
As well as displacement of tourists there is also the potential for displacement of business
activity. Blake (2005) highlights that ‘activities are displaced as a consequence of the
45
Games, as businesses that are positively affected by the Games are able to pay higher
wages and take workers away from other activities’.
2.5.5 Opposition to London 2012
The London Olympic Organising Committee (2004), point out that at present ‘There is no
organised public opposition to hosting the Games in London, and the bid has strong
public support both in London and across the UK.’ In previous Years several Olympic
bids have been criticized by campaign groups such as ‘Bread not Circuses’, ‘Australia
Anti-Olympic Alliance’ and ‘Whistler Olympic Info’ (Preuss 2004).
The London School of Economics (LSE) carried out a piece of research to understand
whether Britain actually wanted the Olympic Games. The results showed that ‘annual
mean willingness to pay was £22, £12 and £11 (or £220, £120 and £110 over 10 years) in
London, Manchester and Glasgow respectively - implying that the UK as a whole would
be willing to pay roughly £2 billion’ (LSE, 2005). This £2 billion equates to that of the
original amount required for running the 2012 Games by LOCOG, and reflects
willingness by residents for the UK to host the 2012 Games.
46
2.6 Overall Impact of London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games
2.6.1 When will the impacts occur?
The impact on the economy over time is represented in figure 1.0 below, where Preuss
(2004) illustrates the potential extent of the net benefits occurring from the Olympic
Games, and when they are likely to happen.
Figure 2.6.1
(Source: Preuss 2004, page 38)
Figure 2.6.1 illustrates that in the past a strong single impact occurs during the Olympic
year, which is typical for any other major sporting event (Rahmann and Kurscheidt, 2002,
p. 185). Preuss (2004) however points out that this peak is not always as positive as
politicians like to point out, as in economies experiencing strong positions during the
47
Olympic year, crowding out effects are likely to occur. However if the economic
position is relatively poor, hosting a major event such as the Olympics would be wise, as
the peak will better the national economy.
The UK can expect this form of impact with a steady initial up until the Olympic year,
when a huge increase in spending will generate a large impact on the economy. When the
Olympics have finished there will be a decline at a similar rate to that of the rise prior to
the Olympics, followed by a period of around ten years of legacy.
During the pre-Olympic phase Blake (2005) believes that the UK economy will be
impacted by the construction phase (Olympic village, facilities etc), the pre-Games costs
(security, advertising and promotion) and the post-Games tourism impact. Blake (2005)
states that the UK will benefit during the Games from; the revenues from staging the
Games (merchandise, increased spending etc), Olympic Games visitor impact (Tourists,
spectators etc) and the costs of staging the Games (staff, security etc). Blake (2005)
discusses that the post-Games impact will be made up of the legacy visitor impacts
(repeat tourism due to Games).
2.6.2 The major impacts
The author has broken down the anticipated impacts of the 2012 Games into four
sections, Tourism, Business opportunity, Job creation and Costs.
48
2.6.2.1 Tourism Overview
Masterman (2003), states that ‘The Olympics and other major sporting events can
develop high profiles for host cities and are claimed to be good for attracting future
tourists long after the event has been staged’.
The Department for Media Culture and Sport predicts that the UK tourism sector will
benefit from the Olympics in financial terms from between £1.4 billion and £2 billion.
These figures include legacy affects and run over a twelve year period from 2005-2017.
Yorkshire Forward estimates an additional economic benefit to the region of £600
million, based on projected figures of 2,500 extra overseas athletes and officials being
based in Yorkshire for pre-Olympic preparation and training camps (London 2012
Olympics, Leeds City Council 2007). There is little evidence of the economic impact to
non-host regions from previous Olympic Games, however Yorkshire Forward, has
teamed up with Queensland in Australia to realise the impact of the 2000 Games on that
region. At the time of this report no research has of yet been conducted.
49
2.6.2.2 Business Overview
Major events can provide their host communities with a strong platform for showcasing
their expertise, hosting potential investors and promoting new business opportunities
(Bowdin et al. 2006).
According to the East of England development Agency (2006) ‘procurement and
business opportunities from the 2012 Games for the whole of London and the UK are
estimated to be valued at over £3.8 billion’.
The exact size of the opportunities for each industry within Yorkshire and Humber are
uncertain, with procurement for the Games at an early stage. Nevertheless, it appears to
be clear that the largest procurement opportunities in economic terms will be in the
construction industry. The greatest overall business opportunities are likely to be in the
tourism industry through hosting teams in pre-Olympic training camps
2.6.2.3 Job Creation Overview
Preuss (2004) highlights that ‘the overall economic effect of the Olympic Games have on
a host city can be expressed not only by the increased income but also by the employment
generated by the Olympics.’ Bowdin et al (2004) points out that ‘by stimulating activity
in the economy, expenditure on events can have a positive effect on employment’
50
Official estimates come in the form of a report commissioned by the Learning and Skills
Council (2006) where it is estimated the 2012 Olympics will generate; 60,000 person
years of employment in construction, 30,000 jobs in staging the Olympics and 6,700 jobs
in showcasing London.
The 2012 Olympics are likely to have a negative impact on the Yorkshire and Humber
region, due to the diversion of labour directly to London. There have been no official
figures as to the effect of employment in the region due to the Olympics, as much will
depend on how many contracts the region wins, and whether or not any pre-Games
camps will be based in the region.
2.6.2.4 Costs of Hosting the Olympics
Blake (2005) illustrates that ‘tax revenues are needed to pay for the Games, which means
that those required to pay higher taxes to finance the Games may lose out. In a study by
LSE (2005), it states a need for a rise in taxation, in order to fund the Olympics, therfore
every tax payer is subject to the oppurtunity cost of an expected amount of £22 pounds in
tax per year.
LOCOG state that 63% of the £9.345bn will come from central government, this reflects
£5.88bn coming from central government funds. This money that will be spent on the
2012 Olympics could be used for funding other projects such as health care or education,
reflecting a high opportunity cost of hosting the Olympics. Blake (2005) highlights ‘the
51
Games must be diverting public investment from other more worthwhile investment
projects, such as health and education’
2.6.3 Overall estimated impact
Blake (2004) concludes that the London 2012 Olympics would have an overall positive
effect on the UK economy, with an increase in GDP over the 2005-2016 periods of
£1,936 million and an additional 8,164 full-time equivalent jobs created for the UK. The
impacts are concentrated in 2012 (£1,067 million GDP and 3,261 FTE jobs) and in the
post-Games period 2013-2016 (£622 million GDP and 1,948 additional FTE jobs).
Blake concludes that the impact of the Olympics on the UK is unlikely to be negative -
the change in GDP has a probability of 84.4% of being positive, but that larger risks exist
in the pre- and post- Games periods, largely because of the high levels of uncertainty of
the legacy effect.
52
2.6.4 Yorkshire and Humber
Yorkshire has relatively limited experience of attracting major events as defined as those
generating more then £1million pounds of revenue. A challenge for Yorkshire is to
identify the skills needed to bid for and attract major events to the region and to deliver
them successfully. (Malcolm Brown 2006)
Based on Australian figures from its 2000 Olympic Games, Yorkshire Forward estimates
that the net benefit to the Yorkshire and Humber region will be a boost of £600m,
however with no intervention this would turn into a negative impact of £264m.
Peter Box, chair of the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly states that ‘The benefits to
Yorkshire and Humber will be far-reaching and long lasting - now we must all work
together to ensure some of the major events surrounding the Games are brought to our
region, as well as offering teams taking part some of the country's best training facilities’.
53
3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
“Methodology is the analysis of, and the rational for, the particular method or methods
used in a given study” (Jankowicz, 2000)
This chapter begins by identifying the approach to research. The methods used to obtain
secondary data are then highlighted, identifying the sources used to obtain the
information. This section the finishes with the primary research method being identified,
pointing out the reasons for selection and the limitations of the research method adopted.
3.2 Research Philosophy
The author adopted a phenomenological philosophy to research; Saunders et al (2003)
describe this philosophy as ‘the relationship between the meaning and the interpretation
given’. According to Saunders et al (2003) the phenomenological researcher ‘aims to
discover rather than prove a hypothesis, gathering qualitative data from relevant source’.
This method was chosen in place of positivism which, according to Saunders et al (2003)
would ‘result in law-like generalizations similar to those produced by the physical and
natural scientists’. Positivism would require a structured methodology, (Gill and Johnson,
1997) with results that lend themselves to statistical analysis.
54
3.3 Research approach
When designing a research project, Saunders et al (2003) identify the deductive and
inductive approach as approaches researchers must consider. Saunders et al (2003)
describe the deductive approach as; ‘developing a theory and hypothesis and designing a
research strategy to test the hypothesis’. Saunders et al (2003) describe the inductive
approach as ‘focusing on the collection of data and the development of theory resulting
from the data analysis’.
The author adopted an inductive approach to this research as it enabled a thorough
understanding of the nature of the problem. An inductive approach allowed for a more
flexible structure and for changes to be made to the research emphasis as the research
progressed.
Had the author adopted a deductive approach, the collection of quantitative information
would not allow the researcher to collect sufficient and appropriate information.
3.4 Research Strategy
Saunders et al (2003), define s research strategy as ‘a general plan of how the author goes
about answering the research questions’. Due to the nature of this research the author
adopted a multi-method strategy, which incorporated a case study approach with an
exploratory approach. Saunders et al (2003), point out that ‘a case study strategy has
55
considerable ability to generate answers to the question why? As well as the what and
how questions… a case study can also be a source for new hypothesis’. Robson (2002)
states that ‘exploratory studies are a valuable means of finding out what is happening; to
seek new insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light’. The
exploratory case study approach is consistent with the phenomenological philosophy
adopted by the author. This philosophy allowed the author to utilise a semi structured
and qualitative approach to research.
3.5 Secondary literature research
Secondary literature is defined by (Kervin, 1999) as ‘compiled data that has received
some form of selection or summarising’. Due to the nature of the study, the secondary
literature search and review was used to enhance and develop the subject area. The
secondary literature search provided a source to devise questions in order to fulfill the
research aim and terms of reference.
The secondary literature search and review enabled the author to identify key sources of
theoretical information, creating an overview of the current predictions and estimations
for the success of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The author began the literature review by focusing on the area of study; however the
research strategy adopted allowed for a wider area of study to be analysed. The flexibility
56
of being able to read around the subject enabled a thorough understanding of the subject
area, with questions being identified for the primary research.
The secondary research created a thorough understanding of the subject area through
using sources such as; academic texts, newspapers, academic journals and government
publications. Yorkshire Forward Regional Development Agency provided a great deal of
the sources that were available.
3.5.1 Authority and Reputation of secondary literature research
Secondary literature was collected from a variety of sources that the author deemed to be
reliable and trustworthy; examples including, Yorkshire Forward Regional development
Agency, The Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, The London
School of Economics and The department for Trade and Industry.
The researcher was aware that the internet is unregulated and as such applied a degree of
caution when retrieving reports, journals and articles through making sure they had
copyright statements. Dochartiagh (2002) suggests that by identifying a copyright
statement it will improve the chances of validity.
As the author used a number of reports, it was important to pay careful attention to how
the data was analysed and how the results were published. Patzer (1996) points out that
‘the further away from the original data, the more difficult it is to judge the quality’.
57
Saunders et al (2003) states that ‘measurement bias resulting from deliberate distortion is
difficult to detect’. The author chose to triangulate suspected reports with other findings,
which enabled for a cross check verification of the source.
3.5.2 Limitations to the Secondary literature research
The author discovered that there was very little secondary research specifically focused
on the subject area of the regional impact. The author discovered that the majority of
information of previous Olympic Games focused on the host city, with very few
examples stretching as far as regions within the host nation. The literature therefore had
to be adapted and related to the regional impact, through examples of other events hosted
and documented evidence of regional impacts of these events.
As the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games are not due to take place for a further five
years, the preparation is still in its early stage and as such predictions that have been
made now are susceptible to change with unforeseen events in the future. The author
fully acknowledges that all secondary sources are liable to become dated as new sources
are produced with new figures and information.
58
3.6 Primary Research
Primary research was important to further the understating of the topic area as well as fill
information gaps that had been realised in the secondary research of existing literature.
The aim of the primary research was realised once the secondary research had been
compiled, as it was necessary to find more information on the regional impact of the 2012
Games.
The author used interviews as a means of conducting primary research, with the
interviews being carried out with regional experts on the subject matter. The experts were
identified through Yorkshire Forward, and although are employees of various companies,
form the ‘Yorkshire and Humber Scrutiny board for the London 2012 Games’. Kahn and
Cannell (1957) describe an interview as ‘a purposeful discussion between two or more
people’.
Due to the nature of the research being an exploratory cases study, the author identified
semi structured interviews as the method in which to collect primary information. Semi-
structured interviews allowed the author to follow a consistent pattern of question,
however tailor them to suit the interview process on an individual basis. This meant that
the author could probe into particular areas, and also omit questions that were deemed
irrelevant to particular interviewees.
59
Prior to each interview the author pointed out the purpose of the interview, the objectives
and the expectations to each of the participants. The participant was then asked to
complete a form of consent that allowed the participant to remain anonymous, however
explained that the information submitted could be used in a potentially published report.
3.6.1 Data collection- Interviews
The structure adopted was that of semi-structured interviews. Saunders et al (2003),
states that ‘in semi-structured interviews the researcher will have a list of questions to be
covered although these vary from interview to interview’. The use of semi-structured
interviews fits in with the multi-method strategy of an exploratory case study that the
author has adopted, as they were used to explore gaps in information.
The author gained the contact of a number of the participants whilst working at Yorkshire
Forward in a placement year prior to conducting the primary research, with other
participants being recommended through mutual contacts. The familiarity between the
participants and the author, meant for a relaxed non-standardised interview being carried
out, through flexible conversation. The non-standardised semi-structured approach
allowed the author to rearrange the order of questions in order to gain the most detailed
responses.
Each of the participants are members of the Yorkshire and Humber scrutiny board, and
have a direct involvement with the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, with particular
60
relevance to the Yorkshire and Humber region. As the interviews were conducted after
the collection of secondary research, the author had an extensive knowledge of the
research topic, which aided in the understanding of participants viewpoint, as well as
stimulating discussion.
Interviews were mostly conducted face to face, however due to time and financial
constraints some interviews were conducted over the telephone. The sample profile, with
details of interview times and locations, can be found in appendix 1,2 and 3.
The author used a dictaphone to record interviews where possible, with notes also being
taken in short-hand type format, that were later written up into more detailed notes.
Swetnam (2000) states that it is important to give some thought as to the recording of
data collected. The use of a dictaphone and notes prevented any chance of there being
any loss of information gathered.
Oppenheim (1992) states that ‘one of the key advantages of using interviews is that the
interviewer can clear doubts and avoid misunderstandings’.
3.6.1.2 Interview sample size
As the nature of the research topic is relatively specific, there were only certain
individuals that were relevant to the research study that could be interviewed. The author
adopted a sample size of (???/) which was deemed relatively small. It is important to
61
realise that all of those that have been interviewed have a direct role in Yorkshire and
Humbers strategy to bring success of the 2012 Games.
3.6.2 Primary data collection limitations
The semi-structured interview technique adopted by the author required greater skill in
interpreting the qualitative results and checking whether or not answers could be deemed
relevant. Swetnam (2000), points out that ‘the less structure the greater the skill is
required for interpretation and the greater the potential for interview bias’.
The primary concern of the author was that bias may occur; in order to make the regions
decisions look favorable. Saunders et al (2003) states that ‘measurement bias resulting
from deliberate distortion is difficult to detect’; the author was keen to remain aware of
this.
The limitation of cost and time meant that further interviews could not be carried out, that
may or may not have been of more use in filling the information gaps generated through
the secondary literature research.
62
3.6.2.3 Ethics and data collection
De Vaus (2002) highlights the importance of five ethical responsibilities;
 Voluntary Participation
 Informed consent
 No harm
 Confidentiality, and
 Privacy
The author ensured that all of these criteria were matched through producing and
ensuring participants signed a form of consent that highlighted any future concerns
regarding information given.
3.6.3 Overcoming limitations to primary data collection
3.6.3.1 Interviewee Bias
Although the nature of the interviews were semi-structured, the author identified specific
questions to be asked prior to the interview, with clear and concise answers needed.
These questions created a framework designed to eliminate any bias, however the author
remains aware that according to Saunders et al (2003), detecting deliberate bias is
difficult. The non-formal approach adopted to the by the author when carrying out the
63
interviews, allowed for the interviewee to express opinions without contestation from the
author, resulting in honest personal answers. The interview utilised the structure of the
interviews, probing further for detail where appropriate.
3.6.3.2 Availability of Interviewees
As a number of the interviewees are in high profile positions within public and private
organisations, there availability was very limited. In order to combat this, the author
adopted an approach whereby they were contacted via the telephone at pre-arranged
times to conduct the interviews. This eradicated the need to meet up and allowed the
interviewee more flexibility to carry out the interview at convenient times.
3.6.4 Reliability of data collected
The primary research was conducted in order to collect new reliable and valid
information, abiding by ethical standards, in order to fill gaps generated through
secondary research
Robson (1993) describes reliability as being threatened from bias by the author and
interviewee and errors in interpretation. The author overcame the threat of bias (see
3.6.3.1), and was prepared in order to prevent any errors in interpretation.
64
3.6.4.1 Validity of data collected
The author is confident that the research collected is valid for the subject area focused on.
The author’s knowledge, through secondary research studies, enabled a clear
understanding as to what was to be achieved through primary data collection.
The nature of qualitative data is limited to the information that respondents are willing to
give, however the use of semi-structured interviews allowed for further probing of
information.
3.5 Chapter Summary
The methodology chapter of this report provides an overview of the research philosophy,
approach and strategy. This chapter provides information on the analysis of, and the
rational for, the particular method or methods used in the study. The chapter identifies
that the author adopted an inductive approach using a phenomenological philosophy to
create an exploratory case study.
65
4.0 Primary Research
4.1 Chapter introduction
The author conducted interviews having completed an extensive search of existing
literature, with the aim of filling gaps of information that had been realised.
The author conducted 3 interviews in a semi structured nature, with public sector
employees currently managing 2012 Olympic projects. Full details of the sampling
method can be found in the methodology chapter, 3. Detailed notes resulting from the
interviews can be found in appendix 1, 2, and 3.
This chapter presents the author’s key findings from the primary research that has been
conducted, having completed a detailed qualitative analysis. The analysed results are
presented under the question headings that the interviewees were asked to answer,
discussions referring back to literature are made where appropriate.
66
The interviewees were all members of the Yorkshire and Humber Scrutiny board for the
London 2012 Olympic Games. The details of those that agreed to be interviewed are
listed below;
 Mr. Peter Smith, Leeds City Council
 Mr. Alistair Copeland, Sport England
 Jo Moore, Yorkshire Forward
4.2 Motivation for Yorkshire and Humber Region
-What was the key motivation for Yorkshire and Humber to be so quick (the first region)
to support the bid for 2012?
Having conducted an extensive search of secondary research it is apparent that Yorkshire
and Humber were the first region to back the London 2012 Olympic bid. There appears
to be a gap in information as to why Yorkshire and Humber were so keen to back the bid.
Yorkshire Forward are responsible for the regions backing of the bid. An interview with
Jo Moore, head of the Major events team at Yorkshire Forward, gave an insight as to the
key motivation.
67
When asked why Yorkshire and Humber were so quick to invest Jo stated
“Regional interest followed hosting the World Student Games in Sheffield in
1991, a group of high level regional influences lobbied for support for the Games Bid
and this was supported by Yorkshire Forward Board members, a budget was agreed and
a project manager appointed to take the project forward”
It can be concluded that the evidence from the hosting of athletes during the 1991 Student
Games drew large benefits; senior members of the regions strategy department have
decided that this could be emulated in the region through London’s backing of 2012.
4.3 How much have Yorkshire and Humber spent?
-How much have Yorkshire and Humber invested in the bid for the 2012 games, and how
much will Yorkshire contribute to the 2012 games financially? (i.e. costs of promoting
the region, hosting ambassadors etc)
There have been no publicised figures as to how much the Yorkshire and Humber
economy are paying towards backing London’s bid. As Yorkshire Forward are
responsible for this, Jo Moore was able to supply the figures.
68
“The original budget was £80k which rose to £250k over the 12 months of the bid
project. Yorkshire Forward have committed a further £150k over the following 4 years to
fund the Regional Committee and related activity”
Prior to this interview these figures have not been produced in a public report. It can be
stated that Yorkshire and Humber are to invest £400k in bringing benefits to the
Yorkshire and Humber Region.
4.4 Pre-Olympic Camps
-A lot of existing literature refers to ‘if Yorkshire hosts a pre Olympic camp’, is the
projected £600m dependent on this? What happens if Y&H do not host a team?
Existing literature claims that Yorkshire and Humber can benefit from the 2012 Games
by as much as £600m with intervention. One of the intervention factors includes hosting
a pre-Olympics team; however with Yorkshire and Humbers proximately to London this
is by no means a certainty. Primary research was required to understand whether the
region could still benefit if it does not support a pre-Olympics team.
Peter Smith of Leeds City Council states;
“There is already substantial amount of work underway to attract major events to
the region and some events have already been staged. This work will continue and events
will be attracted.”
69
Alistair Copeland of Sport England states;
“This is a question for Yorkshire Forward, however my understanding is that this
is not solely dependant on hosting a team. It appears very unlikely that whole teams will
be based in one area, individual sports and facilities will determine where they want to
be based”
Jo Moore of Yorkshire Forward states;
“This was a hook to secure interest across the region during the bid phase. The
figure of £600m was based on the number of athletes who trained on the Gold Coast in
Queensland, Australia during Sydney 2000, and how much this number of athletes would
benefit the Yorkshire and Humber economy. Securing a team is one way in which
Yorkshire can benefit from the Games.”
It can be concluded that although hosting a nation prior to the Olympic Games is
desirable, benefits are not dependent on this area of intervention. Jo Moore states that it
was used as a hook to gain interest, with Alistair Copeland believing that no regions will
in fact host a whole nation, rather individuals will go to areas that suit there sport best.
Secondary research suggest that Yorkshire and Humber has facilities that cater could
meet the needs of world class athletes in almost 75% of the 38 Olympic disciplines, and
80% of the 20 Paralympic disciplines. With this in mind even if Yorkshire and Humber
do not attract a full nation of athletes, it has the capabilities to attract appeal to a vast
range of athletes competing in various disciplines.
70
4.5 Damage Limitation
-Is supporting the bid a case of damage limitation from the extra benefits London will
gain over regions such as Yorkshire and Humber?
Secondary research indicates the benefits to Yorkshire and Humber through being able to
‘piggy back’ London’s rewards. The author felt it necessary to find out whether, although
Yorkshire and Humber will benefit, the backing of the bid is a way of limiting the
obvious gap in income expected between Yorkshire and Humber and London.
Alistair Copeland states;
“My view is that this is not the case. Leeds believes that there are a number of
benefits that can come from the Games being held in London.”
Peter Smith states;
“London 2012 has provided a great vehicle to highlight the potential of sport and
major events to boost the regional economy. It is clearly not a case of damage limitation,
rather one of using the opportunity that London 2012 provides, supporting them and
making sure that there is considerable community legacy in Yorkshire”.
Jo Moore states;
“Yorkshire and Humber have supported London’s Bid in order to raise its profile
nationally and internationally and to change its perceptions of the region. The fact that
71
the Games is coming to the UK is an opportunity to harness global attention and raise
awareness of the region and what Yorkshire has to offer. By supporting London,
Yorkshire will benefit from positive relations with LOCOG and has already been quoted
by Lord Coe amongst others as the lead region to support the 2012 Bid.”
It can be concluded that the experts working on the Yorkshire and Humber bid do not see
the supporting of 2012 as damage limitation. It can be said that Yorkshire and Humber
will take advantage of the benefits that will arise from 2012 to benefit the regions
economy.
4.6 Examples of benefits of previous Olympic Games
-Having conducted an extensive literature search, there seems to be little/no evidence to
support the fact Yorkshire can learn from examples of previous games, where other
regions have benefited economically from supporting a host city. Are there any examples
of this?
Alistair Copeland states;
“I am aware of research which is to be done around the benefits gained by the
Gold Coast in Australia from the games being held in Sydney”
72
Peter Smith states;
“Yorkshire has worked closely with Queensland which benefited substantially
from the Sydney Games.”
Jo Moore states;
“This is a very new field of research and very little evidence exists due to a lack
of measuring tools. Yorkshire Forward have invested in developing a method of
measuring this data and is currently working on compiling the data from the Queensland
training camps to assist further activity and provide some method of measuring economic
impacts.”
It can be concluded that Yorkshire Forward are currently in the process of linking up with
Queensland, however no evidence of the benefits currently exists. Yorkshire Forward are
currently working towards a model that will assess the economic impacts.
4.7 Existing Examples of benefits
-My research breaks down the economic impact into Tourism, Business Opportunities
and Job creation, are there any key points as to where and how Yorkshire and Humber
will be affected in these areas, and why?
73
Peter Smith says;
“The economic benefits are only one aspect of the benefits that Yorkshire and
Humber set to benefit from.”
Alistair Copeland says;
“Tourism- If athletes are hosted in the region, it appears very likely that the
families, officials and supporters from that country would also want to be based near to
the team they are supporting…The region will also have higher profile in countries of the
teams that are based here.”
“Business- In addition to the economic benefits through tourism, there should be
contracts in a number of areas that should offer opportunities for businesses in the
region.”
“Job Creation-These should really fall out of the Business and Tourism sector,
there are unlikely to be many jobs attributed directly to the Games, unless people move
to London to take the Jobs.”
Jo Moore says;
“Any benefit from these areas will rely entirely on Yorkshire’s ability to rise to
the challenge and proactively create opportunities from Games.”
Primary research suggests that Yorkshire and Humber set to benefit as long as it can
proactively create opportunities to do so, intervention in business and tourism areas will
be required.
74
4.8 Chapter Summary
The primary research conducted was aimed at filling the gaps left by the extensive
secondary research. The primary research was conducted through semi-structured
interviews of experts in the 2012 Olympic Bid area, focusing on experts that are currently
working on projects to assist the delivery of the 2012 benefits.
The primary research found;
 The key motivation for the 2012 backing of the bid by Yorkshire Forward, was
the previous benefits that had been seen through hosting the World Student
Games in 1991.
 The original budget was £80k which rose to £250k over the 12 months of the bid
project. Yorkshire Forward have committed a further £150k over the following 4
years to fund the Regional Committee and related activity.
 The hosting of a national team is not necessary to produce benefits for the
Yorkshire and Humber region, the idea was used as a hook in order to generate
enthusiasm during the bid phase.
 Rather than being damage limitation, the Olympics offer Yorkshire and Humber a
vehicle for an opportunity to reap rewards that would have else not arisen.
75
 Yorkshire Forward are working on a model that will generate economic impact
predictions for the 2012 Games, as of yet statistical figures have not been
produced. The aspect of looking at the perceived benefits of 2012 to Yorkshire
and Humber is a relatively new area.
 Any benefits that arise from 2012 will rely on Yorkshire and Humbers ability to
create opportunities through intervention.
76
5.0 Discussions
This chapter brings together the primary and secondary research conducted by the author,
providing information on the potential benefits, negatives and intervention required to
generate benefits.
5.1 Yorkshire and Humber do nothing scenario
Dr Adam Blake of the Christel DeHaan Tourism and Research Institute, Nottingham
University Business School has developed a model that can be used to illustrate the
impact of the Olympics on the Yorkshire and Humber Region through a ‘do-nothing
approach’.
Fugue 4.1
(Source East of England Development Agency, 2006)
77
Figure 4.1 summarises the potential net position for the Yorkshire and Humber region.
With the planned intervention, benefits have been estimated by Yorkshire Forward
development agency as being £600 million. With the London 2012 Olympic Games and
no action, the Yorkshire and Humber region would be worse off by £264 million,
however through successful interventions, the Yorkshire and Humber economy would be
£336 million larger than if the Olympics did not happen - a net benefit of £600m.
The figure of £600m is derived from the example of the estimated benefits to Queensland
during the 2000 Sydney Games in Australia (Jo Moore, Yorkshire Forward).
It has to be noted that the benefits estimated by Yorkshire Forward do not include the
cost of the intervention, however do need to be balanced against the impact. In order to
understand a more detailed breakdown of the potential net benefits, the author advises a
more detailed feasibility analysis needs to be undertaken throughout the planning process.
78
5.2 Negative impact
The forecast negative impact of the 2012 Olympics on the Yorkshire and Humber region
is fundamentally due to the diversion of national lottery funding away from ‘good causes’
around the region, directly fund the Games in London creating an opportunity cost of
other potential recipients. The diversion of lottery funding, accounts for a substantial
amount of the negative impacts associated with the 2012 Games for the Yorkshire and
Humber region. Other negative economic impacts include;
 A reduction in exports from industries that move resources to the more rapidly
growing Olympic market. Industries may allocate resources to other areas where
they perceive more money to be made, which can result in the neglect of less
profitable markets which in turn will result in fewer exports.
 Relative price effects compared with London. Earnings in the Yorkshire and
Humber region will be far less affected by the 2012 Games than of the residents
in London; this will result in real wage levels falling in Yorkshire and Humber. If
wage levels remain the same in the Yorkshire and Humber region, some of the
household spending in the region is on products in London, which due to the
presence of the Olympics will be at a higher cost.
 Labour and Capital leaves the Yorkshire and Humber region. Due to the
increasing demand for labour and capital in London, labour and capital from all
79
regions including Yorkshire and Humber will be drawn out of the region and into
London. This will have a negative impact on production within Yorkshire and
Humber, and result in lowering the GDP rate.
Jo Moore of Yorkshire Forward has provided detailed information as to how much
Yorkshire Forward are contributing towards the 2012 Games, in financial terms. This is
the first publication of this figure;
“The original budget was £80k which rose to £250k over the 12 months of the bid
project. Yorkshire Forward have committed a further £150k over the following 4 years to
fund the Regional Committee and related activity”
As Yorkshire Forward are funded by regional tax payers, it can therefore be stated that
the backing of the bid by Yorkshire and Humber will cost the regional tax payers; £400k
over four years.
80
5.3 Potential net benefits to Yorkshire and Humbers economy through intervention
The table below (figure 5.2) is adapted from Blake (2004) and summarises the areas of
intervention that are required in order to generate a positive economic impact on the
Yorkshire and Humber region. These areas of intervention have been identified through
combining experience of past host nations experience, economic modeling work
produced by Blake (2004) and the Yorkshire and Humbers resources. The table doe not
take into account the overlaps between categories; areas such as tourism will have a
direct impact on culture and business opportunities.
Figure 5.2 Potential opportunities for Yorkshire and Humber
Time Period
Area of impact Pre-Olympic During Olympics Legacy
Tourism YES YES YES
Sport YES YES YES
Skills YES YES YES
Construction YES YES
Business Opportunities YES
Inward Investment YES YES
Volunteering YES YES YES
Culture YES YES YES
Stadium & Sports YES YES YES
(Source: Adapted from EEDA, 2006)
5.4 Piggybacking London’s success
Jo Moore of Yorkshire Forward states that;
“By supporting London, Yorkshire will benefit from positive relations with
LOCOG and has already been quoted by Lord Coe amongst others as the lead region to
support the 2012 Bid.”
81
Yorkshire and Humber have the opportunity to create opportunities on the back of
London hosting the 2012 Games. It has previously been discussed that without
intervention Yorkshire and Humber do not set to benefit and will in fact loose out. There
is of yet no evidence from past Games to give guidance as to how Yorkshire and Humber
are set to benefit, however according to Jo Moore, the partnership between Queensland
and Yorkshire is working towards producing an economic impact tool that will give an
estimate.
82
5.5 Tourism as a positive or negative to Yorkshire and Humber
The Olympic Games are set to generate displacement of tourists. For the UK this means
that London will welcome Olympic generated tourists, however loose many tourists that
would have visited had the Olympics not been on. Yorkshire and Humber can capitalise
on this through appealing to those tourists that are avoiding London, as Yorkshire can be
a place away from the Olympics.
Conversely, Yorkshire could loose tourists that would have visited attractions in the
region had the Olympics not been on. The Olympics are described as a once in a lifetime
opportunity that both foreign and domestic tourists may well want to visit. This could
result in a negative impact on tourism in Yorkshire and Humber, throughout the duration
of the Games.
According to Alistair Copeland of Sport England;
“it appears very likely that the families, officials and supporters from countries
would want to be based near to the team they are supporting…The region will benefit
from a higher profile in countries of the teams that are based here”
Through extra media coverage of the Yorkshire and Humber region, the Olympics have
the potential to generate further domestic and international awareness of what Yorkshire
and Humber has to offer as a tourist destination.
83
6.0 Recommendations
Having completed a thorough review of existing literature and conducted primary
research as a means to gather up to date and relevant information from Olympic experts
in the Yorkshire and Humber region, the author has identified recommendations in which
the region can benefit from in order to maximise the positive economic impact on the
region.
The recommendations are focused on direction and outcomes with decisions of what
exactly should be done to deliver it, can as of yet not be specified.
6.1 Business and Tourism recommendations
For Yorkshire and Humber the 2012 Games can stimulate direct benefits such as tourism
and business opportunities. The recommendations by the author are designed to cover
the period between now and 2017 which represents five years either side of the Olympics
taking place. The recommendations illustrate the need to start preparing actions now, and
continue the desire to receive benefits after the Olympics have finished.
84
6.2.1 Tourism recommendations
Previous Olympic Games have proven that the Games will bring together a vast number
of spectators from all corners of the world, either through direct spectating or through
other mediums such as the television. With the spotlight primarily on London during the
Games, Yorkshire and Humbers challenge must be to ensure the widest possible
audience picks up a positive message about the glories of the Yorkshire and Humber
region.
Yorkshire and Humbers primary goal from the 2012 Olympic Games should be to attract
more tourists and their spending to the region. The region needs to utilise the 2012
Games as an extra way of raising the awareness of the region and the profile of the
region, as another reason for tourists to visit Yorkshire and Humber.
Yorkshire and Humber will secure extra media coverage both in the UK and abroad due
to the Olympic Games being held in London, the regions challenge is to ensure that there
is a positive climate for inward investment and trade, as well as a coverage promoting
tourists to the region.
In order to ensure the region secures further coverage the region could;
- Promote sponsoring of the Games by local firms
- Generate stories for journalists about the region
- Directly sponsor athletes
85
Yorkshire and Humber can promote itself as a region away from the Olympics whilst
they are on, the attractiveness of combining time watching the Games with time away
from the Games can be a key selling point. The importance of promoting travel times,
such as train links, would e a good strategic move for the region.
In order to attract tourists to the region, Yorkshire and Humber should aim to showcase
itself and its facilities prior to the Games. Staging bug events will see promotion through
the media and strengthen the profile of the region, resulting in the potential for pre-
Olympic camps and pre-Olympic tourism.
6.2.2 Business recommendations
The Olympic Games will require a massive amount of work in order to both stage the
event and also run the event. It is important for Yorkshire and Humber businesses to
realise that some markets may be short term and limited. Many of the opportunities that
will arise from the Games will be downstream in supply chains. Yorkshire and Humber
companies that do win contracts to work on the 2012 Games will essentially be
ambassadors for the region. It is essential that these companies are have the right
relationships and are fast to react to new contracts that are made available.
Yorkshire and Humber companies need to see the 2012 Games as not a one off event, but
as a showcase taking place in the UK, to show the global industry what their business can
86
achieve. The Olympics take place once every four years, however there are many other
major sporting events that take place every year. If there are contracts to be won for the
2012 Games, there will be many more contracts that can be won in the future. Multiplex,
were the company responsible for the new Wembley project in London, they were
selected to do so after showcasing their ability when building the Sydney stadium, at the
2000 Olympic Games.
It is important for Yorkshire and Humber companies to realise that the Olympic
opportunities stretch far and beyond sport, as many markets based on supporting major
events are only loosely related with the event themselves, which in this case happens to
be sport.
Yorkshire and Humber need to help businesses help the region, in order to achieve this
opportunity spotting and sign posting may be beneficial to local companies that could
potentially miss out on a contract they are capable of doing. The investment an
organisation such as Yorkshire Forward makes will be repaid through the awareness of
the region being enhanced.
Business opportunities within the region need not stop at existing businesses. The region
can capitalise on the mood created and supply opportunities in order to promote
enterprise, thus generating new business opportunities and jobs within the region.
87
7.0 References
The following lists of references are supplied in the order that they appear in the report;
 Bunce, (1995), ‘Bidding to host a major sports event’, available from;
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?
contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=867965. Accessed on
02/20/06.
 Blake (2005), ‘The economic impact of the London 2012 Olympics’, Christel
DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, Nottingham University Business
School.
 Havenhand, M (2004), ‘A bid to benefit the regions’, available at;
http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/50F60931-CE01-47DC-8296-
0A8931AED935/0/nr_brochure.pdf. Accessed 11/11/06.
 Leeds Culture (2005) ‘Leeds Cultural Partnership’, available at
http://www.leedsinitiative.org/initiativeDocuments/20051025_9807986.pdf.
Accessed on 23/04/07.
 RES (2006), ‘Regional Economic Strategy 2006-20015’ Yorkshire Forward
Regional Development Agency, Yorkshire
88
 May, D. (2005), ‘Measuring the social and economic impact of local authority
events’, available at;
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?
Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0420180103.html.
 Hall, M. (1992), ‘Mega-Events and their legacies’. In: Murphy, P., 1997, Quality
Management in Urban Tourism, Wiley Press, UK.
 Chalkey, B and Essex, S (1999) ‘Urban development through hosting
international events: a history of the Olympic Games’, Planning perspectives.
 Dodouras and James (2004), ‘Examining the sustainability impacts of mega
sporting events: fuzzy mapping as a new integrated appraisal system’, Research
institute for the built and human environment, school of environmental and life
sciences, Manchester.
 Kirkpatrick and Hume (2005) ‘Basic Impact at assessment level’, available from;
www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/word-files/CoreText-1-
WhatisImpactAssessment.doc. Accessed on 12/12/06
89
 Ritchie and Lyons (1987), ‘Assessing the impact of Hallmark events: Conceptual
and research issues’, Journal of Travel research, summer.
 SQW consultancy (2005), ‘Services- Economic Impact studies’, available from:
http://www.sqw.co.uk/services/econ-impact.php? Accessed 02/09/06
 UK Sport (2005) ‘Major Sports Events’, available from;
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/Generic_Template_Documents/Publication
s/Major_sports_events_The_guide/ECONOMIC_IMPACT.pdf. Accessed on
03/11/06
 Armstrong, H and Taylor, J (1993), ‘Regional Economies and Policy, 2nd Ed’,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
 Haynes, J. (2001), ‘Socio-Economic Impact of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games’,
available at; http://www.blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/pdf/. Accessed on 17/03/06
 Bowdin, G., Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R., McDonnell, Ian.(2006) ‘Events
Management’, Elsevier Ltd., Great Britain.
 Masterman, G (2003) ‘The event planning process: strategies and successful
legacies’, in M.Morgas, C Kennett and N.Puig (eds), The legacy of Olympic
Games (1984-2000), Lausanne.
90
 Carlsen, J and Williams, P (1997), ‘Events tourism and destination image in
western Australia’, in Department of Tourism Studies (ed.), The impact of mega
Events, papers of the talk at the top of the conference, 7-8 July, typescript.
 Hanson (2007) ‘Visit London Prepares’, available at;
www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/01/16/visitlondon_feature.shtml.
Accessed on 12/11/06
 Krajasits, C (1995) ‘Olympische Winterspiele als Impuls fur den Tourimus’, in
M.Steiner and E.Thoni (eds), Sport und Okonomie.
 Roaf, V., Deventer, K. and Houston, (1996) ‘The Olympics and development.
Lessons and Suggestions’, Observatory.
 Department for media culture and sport (2007), ‘Business opportunities’,
available from:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/2012_olympic_Games/business_opportu
nities.htm. Accessed on 02/04/07
 Visit Britain (2004) ‘The Olympic Games: Ensuring Tourism is a winner’,
available from; www.etoa.org/Pdf/visit_britain_Olympics_response.pdf.
91
 Price Water House Cooper (2005) ‘Bid document’, available from;
http://www.sportdevelopment.org.uk/html/olympicimpact2005.html. Accessed on
12/12/06
 ETOA- European Tour Operators Association (2006) ‘Olympic Report’, available
from; http://www.etoa.org/Pdf/ETOA%20Report%20Olympic.pdf. Accessed on
03/03/07
 Australian Bureau of Statistic (1999-2002), ‘Overseas arrivals and departures’,
3401.0, monthly report.
 Owen, J. (2005) ‘Estimating the cost and benefit of hosting Olympic Games:
What can Beijing expect from its 2008 Games?’, available from;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4127/is_200510/ai_n15705690/pg_5.
 French, S and Disher, M (1997), ‘Atlanta and the Olympics. A one year
retrospective’, Journal of the American Planning Association.
 Papanikos, G (1999) ‘The Olympic Games of 2004 and its impact on Greek
tourism’, working paper of the Tourism Research Institute, study series.
92
 Tourism Forecasting Council (1998), ‘The Olympic Effect’, Canberra.
 Australian Tourism Commission (2002), available from
www.etoa.org/Pdf/visit_britain_Olympics_response.pdf. Accessed 27/03/04
 Yorkshire Tourist Board (2005) ‘Our Region’, available from;
http://www.gos.gov.uk/goyh/ourregion/ . Accessed on 03/04/07
 Yorkshire Futures (2002), ‘Yorkshire and Humber Tourism Industry’, Yorkshire
Futures, Yorkshire
 Sport England (2003), ‘The Value of sport in the regions’, available from;
http://www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/research/mapping_the_l
%20andscape/value_of_sports_in_the_regions_2003.htm. Accessed on 17/02/07
 Yorkshire Forward (2007), ‘Yorkshire and Humber Joins forces with
Queensland’, available from; www.yorkshire-forward.com/www/view.asp?
content_id=4705&parent_id=4655. Accessed on 14/04/07
 Leeds City Council (2007), ‘Scrutiny meeting- Olympics 2012’, available from:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000463/M00001302/AI00005
483/$olympicGamesreport.docA.ps.pdf. Accessed 08/04/07
93
 Foley, F (1991) ‘The impact of Major Events: A case study of the World Student
Games and Sheffield’, University Of Sheffield.
 DTI (2005) ‘Business Opportunities 2012’ available from;
www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/2012_olympic_Games/business_opportunities.
htm. Accessed on9/03/07
 EEDA (2006) ‘Economic Impact Study of the London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games’, East of England Development Agency.
 Ellis, R (2006) ‘Regeneration For the Long Run: London’s Olympic Opportunity’,
available from;
http://www.cbre.co.uk/researchreportviewer2/servlet/ReportViewerServlet?
p_activity=show_document&p_document_id=505112. Accessed on 03/01/07
 Nori, S.(2005) ‘London Olympic Games would strike gold for UK Businesses’,
available from;
http://www.london2012.com/en/news/press+room/releases/2005/january/2005-
01-17-11-15.htm. Accessed 23/03/07.
94
 Government Office (2007), ‘Progress in the Region 2006’, available from;
http://www.yorkshirefutures.com/siteassets/documents/YorkshireFutures/2/8/28F
7371C-9EE1-4958-98AD-.284DB9634A64/3/Progress%20in%20the%20Region
%202006%20(Complete).pdf Accessed on 12/02/07.
 ConstructionSkills and Summit Skills (2005), ‘Implications of Constructing the
Olympic and Paralympic Games on the Provision of Construction and the Built
Environment Skills’ - Some Early Findings.
 Faulkner, B. (1993), ‘Evaluating the Tourism Impact of Hallmark Events’,
Occasional Paper number 16. Canberra, Bureau of Tourism Research.
 KPMG Peat Marwick (1993) ‘Sydney Olympic Impact Study’, available at;
www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/pubs/trp97_10/append_a.htm. Accessed on 04/01/01
 Braun (1984) ‘Die Bewertung von projekten- zur logic von cost benefit analysen’,
in H.Majer (ed.), Qualitatives Wachstunm- Einfuhrung in kozeptionen der
Lebensqualitat, Frankfurt/M
 Plath, F (1973) ‘Okonomische Bewertung offentlicher Investigation’, Gottingen.
 LSC (2006), ‘Employment and skills for the 2012 Games’, available from;
http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/2006/research/commissioned/nat-employment-
95
and-skills-for-the-2012-Games-research-and-evidence-jun-2006-main-report.pdf.
 Cambridge Policy Consultants (2002), ‘Impact of Manchester Commonwealth
Games 2000’ available from;
www.manchester.gov.uk/corporate/Games/impact.htm. Accessed on 01/02/07
 Candidate File (2004), ‘London 2012 Candidate file’, available from:
www.london2012.com/en/news/publications/Candidatefile/Candidatefile.htm.
 BBC (2007), ‘Cost of 2012 Olympics’, available from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6167504.stm. Accessed 02/02/07
 Nathan and Kornblatt (2007), ‘paying for 2012: the Olympics budget and legacy’
available from: www.ippr.org/centreforcities 5 briefing paper no. 2: March 2007
 Jenkins (2005), ‘London 2012 and the Risk Management of Everything Olympic’
available from;
http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/riskAndRegulationMagazine/magazine/winter200
5/carrResearchRunningTheRisk.htm. Accessed on02/03/07
96
 Flyvbjerg (2005), ‘Paying for 2012’, available from;
http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/Olympics
%20briefing%20note.pdf&a=skip. Accessed on 21/01/07.
 The Economist (2007), ‘Definition’, available at
http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=O ,
Accessed 0/02/07.
 London School of Economics (2005), ‘Brits happy to pay up to £2 billion to
cover 2012 Olympics cost’ available from;
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/arc
hives/2005/OlympicResearch.htm. Accessed 04/01/07
 Rahman, B and Kurschdeit, M (2002) ‘The soccer world cup 2006 in Germany:
Choosing match locations by applying a modified cost benefit model’, The
comparative economics of North Amerrica and European Sports. Cheltenham.
 Malcolm Brown (2007), ‘Leeds Met Futures- The success of the 2012 Bid’
available from;
http://www.lmu.ac.uk/vco/futures/jul05/The_awarding_of_the_Olympic_Games.d
oc. Accessed 04/04/07.Accessed on 0/02/07
97
8.0 Bibliography
Websites used:
 http://www.franklinandrews.com/files/page/10074/EconomicBulletinOct05-
Olympicsspecial.pdf
 http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E88F2684-F49E-4F45-B826-
2F19F21374F8/0/OlympicGamesImpactStudy.pdf
 http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2005/dcms177_05.htm
 http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0F4F4995-C6F6-4B1B-9EBA-
BD8620FE5CDE/0/ExecutiveSummaryofOGIS.pdf
 http://www.selig.uga.edu/forecast/olympics/OLYMTEXT.HTM
 http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ttri/pdf/2005_5.pdf
 http://www.yorkshiretouristboard.net/media-room/press_release_detail.asp?
ID=246
 http://www.eeda.org.uk/embedded_object.asp?docid=1004786
98
 http://www.sportengland.org/text/eastmidlands_index/eastmidlands_news_media/
iyr_east_midlands-sp_tourism.htm
 http://www.redpepper.org.uk/arts/x-apr2005-reyes.htm
 http://www.isrm.co.uk/recreation/documents/REDec04pp40-41.pdf
 http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2005/dcms118_05.htm?
month=September&properties=archive_2005%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpress_notices
%2Farchive_2005%2F%2C
 http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/londonmet/library/r34557_3.pdf
 http://download.southwestrda.org.uk/file.asp?File=/investment-
promotion/general/Will%20You%20Carry%20The%20Torch%20For
%20Dorset.pdf
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041101/text/41
101w11.htm
 http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9F4FBC0F-2A88-43E5-A5D6-
B7C87D71DB36/0/OlympicNewExecutiveSummary.pdf
99
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4025027.stm
 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/arc
hives/2005/OlympicResearch.htm
 http://www.politics.co.uk/issues/london-2012-olympics-$2081728.htm
 http://www.london2012.org/NR/rdonlyres/24931E48-9CF6-4A22-9D29-
4321B11140E6/0/QuestionnaireResponseEnglish.pdf
 http://www.uksport.gov.uk/generic_template.asp?id=12255
 http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/
 http://www.els.salford.ac.uk/urbannature/interactive/Downloads/Stefanos_buhu.d
oc
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4833876.stm
 http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cit/005/0007/cit0050007.pdf
 http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/riskAndRegulationMagazine/magazine/winter200
5/carrResearchRunningTheRisk.htm
100
 http://www.uksport.gov.uk/generic_template.asp?id=12270
 http://www.leedsinitiative.org/initiativeDocuments/20051025_9807986.pdf
 Http://www.isrm.co.uk/recreation/documents/REDec04pp40-41.pdf
 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?
contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=867965.
 http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/50F60931-CE01-47DC-8296-
0A8931AED935/0/nr_brochure.pdf
 http://www.leedsinitiative.org/initiativeDocuments/20051025_9807986.pdf.
 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?
Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0420180103.html
 www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/word-files/CoreText-1-hatisImpactAssessment.doc
 http://www.sqw.co.uk/services/econ-impact.php?
 http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/Generic_Template_Documents/Publication
s/Major_sports_events_The_guide/ECONOMIC_IMPACT.pdf.
101
 http://www.blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/pdf/
 www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/01/16/visitlondon_feature.shtml.
 http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/2012_olympic_Games/business_opportu
nities.htm.
 www.etoa.org/Pdf/visit_britain_Olympics_response.pdf.
 http://www.sportdevelopment.org.uk/html/olympicimpact2005.html.
 http://www.etoa.org/Pdf/ETOA%20Report%20Olympic.pdf.
 ; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4127/is_200510/ai_n15705690/pg_5.
 http://www.gos.gov.uk/goyh/ourregion/
 http://www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/research/mapping_the_l
%20andscape/value_of_sports_in_the_regions_2003.htm
 www.yorkshire-forward.com/www/view.asp?content_id=4705&parent_id=4655.
102
 www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/2012_olympic_Games/business_opportunities.
htm.
 http://www.london2012.com/en/news/press+room/releases/2005/january/2005-
01-17-11-15.htm.
 www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/pubs/trp97_10/append_a.htm
 http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/2006/research/commissioned/nat-employment-
and-skills-for-the-2012-Games-research-and-evidence-jun-2006-main-report.pdf
 www.manchester.gov.uk/corporate/Games/impact.htm.
 www.london2012.com/en/news/publications/Candidatefile/Candidatefile.htm.
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6167504.stm.
 www.ippr.org/centreforcities
 http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/riskAndRegulationMagazine/magazine/winter200
5/carrResearchRunningTheRisk.htm.
103
 http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/Olympics
%20briefing%20note.pdf&a=skip.
 http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=O ,
 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/arc
hives/2005/OlympicResearch.htm.
 http://www.lmu.ac.uk/vco/futures/jul05/The_awarding_of_the_Olympic_Games.d
oc. Accessed 04/04/07.
Journals used:
 Plath, F (1973) ‘Okonomische Bewertung offentlicher Investigation’, Gottingen.
 ConstructionSkills and Summit Skills (2005), ‘Implications of Constructing the
Olympic and Paralympic Games on the Provision of Construction and the Built
Environment Skills’ - Some Early Findings.
 Krajasits, C (1995) ‘Olympische Winterspiele als Impuls fur den Tourimus’, in
M.Steiner and E.Thoni (eds), Sport und Okonomie.
104
 Roaf, V., Deventer, K. and Houston, (1996) ‘The Olympics and development.
Lessons and Suggestions’, Observatory.
 Carlsen, J and Williams, P (1997), ‘Events tourism and destination image in
western Australia’, in Department of Tourism Studies (ed.), The impact of mega
Events, papers of the talk at the top of the conference, 7-8 July, typescript.
 Ritchie and Lyons (1987), ‘Assessing the impact of Hallmark events: Conceptual
and research issues’, Journal of Travel research, summer.
Books Used:
 Blake (2005), ‘The economic impact of the London 2012 Olympics’, Christel
DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, Nottingham University Business
School.
 RES (2006), ‘Regional Economic Strategy 2006-20015’ Yorkshire Forward
Regional Development Agency, Yorkshire
 Rahman, B and Kurschdeit, M (2002) ‘The soccer world cup 2006 in Germany:
Choosing match locations by applying a modified cost benefit model’, The
comparative economics of North Amerrica and European Sports. Cheltenham.
105
 Braun (1984) ‘Die Bewertung von projekten- zur logic von cost benefit analysen’,
in H.Majer (ed.), Qualitatives Wachstunm- Einfuhrung in kozeptionen der
Lebensqualitat, Frankfurt/M
 EEDA (2006) ‘Economic Impact Study of the London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games’, East of England Development Agency.
 Foley, F (1991) ‘The impact of Major Events: A case study of the World Student
Games and Sheffield’, University Of Sheffield.
 Yorkshire Futures (2002), ‘Yorkshire and Humber Tourism Industry’, Yorkshire
Futures, Yorkshire
 Tourism Forecasting Council (1998), ‘The Olympic Effect’, Canberra.
 French, S and Disher, M (1997), ‘Atlanta and the Olympics. A one year
retrospective’, Journal of the American Planning Association.
 Papanikos, G (1999) ‘The Olympic Games of 2004 and its impact on Greek
tourism’, working paper of the Tourism Research Institute, study series.
 Hall, M. (1992), ‘Mega-Events and their legacies’. In: Murphy, P., 1997, Quality
Management in Urban Tourism, Wiley Press, UK.
106
 Chalkey, B and Essex, S (1999) ‘Urban development through hosting
international events: a history of the Olympic Games’, Planning perspectives.
 Dodouras and James (2004), ‘Examining the sustainability impacts of mega
sporting events: fuzzy mapping as a new integrated appraisal system’, Research
institute for the built and human environment, school of environmental and life
sciences, Manchester.
 Bowdin, G., Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R., McDonnell, Ian.(2006) ‘Events
Management’, Elsevier Ltd., Great Britain.
 Masterman, G (2003) ‘The event planning process: strategies and successful
legacies’, in M.Morgas, C Kennett and N.Puig (eds), The legacy of Olympic
Games (1984-2000), Lausanne.
107
List of Appendices
Appendix 1.0
Interview notes with Joanne Moore, Yorkshire Forward Regional Development Agency,
Olympic 2012 Scrutiny Board Member
Appendix 2.0
Interview notes with Alistair Copeland, Sport England, Olympic 2012 Scrutiny Board
Member
Appendix 3.0
Interview notes with Peter Smith, Leeds City Council, Olympic 2012 Scrutiny Board
Member
Appendix 4.0
Interview Forms of consent
Appendix 5.0
Dissertation Proposal
108

Report (2007) : 'The Olympic and Paralympic Games: What Can Yorkshire and Humber Expect From 2012?'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Report (2007) : 'The Olympic and Paralympic Games: What Can Yorkshire and Humber Expect From 2012?'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report (2007) : 'The Olympic and Paralympic Games: What Can Yorkshire and Humber Expect From 2012?'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jonathon Bailey BA (Hons) Business Studies

1.1 London winning the right to host the Games

1997, producing the first report shown to ministers in 2000.

begin on 27th July 2012 and finish on 12th August 2012.

1.2 Economic history of the Games

strategic corporate objectives (Bunce, 1995). Expectations of creating a financial surplus

the Olympic Games.

become the centre of global interest.

‘The increased economic performance of Games Organisers, as well as the increased

increase revenues and economic impacts’ Blake (2005)

1.3 The Yorkshire and Humber Region

motorway creating a direct link between the two areas.

Olympic disciplines, and 80% of the 20 Paralympic disciplines.

1.4 Yorkshire and Humber’s involvement in London 2012

Olympic bid has brought to the region’.

Martin Havenhand, former Chief executive of Yorkshire Forward, illustrates Yorkshire

been reciprocated by the Local Olympic Organising Committee (LOCOG), with

Sebastian Coe on the 2012 promotional tour in 2006.

1.5 Why research this region?

to regions. Further knock on impacts may affect distribution of infrastructure investment

and construction capacity and this needs to be closely monitored’

problems of mega events.’

1.7 Terms of reference

 To realise the potential 2012 Games opportunity to the UK economy

 To understand what aspects of the Yorkshire and Humber economy may be

affected by the 2012 Games

 To provide recommendations based on evidence, as to how Yorkshire and

Humber can maximise opportunities resulting from the 2012 Games.

2.0 Literature Review

host cities before, during and after major sporting events.

2.1 Assessing major sporting events

multi-sport event in the world.

political, commercial, physical, socio-cultural and psychological’.

the anticipated or actual impacts of a development intervention, on those social,

2.1.1 Economic assessment of major events

(Ritchie and Lyons, 1987)

economy. Such research may be conducted as part of an appraisal of options (before a

decision is made), or after a project has been implemented’.

figure 2.0 highlighting the potential economic factors.

Figure 2.0 (Adapted from Hall 1989)

three categories: pre-Games, during-Games and post-Games:

The pre-Games impact takes into account;

 The construction phase (Olympic village, facilities etc)

 Other pre-Games costs (Security, advertising/promotion etc)

 Visitor impacts in the run up to the Games (pre Games tourisms)

The during-Games impact consists of;

 Revenues from staging the Games (Merchandise, increased spending etc)

 During-Games visitor impact (Tourists, spectators etc)

 Cost of staging the Games (Staff, security etc)

The post-Games impact;

 Legacy visitor impacts (repeat tourism due to Games)

 Legacy infrastructure impacts (fixed assets such as stadiums)

As previously discussed by Armstrong and Taylor (1993), an increase in income and

tourism, Business opportunities, Commercial activities and Employment creation.

Tourism can be a catalyst to stimulate investment, revitalise deprived areas and

stages, pre, during and post Olympics.

Games. Based on hotel capacity, accessibility and availability of tickets the

that visit the country, the bigger the economic impact.