Feature

Local Economy 0(0) 1–21 The emergence and ! The Author(s) 2021 conceptualisation of DOI: 10.1177/02690942211003055 community stadia in the UK journals.sagepub.com/home/lec

Alexander John McTier University of Strathclyde, UK

Abstract New professional sports stadia have been widely advanced as flagship developments that can generate jobs and wealth, support place branding and culture-led strategies, and host mega- events. Public funding for new stadia has been secured on these bases but also challenged as stadia costs are under-estimated and the benefits, particularly for lower income communities, exaggerated. Emerging in this context, community stadia are an intriguing phenomenon as they offer the potential for professional sports stadia to deliver on community aims alongside their sporting, commercial and economic development aims. Public funding has followed with a number of community stadia built or planned in the UK, yet with limited critical analysis of the stadium type and its impact. This paper helps to fill the literature gap by learning from two community stadia case studies: The Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster and The Falkirk Stadium, Falkirk. It finds that community stadia have the potential to deliver across the four aims, with stadia’s association with the world of professional sport facilitating engagement with multiple, diverse and ‘hard to reach’ communities. However, they are also complex phenomena leading the paper to construct a 12-feature conceptualisation of community stadia that can advance practitioner and academic understanding of the phenomenon.

Keywords community, economic development, stadia, stadium, urban regeneration

Introduction Since the 1980s, the UK has experienced an unprecedented era of new or redeveloped Corresponding author: professional sports stadia. The modern, Alexander John McTier, University of Strathclyde Curran Building, Cathedral Street Glasgow, Scotland large capacity and commercially minded G1 1XQ, UK. stadia, described as 21st century Email: [email protected] 2 Local Economy 0(0)

‘cathedrals’ (Giulianotti, 2011), now adorn- Stadium, Doncaster and the Falkirk ing many of the UK’s major cities are very Stadium, Falkirk. Learning from these different to the physically dilapidated stadia two stadia and their respective aims, serv- of the 1980s (Bale, 2000; Paramio et al., ices and facilities hosted, and communities 2008; Van Dam, 2000; Williams, 1995). served, this paper offers a conceptualisation Interest and investment in new stadia has of the community stadia phenomenon. It not only been in high profile stadia but concludes by considering whether commu- also, and the focus of this paper, in lesser nity stadia offer an alternative type of flag- scale ‘community stadia’. Conceived as a ship development, one that aligns more stadium type in their own right, community closely to the emergent community entre- stadia can be described as professional preneurialism policy discourse (Devaney sports stadia with additional community- et al., 2017; Schaller, 2018; Southern and facing aims, facilities and services that Whittam, 2015) as opposed to dominant reflect the scale of the professional clubs urban entrepreneurialism. they host and the towns and small cities in which they are situated (City of York Council, 2010; PMP, 2008; Sanders Understanding the context for et al., 2014). community stadia In the UK, new professional sports The emergence of community stadia in the stadia with explicit aims of becoming ‘com- UK needs to be understood within their munity stadia’ have been constructed in political, sporting, social and economic Brentford, Brighton, Chesterfield, context. Politically, the turning point for Colchester, Doncaster, Falkirk and UK stadia developments was the 1989 Wimbledon, while further examples are Hillsborough stadium disaster. The result- planned for Cambridge, Castleford, ing Hillsborough Stadium Disaster Inquiry Grimsby, Truro, and York. It is this report overseen by Lord Justice Taylor increasing number, allied to a sparse com- became a watershed and enforced signifi- munity stadia-specific literature that cur- rently spans just three sources (City of cant investment in British football stadia York Council, 2010; PMP, 2008; Sanders to improve their safety and security et al., 2014), which forms the motivation (Giulianotti, 2011). The Taylor Report behind this paper. Furthermore, the con- was therefore the ‘stick’ to enforce change struction of community stadia in the UK in Britain’s professional stadia but the has typically been (part-) funded by public ‘carrot’ for stadia investments came from monies and, once constructed, public sector the increased professionalisation, media bodies (such as local authorities or arms- coverage and commodification of sport – length external organisations (ALEOs)) all of which contributed to rising matchday are involved in their ownership and man- attendances (Van Dam, 2000; Walsh and agement. The concern is that large sums Giulianotti, 2001). Larger, safer and more of public investment are being allocated to aesthetically attractive stadia enabled clubs new community stadia but with very little to meet this demand and, in turn, attract critical appraisal or evaluation of the phe- the players and investment that could deliv- nomenon’s objectives and impact. er sporting success on the pitch (Kennedy, This paper aims to help fill the commu- 2012). nity stadia literature gap by integrating the New or redeveloped stadia became a existing knowledge with case study research means of fulfilling sporting ambitions but, into two community stadia: the Keepmoat closely associated with sporting success was McTier 3 the need for stadia to deliver on a commer- from new stadia failed to materialise, the cial front. Whether to fund stadia invest- influence of urban entrepreneurial econom- ments, service stadia finance ic development policy led to more nuanced arrangements, or support the financial sus- assertions tied to new stadia’s contribution tainability of clubs, all professional sports to competitive place strategies. Stadia have stadia have had to increasingly enable and thus been portrayed as symbolic flagship accommodate commercial and revenue gen- developments, assets in culture-led and eration activities (Ginesta, 2017; Paramio place branding strategies, and hosts of et al., 2008; Williams, 1995). No longer sporting mega-events that can attract the monopurpose sports venues of the highly sought after mobile skills, jobs, 1980s, contemporary stadia are instead firms and investment to their cities buildings that seek to maximise revenue (Doucet, 2007; Harvey, 1989; OECD, generation opportunities, including 2007). through corporate and conference suites, Stadia proponents have also advanced hotels, museums and the selling of stadia the contribution of stadia to social naming rights (Ginesta, 2017; Paramio and community aims (Coates, 2007; et al., 2008). Eckstein and Delaney, 2002; Slack, 2014). The societal tension is that professional In the UK, the sustainability agenda clubs and stadia officials have gone too far: initiated by the New Labour government favouring the commercial over the sporting led to new stadia developments being fan. Rising ticket prices and the financial couched within community economic devel- importance of attracting wealthier fans is opment, co-production and sustainable one aspect of this with Giulianotti (2011), communities theories and concepts – Walsh and Giulianotti (2001) and Williams and the emergence of the community (1995) questioning whether stadia are now stadia phenomenon can be traced back to becoming exclusive places that price out this period. many young adult and working class ‘tradi- In this context, community stadia are an tional’ supporters. Kennedy (2012) then notes the wider trend of stadia becoming intriguing phenomenon as they offer the increasingly secular, even calculative, with potential for professional sports stadia to their fundamental focus being on generat- deliver on sporting, commercial, economic ing revenue and developing the club development and community aims – which ‘brand’, rather than expanding corporate this paper conceptualises as the ‘quadruple social responsibility (CSR) and community bottom line’. The vision behind community actions. In becoming ‘tradiums’ (Bale, stadia appears to be apposite to the domi- 2000), clubs and stadia officials consequent- nant urban economic development policy ly encounter challenge when seeking public themes and discourses, with greater empha- support, planning approval and investment sis on the stadia’s use by and impact on for new stadia. their local communities rather than their To counter this, clubs and stadia officials contribution to economic outcomes. A have attached additional aims or layers of question within the emergent community justification to their stadia proposals, with entrepreneurialism policy discourse these evolving over time. From North (Devaney et al., 2017; Schaller, 2018; America, there were wealth and job crea- Southern and Whittam, 2015), therefore, tion justifications (Baade, 1996; Coates, is whether community stadia can deliver 2007; Siegfried and Zimbalist, 2006). on more inclusive and social aims in such However, as the direct economic benefits an economically driven climate. 4 Local Economy 0(0)

Community stadia in the leisure opportunities), education facilities literature (e.g. Playing for Success centres, commu- nity classrooms and ICT suites), general The only community stadium referred to community provisions (community halls, within the academic literature is Brighton meeting spaces, libraries etc), sports facil- & Hove Albion FC’s Amex Community ities (indoor sports halls, outdoor pitches, Stadium. In the Sanders et al. (2014) article, etc.), as well as local retail and other busi- the rationale for Brighton & Hove Albion nesses. (PMP, 2008: 2) FC investing in a community stadium as opposed to a conventional football stadium The reports also find that community stadia was reported to be twofold. On a sporting can become a resource or hub for their front, the stadium enhanced the relation- communities. ‘A community stadium pro- ship between the club and its supporter vides local communities with a hub facility base; on a community front, it provided a and presents particular opportunities permanent home for Albion in the around community engagement, develop- Community (the club’s community out- ment and cohesion’ (PMP, 2008: 2). reach/CSR organisation) and a hub for Becoming a hub does not, however, just the local, disadvantaged community of happen. Accessibility is one key character- Moulsecoomb. With regards to character- istic with the City of York Council (2010) istics, Sanders et al. (2014) highlight the sta- report highlighting the importance of sta- dium’s multifunctional use as a sporting, dia’s physical and financial accessibility, education, health and cultural centre, and ‘The goal of many of these stadia is to the presence of Albion in the Community. become an accessible hub in terms of geo- In this respect, Sanders et al. comment that graphic accessibility and affordability for the community stadium ‘appears to repre- the community’ (City of York Council, sent a distinct form of sporting space – far 2010: 7). The PMP (2008: 2) report also removed from trends found in the construc- notes the importance of stadia’s location tion of other, larger, new football grounds’ but equally highlights the need for the (Sanders et al., 2014: 415) and ‘attempt(s) to stadia to be ‘accessible to the communities concretize the stadium as ...a place of the it serves at all times, during the day and people – as well as being home to the foot- evening, on weekdays and weekends’. ball club itself’ (Sanders et al., 2014: 415). The provision of attractive and engaging More descriptive assessments of commu- facilities and services helps enable stadia to nity stadia are provided by City of York become a community hub, noting that this Council (2010) and PMP (2008) reports requires stadia officials seeking out, listen- produced to support the planning submis- ing and responding to what local communi- sions for the York and Cambridge commu- ties want. Collectively, these characteristics nity stadia, respectively. In these reports, lead to assertions that community stadia community stadia are described as multi- are ‘markedly different from the typical functional buildings that house diverse sports stadium’ (PMP, 2008: 2) and facilities and services beyond their core, ‘embrace the concept of a “living stadium” professional sports functions – including: designed to make a positive contribution to the local environment and community’ Health provision (including Primary Care (PMP, 2008: 56). Trust and health improvement services), While portrayed as a distinct type of pro- leisure provision (community health and fessional sports stadia, one must be cau- fitness facilities or larger scale commercial tious in declaring that community stadia McTier 5 are a radical departure from other profes- impact of such ‘community’ facilities. sional sports stadia. One cannot claim that Without scrutiny, the term ‘community’ only community stadia can house wider, may simply be used as a meaningless accessible facilities and services. public relations prefix to overcome any Professional sports stadia often house a local opposition to the cost, size or location number of wider facilities and services that of stadia (Blackshaw, 2008; Mellor, 2008). the community can access (Brown and This critical mindset underpins this paper’s McGee, 2012), yet they are not labelled view that genuine community stadia should ‘community stadia’. All stadia, for example, have a community purpose, use and impact offer the opportunity for their facilities to that exceeds that of other professional be hired for conferences, meetings and pri- sports stadia. vate functions. The staging of high profile pop concerts also appeal to the local com- munity (Chase and Healey, 1995), while Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster some stadia have facilities ‘designed in’ to and Falkirk Stadium, Falkirk them, such as a private gym within To develop a deeper understanding and Huddersfield’s John Smith’s Stadium conceptualisation of the community stadia (Brown and McGee, 2012). phenomenon, two case studies were used: Another interface is professional clubs’ the Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster and involvement in community outreach/CSR Falkirk Stadium, Falkirk. Both were select- activities, with many professional sports ed on the grounds that they were ‘extreme’ clubs having ‘community trusts’ or ‘com- cases (Flyvbjerg, 2011) following a sequen- munity foundations’ delivering against tial four-stage selection process that: (i) social aims. However, it is important to established an initial stadia sample of the unpick the relationship between a profes- 30 new professional cricket, football, sional club, the community outreach/CSR rugby league and rugby union stadia con- trust, and the stadium. In particular, the structed in England, Scotland and Wales independence of the community outreach/ CSR trust needs to be acknowledged as its between 2000 and 2015; (ii) carried out an profile, reach and achievements could be initial desk-based analysis of the 30 stadia’s conflated with a perception of a stadium community facilities, size and location, being a community stadium. Indeed, there leading to 12 stadia being screened out are community outreach/CSR trusts that because of a lack of evident community are neither based in stadia nor do they stadia characteristics; (iii) conducted an e- deliver community-facing activities in survey of the 18 remaining stadia to identify stadia. For community stadia, therefore, potential case studies and (iv) contacted one might contend that community out- potential ‘extreme’ cases to gain mutual reach/CSR trusts are genuine stadia part- agreement to case study selection. ners and actively deliver community-facing The fieldwork for the two case studies, in services and activities from within the the form of interviews and focus groups stadia. with stadia stakeholders and desk-based Most professional sports stadia therefore reviews of stadia documentation, was com- house some community-facing activities. pleted between August 2015 and March Indeed, Jones (2001) finds that the political 2016. Across the two stadia, a total of 57 elite often view the presence of community stadia stakeholders participated in the facilities within new stadia as a given and research: officials of the professional fail to scrutinise the existence, use and sports clubs (5 participants); managers of 6 Local Economy 0(0) the clubs’ community outreach/CSR trusts to act as economic catalysts in the regener- (4 participants); tenants of space within the ation of Doncaster. stadia (8 individuals); local authority offi- The 8750 capacity Falkirk Stadium was cials and elected members (9 individuals); completed in 2004 and is a three-sided, managers of local partner organisations (8 edge-of-town stadium that is immediately individuals); local businesses (3 organisa- surrounded by a football complex, car tions); and local residents and stadium parks and greenfield land. Initially named users (20 individuals). In analysing the the Falkirk Community Stadium, its £6 mil- qualitative data, particular attention was lion cost was funded by Falkirk Council paid to the differing views and experiences using the money generated by the sale of across the research participants as this is Falkirk FC’s former Brockville stadium. consistent with critical realism’s founda- Like the Keepmoat Stadium, it too is a flag- tions that knowledge is best derived from ship development for the (Falkirk capturing and analysing multiple view- Gateway) regeneration area in which it is points (Del Casino Jr et al., 2000; Easton, situated. While the Falkirk Gateway project 2010; Sayer, 1992). is less advanced than Lakeside, the ambi- The aim of this paper is to provide a tions are similar in seeking to attract new conceptualisation of the community stadia economic and mixed-use functions to the phenomenon. To anchor this, the following Falkirk to Grangemouth corridor site. The Falkirk Stadium, along with the Helix Park summaries of the two stadia provide tangi- and Kelpies (both major visitor attractions ble illustrations of what community stadia – see Figure 2) are viewed as catalysts in this entail. process (McKean et al., 2017). The extract The Keepmoat Stadium, completed in from a ‘My Future’s in Falkirk’ newsletter, 2006, is a modern, enclosed, 15,200 capacity for example, stated that the Falkirk stadium located on the edge of Doncaster Stadium’s ‘innovative, high quality design and forms a site that is immediately sur- and build will make it an icon for the regen- rounded by a football complex, athletics eration of the area’. stadium and car parks. Presented in The economic regeneration aims Figure 1, the stadium also forms part of attached to both stadia reflect the influence the major area-based and mixed-use of urban entrepreneurialism (Doucet, 1997; Lakeside regeneration project. Centred Harvey, 1989; OECD, 2007; Vento, 2017). around a manmade lake, Lakeside com- Indeed, it demonstrates that urban entre- prises an outlet shopping centre, leisure preneurialism encourages not only cities to complex including a cinema, restaurants be ‘competitive’ but also towns. As flagship and hotels, offices (including Keepmoat developments within the strategic Lakeside construction company’s headquarters), an and Falkirk Gateway economic locations, outdoor amphitheatre, the National both stadia were viewed as catalysts that College for High Speed Rail and 3- and 4- could counter the decline of Doncaster’s bedroom housing targeted at families. In and Falkirk’s traditional industries, help total, the Keepmoat Stadium costs £30 mil- address the towns’ socio-economic chal- lion and was financed by Doncaster lenges (see Table 1 for a summary of head- Metropolitan Borough Council, viewing line statistics), and regenerate their the stadium as one of four flagship develop- respective economies and communities. ments (alongside Doncaster Sheffield The similarities between the two stadia Airport, Doncaster Racecourse, and continue beyond their economic regenera- Doncaster’s central civic realm) designed tion aims to align with the other aims McTier 7

Figure 1. Map of the Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster, and its hinterland. Source: Author developed using Digimap.

Figure 2. Map of Falkirk Stadium and its hinterland. Source: Author developed using Digimap. 8 Local Economy 0(0)

Table 1. Headline Doncaster and Falkirk socio-economic statistics.

Doncaster Doncaster local authority Falkirk Falkirk local Great town area town authority area Britain

Population, 2016 117,000 306,400 53,200 159,400 63,785,900 Jobs density (employment NA 492 569 504 585 per 1000 adults), 2016 Qualifications (% 16–64 year NA 24.7% NA 34.9% 38.2% olds with S/NVQ Level 4), 2016 Worklessness (% of working 11.4% 11.1% 11.3% 9.9% 8.4% age population in receipt of out-of-work DWP benefits), Nov 2016 % of localities in England/Scotland’s 39.4% 35.6% 33.3% 15.4% 20.0% 20% most deprived, 2015

Localities refer to Lower Super Output Areas in England and Datazones in Scotland. Source: Population Estimates (NOMIS); Business Register and Employment Survey (NOMIS); Annual Population Survey (NOMIS); DWP Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (NOMIS); and English Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Office of National Statistics). advanced in the sporting–commercial–com- used by many different users and user munity–economic regeneration quadruple types. Focusing on the non-matchday bottom line. On a sporting front, a key users as these help to differentiate commu- driver in the publicly funded constructions nity stadia from typical professional of the Keepmoat and Falkirk Stadia was sports stadia, users included: infants, chil- that they enable Doncaster Rovers FC dren and young people in education; and Falkirk FC to achieve and sustain, young people not in employment, educa- respectively, Championship and Scottish tion or training; adults with a disability, Premier League status. Commercially, substance abuse or mental health issues; both stadia had aims related to the devel- pensioners; mother and toddler groups; opment of income streams that build the business people; and concert goers. financial sustainability of their professional Notably, many of the users come from clubs and, in the case of the Falkirk ‘hard to reach’ communities that agencies Stadium, to pay back the stadium’s £6 m often struggle to engage with, so demon- construction costs. On the community strating the additionality and kudos of front, and reflecting the sustainability professional sports stadia that community agenda of the millennium period when stadia and their services and facilities can both stadia were planned (Pike et al., capitalise on (Sanders et al., 2014; Spaaij 2007; Raco et al., 2008), both were con- et al., 2013). Furthermore, the fact that ceived as ‘community stadia’ that offered the stadia were being used by females a range of facilities for the Doncaster and anddisabledgroupsrunscountertothe Falkirk communities. Table 2 summarises view that stadia are gendered and exclu- the range of facilities and services housed sionary places on the basis of their mascu- in the two stadia. line, professional sport and commercial The service mix presented in Table 2 associations (Kelly, 2010; Massey, 2005, has, in turn, led to both stadia being 2007). McTier 9

Table 2. Facilities and services housed within Keepmoat and Falkirk Stadia.

Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster Falkirk Stadium, Falkirk

Professional sporting aims Main pitch  Home to Doncaster Rovers FC,  Home to Falkirk FC – training and Doncaster RLFC and Doncaster matchday Belles FC  Held U21 international football  Held U21 international fixtures and rugby fixtures and IBF boxing fight  Used by Falkirk Football  Used for schools finals and charity Foundation matches  Hired by local, amateur teams  Summer pop concerts staged  Summer pop concerts staged Professional sports  Club Doncaster’s (umbrella orga-  Falkirk FC is based in the stadium, clubs offices nisation for Doncaster Rovers including the first team squad FC, Doncaster RLFC and the (who train at the stadium), man- Keepmoat Stadium) offices are agement, academy coaches, and based in the stadium and provide administration staff management, marketing and  The club shop is located in the ticket functions stadium  The club shop is located in the stadium Community aims Community outreach/  Club Doncaster Foundation  Falkirk Football Community corporate social works with local partners to Foundation works in partnership responsibility trust deliver sport, physical activity and with Falkirk FC to deliver social, health and well-being activities in education, employability and communities and schools across sports programmes throughout Doncaster the Forth Valley region Education and training  Club Doncaster Sports College is  The Little Stars Nursery is a pri- based in the stadium and delivers vately-run nursery located in the four full-time sports and leisure ground floor of the Main Stand qualifications in classrooms in the stadium  Learning Central is a pupil referral unit serving pupils aged 11–16 from three Doncaster secondary schools Public gym  The Doncaster Culture and  None Leisure Trust operated gym is located in the North Stand Cafe  None  Cafe Westfield is open to the public from 8.30 a.m. to 8 p.m. on non-matchdays. On matchdays the cafe is used as a supporters bar 5-a-side pitches  Both stadia have pitches for public hire and used by Foundation’s Academies (adjacent to stadium) and community groups (continued) 10 Local Economy 0(0)

Table 2. Continued. Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster Falkirk Stadium, Falkirk

Civic events  Widely used for a weekly car boot  Widely used for a weekly car boot (stadium car park) sale, annual fireworks display, sale, fun fairs, circus, and a car funfair and circus wash and valet business Economic development aims Business support services  Doncaster Chamber of  Falkirk Council’s Growth and Commerce is located in the sta- Investment Unit is located in the dium and uses the stadium for stadium and uses the stadium to business meetings and deliver business workshops, conferences seminars and meetings. Business premises/Space  Two private businesses are based  Falkirk Community Trust is head- in the stadium: a telecommunica- quartered in the stadium and is tions company and a health and home to its senior management, beauty company administrative and accounts functions. Commercial aims Conference and  Both stadia have a range of spaces for events and conference hire meeting facilities

Conceptualising community evidence and relevant literature to discuss stadia each of these features with the intention of building greater insight and interest in the The complexity of the community stadia community stadia phenomenon among phenomenon with regards its multiple stadia officials, developers, planners and aims, facilities, services and users means stakeholders. that a headline definition alone is insuffi- cient. While one can be offered (see below), a fuller conceptualisation of com- Quadruple bottom line: Sporting, munity stadia that sets out key features commercial, community and economic and characteristics is more appropriate. regeneration aims A key point of distinction between commu- Community stadia are accessible, multi- nity stadia and other professional sports functional buildings that work with their communities to offer a diverse stadia is the ‘quadruple bottom line’ of range of non-matchday facilities and sporting, commercial, community and eco- services for their communities, alongside nomic regeneration aims. meeting the sporting and commercial Each aim must be delivered in an equi- demands that face all professional table manner for a genuine community sta- sports stadia. dium to be achieved. Referring back to the literature, many professional sports stadia Table 3 presents this paper’s conceptualisa- do house wider facilities and services that tion of community stadia and has 12 fea- the community can access (Brown and tures, ranging from stadia aims to McGee, 2012), but the point of distinction management arrangements. The remainder lies in the prominence of a stadium’s com- of this paper draws on the case study munity aims. For community stadia, they McTier 11

Table 3. Key features of the community stadia phenomenon.

Characteristics and/or influences

Aims  Quadruple bottom line of professional sport, commercial, economic devel- opment, and community aims Source(s) of stadium  Fully funded (or majority funding) from public finances finance  Public financing offers opportunity to attach public agenda aims to community stadia Stadia location  Small city or town locations  Accessible site: central or edge-of-town site, rather than out-of-town, sat- ellite site  Proximity to pubs and social amenities Size of stadia  Mid-size stadium – i.e. capacity between 6,000 to 25,000 – to reflect catch- ment population and provincial standing of professional sports club(s) Stadia design  Exterior architectural appeal to embody economic ‘flagship development’ aims  Interior stadia functionality to enable multi-functional and wider community uses Age of stadia  Typically newly constructed, i.e. post-2000, in response to quadruple bottom line aims attached to new professional sports stadia  Older stadia can be adapted to become community stadia Sports hosted  One or more professional sports teams (in UK most likely to be professional football, cricket, rugby league or rugby union)  At least one professional sports club to have high local profile Communities targeted  Resident and business communities within local authority area – prioritising more marginalised communities wherever possible  Attraction of more distant resident (and business) communities for mega- events staged in community stadia  Attention also paid to internal communities of the stadium Non-matchday facilities  Multiple facilities and services to reflect quadruple bottom line and services  Facility and service mix varies from stadium to stadium, but education, training, youth, public and mental health, sport community outreach/CSR, and small business uses most well-suited  External stadium environment – e.g. car parks – also used for non-matchday facilities and services Community values  Community-based values and principles  Nurturing of a welcoming and inclusive stadium culture for all users Stadia ownership  Hybrid public–private arrangement with public (e.g. local authority), private/ and governance sporting (e.g. professional sports club) and community (e.g. community outreach/CSR trust) representation Stadium management  Leadership commitment to community-based values and principles  Understand areas of alignment and tension between quadruple bottom line aims  Wide and diverse skillset

CSR: corporate social responsibility. 12 Local Economy 0(0) ought to be core to its design, operation and children and young people from adults using public understanding of the stadium, as the stadia, business tenants fearing reputa- opposed to being subordinate to sporting, tional harm from youth misbehaviour, or commercial and economic regeneration the perceived inaccessibility of edge-of-town aims. stadia sites – but most relate to the challenge Delivering all four aims in a balanced, of balancing commercial and community equitable manner is not, however, without aims. Generating commercial revenue to challenge. In some scenarios, aims are mutu- meet stadia finance and maintenance costs ally reinforcing but, for others, there are ten- is critical, yet high tenancy or hire charges sions that stadia officials need to mitigate and the targeting of higher income resident against. The standout positive area of align- or business communities attract criticism that ment is the additionality of professional ‘communities of need’ are not being served, sport and its contribution to commercial, so misappropriating the ‘community’ prefix community and economic regeneration (Blackshaw, 2008; Mellor, 2008). Some con- aims. Whether this be due to the kudos, cerns of this nature were raised in the case prestige or professionalism of the clubs, the studies but there was also support for how players and/or the stadia, the close associa- commercial and community aims could tion of professional sport attracts multiple align, particularly if the stadia attract busi- and heterogeneous communities (Morgan nesses and jobs to the local area or proac- et al., 2017; Parnell et al., 2017; Pringle and tively support local businesses, as these Sayers, 2004; Spaaij et al., 2013). This is contribute to the establishment of sustainable illustrated by the two stadia being used by communities (Kearns and Turok, 2003; young people not in employment, education Rogerson et al., 2011). or training, adults with a disability, sub- stance misuse or mental health issues, and pensioners. This finding in itself justifies Source(s) of stadia finance the interest in community stadia as there Public finance has played a critical role in are few other building types that successfully the construction of community stadia and engage such diverse and ‘hard to reach’ com- this has implications for how the stadia are munities. Learning also from the ‘Healthy designed, governed and managed. In con- Stadia’ phenomenon (Drygas et al., 2013; trast to stadia that are privately financed, Parnell et al., 2017), community stadia local authorities’ ownership or significant offer the opportunity for other service shareholding in the stadia provide them types (e.g. public and mental health, educa- with a strong voice in stadia aims and oper- tion, youth, and employment and benefits ation. For example, they can task stadia services) to revise their opinions of profes- officials with key public agenda (communi- sional sports stadia and consider co- ty development, education, physical and locating their community-facing services in mental health, youth engagement, crime stadia to benefit from the additionality of prevention, etc.) and veto ‘undesirable’ or professional sport. ethically contentious stadia uses, such as Whilemaximisingtheareaswhereaims for casinos. complement one another, stadia officials must also recognise and attend to tensions that can compromise the delivery of commu- Stadia location nity aims. Some tensions stem from the Stadia location relates to the stadia’s host stadia being accessible, multifunctional build- town or city, site and accessibility, and con- ings – for example the safeguarding risks to nectedness to other local amenities. Local McTier 13 authorities have significant influence here Stadia remained accessible insofar that as not only do they (part-) fund the they were 2 km from their town centres, stadia, but they are also responsible for well served by public transport and were town planning. perceived as assets within popular, mixed- Beginning with the towns or cities where use regeneration sites. An important ‘community stadia’ have been planned or distinction is therefore made between constructed – Brentford, Brighton, accessible edge-of-town sites and discon- Cambridge, Castleford, Chesterfield, nected out-of-town, satellite locations, with Colchester, Doncaster, Falkirk, Grimsby, the latter not deemed compatible with com- Truro, Wimbledon and York – all can be munity stadia ambitions. described as small cities or towns, noting The third locational factor is the proxim- that Brentford and Wimbledon are part of ity of stadia to pubs and social amenities as the Greater London conurbation but have these provide valuable opportunities for quite distinct town identities within it. The social interaction and the building of small city or town location is viewed as a social capital (Roseland, 2012; Volker key characteristic of community stadia as it et al., 2007). For central, working class reflects the realities of local public finances. community-based stadia, such amenities To explain, the capital development spend have developed organically over time, but of local authorities beyond the UK’s core they are less likely to exist for new, edge- cities is limited, meaning that any signifi- of-town stadia. An important point of cant capital investment by smaller local learning for new, edge-of-town community authorities ought to be maximised with stadia is to assess the social amenity mix regards its socio-economic impact. If inves- alongside other conventional planning con- ting public monies in professional sports siderations (e.g. land costs, transport con- stadia, then this should be dependent on nectivity and car parking provision) when the stadia also contributing to other appraising different site options. public agenda – hence the interest in com- Alternatively, the Keepmoat Stadia case munity stadia. Local authorities may also study shows that stadia officials can consid- recognise that their local professional er how to develop such social amenities, for sports clubs do not have the sporting suc- example through constructing ‘clubhouses’ cess, profile or supporter base to ensure the close to the stadia. financial self-sustainability of the stadia. By opening the stadia up to wider uses, alter- Size of stadia native sources of stadia income can be derived. Community stadia need to be built to an Following agreement to invest in a com- appropriate size that reflects their sporting, munity stadium, the site and accessibility of commercial and community ‘markets’. community stadia becomes a critical con- Community stadia have consequently been sideration. Here the literature advances small to mid-size, ranging from approxi- the case for central, urban stadia locations mately 6,000 to 25,000 seat capacity, to due to concerns stemming from the subur- reflect their town or small city catchment banisation of stadia to edge-of-town sites population and the standing of the local (Thornley 2002; Van Dam, 2000). professional sports club(s). The lower limit However, this paper’s case study evidence of approximately 6000 is important, as contests this by indicating that an edge- stadia below that size neither embody a of-town site is compatible with community flagship development that attracts diverse stadia. Both the Keepmoat and Falkirk communities nor have the scale to host 14 Local Economy 0(0) multiple facilities and services. If greater regional scale (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, than 25,000 seat capacity, then meeting 2009; Coates, 2007; Van Holm, 2018). sporting and commercial demands may dominate over community aims. Stadia design Community stadia are therefore The architectural design of community moderate-sized stadia and expectations of stadia is another critical planning consider- what they can deliver need to be adjusted ation. For many, the design intent primarily accordingly, particularly as many stadia relates to the aesthetic ‘exterior appeal’ of proponents have over-promised the socio- the stadia – i.e. the extent to which it has an economic benefits of new stadia (Baade, innovative, flagship architectural design. 1996; Coates, 2007; Siegfried and On this measure, modern professional Zimbalist, 2006). Applying Roberts et al.’s sports stadia (like other urban entrepre- (2016) economic impact analysis of neurial flagship developments) have often Swansea City FC and the 380,000 specta- adopted uniform, copycat designs which tors attending its Liberty Stadium during impact on their (lack of) distinctiveness the 2011–2012 season to this paper’s two (Cuthbert, 2011). Duke (2002) notes the case studies, the gross regional impact increased uniformity by stating that: (including multiplier effects) of Doncaster Rovers FC and Falkirk FC can be estimat- Travelling to away matches used to ed at £2 million and £1.5 million per involve visiting a unique ground steeped annum, respectively. By understanding in history, with distinctive stands and their moderate economic scale and impact, strange, quirky corners and historical the Keepmoat and Falkirk Stadia were con- relics. Many of the new all seated stands ceived as flagship developments that would at the old grounds are similar, and visiting contribute to the economic regeneration of one new relocated stadium is very much their towns, but no extravagant declara- like visiting another. (Duke, 2002: 16) tions of the number of jobs to be created or investment attracted were made. These The key design challenge facing community expectations have largely played out: the stadia is, however, less their ‘exterior direct impact on jobs and income is estimat- appeal’ and more their ‘interior functional- ed at 150–200 full-time equivalent jobs ity’. Of the case studies, their designs housed in each stadium. More widely, the did not fully attend to this and so compro- stadia have contributed to place branding mised their multifunctional and wider and place making activities by becoming community uses. Stadia officials conse- symbolic anchors of their respective quently had to retrospectively invest in the Lakeside and Falkirk Gateway regenera- internal stadia fabric to overcome the tion areas, and to culture-led economic design flaws that stemmed from sporting development approaches by hosting pop interests dominating at the planning stage. concerts and second-tier international fix- These findings dictate that there is a need tures that would not otherwise come to for a re-imagining of professional sports Doncaster and Falkirk. Overall, the size stadia design so that they become truly and scale of community stadia means that inclusive, accessible and multifunctional they can affect social and economic change buildings (Heylighen, 2008), yet also ensur- at the localised or ‘town’ spatial level that ing the sporting, commercial and public reflects their small city or town environ- safety needs are met. Achieving this is ment, but not at the metropolitan or dependent on those commissioning new McTier 15 stadia – i.e. civic leaders and professional Where there are multiple sports and sports clubs – being more demanding in clubs hosted, there may be challenges in their expectations of stadia architects. achieving equity of use and influence. One club will likely have primacy on account of Age of stadia their greater profile, supporter base, finan- cial turnover or number of matches per An interpretation of this paper’s post-2000 annum. In the Keepmoat Stadium’s exam- case study selection criteria is that only new ple, Doncaster Rovers FC was the primary stadia can claim to be community stadia. club and led to some instances where However, this is not necessarily the case as Doncaster RLFC and Doncaster Belles older stadia that meet the factors described WFC felt their needs and interests were in this section can equally be community not fully taken into account. Other commu- stadia. The greatest challenge for older nity users of both stadia experienced similar stadia may be in redesigning or renovating tensions; referring to occasions where they older stadia to accommodate multi- had been prevented from using the stadia, functional uses but the learning from the and re-arranged professional sporting fix- Keepmoat and Falkirk Stadia shows that tures not being communicated or their the interior functionality of stadia appears impact on other users considered. to be a common challenge to all. Addressing this requires respect, under- standing and effective communication Sports hosted between all stadium users, with a joint memorandum of understanding a mecha- Community stadia, as conceptualised in this nism that could be used to facilitate stadia paper, play host to professional sport but use across different sporting, community the specific professional sport or sports will and business partners. differ from stadia to stadia depending on While tensions need to be managed, it is the local context. The Keepmoat Stadium important that at least one of the profes- played host to professional football and sional sports clubs have a high profile local- semi-professional rugby league and ly. Its standing provides the sporting women’s football; while the Falkirk additionality that attracts the multiple, Stadium played host to professional foot- diverse communities to the community ball only. The common theme is that they stadia. Of note, such a profile does not play host to professional team sports. This require ‘Premier League’ status. Neither is seen to be important in establishing com- Doncaster Rovers FC nor Falkirk FC munity stadia because there is a greater were playing in the top domestic tier but community attachment to team profession- both clubs have a strong relationship with al sports than with an individual sport (e.g. and identity among their local communities athletics and tennis). In the UK, communi- that contributed positively to how the two ty stadia are therefore most likely to play stadia were viewed. host to professional football, cricket, rugby league or rugby union but, if extended Communities targeted beyond a UK sporting context, could The ‘community’ prefix differentiates com- include American Football, Australian munity stadia from other professional Rules Football, baseball and indoor sports stadia, but what is the ‘community’ arena-based sports (such as basketball and being referred to? For professional sports ice hockey). stadia as a whole, the literature makes a 16 Local Economy 0(0) distinction between (aspatial) ‘communities numbering 340 days each year. Of the of the club’ and (spatial) ‘communities of non-matchday service types that work the stadium’ (Brown et al., 2008; Duke, best, education (from early years and child- 2002; Hamil and Morrow, 2011). This dis- care through to tertiary education), train- tinction holds true for community stadia ing, youth, public and mental health, sport with the focus of the Keepmoat and community outreach/CSR activities, and Falkirk Stadia similarly on the spatial, small business uses were all found to be local ‘communities of the stadia’. particularly well suited to community However, neither stadium used rigid geo- stadia. Not only do community stadia graphical boundaries to demarcate the spe- have the internal physical space to accom- cific spatial communities to be targeted. modate these different functions, but the Instead a fluid and pragmatic approach stadia also have the accessibility and was taken that enabled both case study kudos to attract their different target com- stadia to engage with multiple, diverse com- munities and consumers. munities from their towns, while a regional The stadia exterior should also not be population catchment was then targeted for forgotten as it too can accommodate the pop concerts staged. Furthermore, the diverse community uses. The weekly car ‘communities’ of the two stadia were not boot sales and annual fireworks displays only restricted to the resident population held in the Keepmoat and Falkirk stadia but also local businesses and Third Sector car parks are good examples of this and organisations, thereby playing out the close have enabled the stadia to become ‘human- relationship between the ‘heroic’ dual ised’ as important civic settings. The onus domains of business and sport (Williams, therefore is on stadia officials being open, 1995). inclusive and adaptable to diverse commu- The discussion above refers to the user or nity uses of the stadia interior and exterior, ‘external’ resident and business communi- while wider service types ought to revise ties attracted to the stadia. However, com- and update their opinions of professional munity stadia also encourage consideration sports stadia as places where they could of the individuals and organisations that locate their community-facing activities. work in the stadia or their ‘internal commu- nities’. For those working within the stadia, Community values the stadia become a nexus for different indi- viduals to interact with one another and For genuine community stadia to exist, not form community ties, potentially leading only should multiple community facilities to tenant organisations and workers identi- and services be hosted, but community- fying, exploring and capitalising on shared based values should also be at the heart of interests and opportunities. For Massey the stadia’s culture and ethos. This means (2005, 2007), these interactions conceptual- that there is a welcoming and inclusive sta- ly turn stadia from a physical space into a dium culture experienced by all, with no meaningful ‘place’. visible hierarchy across different stadium users. An excellent example of this was pro- Non-matchday stadia facilities and vided by Falkirk FC’s playing staff who were welcoming and respectful of the services young participants of the Falkirk Football A key determinant of community stadia is Foundation. By establishing such an inclu- that they host non-matchday facilities and sive environment, the interactions and services, with non-matchdays potentially negotiations between the multiple, diverse McTier 17 communities that ultimately contribute to Doncaster to directly respond to areas of genuine community stadia can thus be sup- alignment and tension across the quadruple ported (Massey, 2005, 2007). bottom line. Hybrid ownership and governance Stadia ownership and governance arrangements that span private, public and third sector interests appear critical to A key theme across all the characteristics delivering the community stadium phenom- above is that professional sports stadia do enon. In contrast to single body ownership not automatically become community and governance (e.g. by a professional stadia. They need to be designed and man- sports club or stadium management compa- aged as such. The ownership and gover- ny), the multiple perspectives and expertise nance of the stadia is crucial to this brought through a hybrid arrangement help because these functions set the strategic to balance the quadruple bottom line aims vision and parameters for the stadia. of community stadia. Arrangements are Focusing on the ownership and governance then further enhanced when different disci- of the Keepmoat Stadium, the attention to plines and service backgrounds are included community aims was fundamentally trans- in recognition of the specific demands relat- formed following the transfer of the stadi- ing to education, training, youth, public um’s tenancy from its initial Stadium and mental health, sport community out- Management Company to a wider Club reach/CSR activities, and small business Doncaster umbrella structure. Under the uses of the stadia. Stadium Management Company, not only The concern surrounding hybrid owner- was the stadium running at a financial loss ship and governance arrangements is their but stakeholders also saw insufficient focus transparency. There are parallels here with on the stadium’s community aims. In con- Vento’s (2017) critique of ALEOs as fulfill- trast, Club Doncaster has since provided ing a ‘technocratic and privatized manage- holistic governance of the quadruple ment of the public sphere’, as there are bottom line aims. questions over how accountable they are Established in 2013, Club Doncaster is a to local communities. Stadia officials there- limited company that brings together into a fore need to consider and ensure the trans- single structure Doncaster Rovers FC, parency and accountability of their hybrid Doncaster RLFC, Club Doncaster ownership and governance arrangements, Foundation (including the Club Doncaster for example through clear and open com- Sports College) and the Keepmoat munication of structures, community repre- Stadium. Led by its benefactors (the sentation on management boards, and former owners of Keepmoat construction mechanisms or community fora that allow company who continue to reinforce the community input into decision making. importance of community values and achieving a legacy for Doncaster residents), Club Doncaster’s board consists of repre- Stadia operational management sentatives across sport, commercial busi- The final characteristic is the operational ness, education, health, police and third management skillset necessary to translate sector. Collectively, this means the board the vision of a community stadium and its and senior management have strategic over- quadruple bottom line into a reality. sight and control of the stadium’s key Precisely, articulating the skillset of the sporting, commercial and community Keepmoat and Falkirk Stadia’s key officials assets and partners, so enabling Club is difficult but, building on the community 18 Local Economy 0(0) assets literature (see Aiken et al., 2011; In contrast to neoliberal urban economic Marriott, 1997), the skills include: imagina- development policy focused on city centres, tion and determination to deliver on the flagship developments and the interests of community stadia vision; understanding of the urban elite, community entrepreneurial- the sporting, commercial, economic regen- ism is characterised by deeper engagement eration and community development with citizens and businesses in deprived worlds; partnership working skills across communities, building their social and eco- public, private and Third Sector organisa- nomic capacities, and enabling them to tions; community engagement skills that influence and shape policy and decision- could develop into co-production skills; making (Devaney et al., 2017). Within financial management and business plan- this, there is more explicit support for ning to ensure commercial viability; entre- micro-, small and community enterprises preneurial and marketing flair to market in recognition of their roles as the stadia and attract users; mediation and neighbourhood-level community anchors negotiation skills to overcome tensions and providers of local jobs and services. between different aims, partners and users; ‘Economic role models’ or ‘economic acti- and performance measurement and man- vists’ within deprived neighbourhoods are agement skills. In short, an extensive and also supported as they can catalyse local diverse skillset is required and the sustain- entrepreneurship, share learning with ability of the community stadium phenom- other communities, and act as a powerful enon may therefore revolve around the voice back to policymakers (Devaney ability to build or attract these skills. et al., 2017). Community stadia could become key contributors within a community entrepre- Conclusion neurialism approach. As edge-of-town, There is still much to understand about multi-functional buildings, they can provide community stadia, and it is hoped that a hub for local residents and businesses that this paper’s conceptualisation provides a builds the social and economic capital of basis for increased academic interest and the local area. Then, through their under- research into the phenomenon, particularly standing of their local resident and business with the opportunities to learn from new communities and by building on their expe- examples of community stadia being con- rience of developing sustainable community structed in the UK. More widely, there is stadia, stadia officials can become ‘econom- also a need to better understand where ic role models’ or ‘economic activists’ community stadia sit within broader (Devaney et al., 2017). This means they urban, economic and community develop- can challenge city centric urban entrepre- ment discourses. Indeed, as an alternative neurial planning decisions, advance the to urban entrepreneurialism, it may be needs of more disadvantaged communities, more appropriate to situate community and support ‘community hub or building’ stadia within debates around community developments in other parts of their towns entrepreneurialism and its focus on ‘com- or cities. Community stadia could therefore munity’, ‘citizen-driven’ and ‘inclusive play an important role in facilitating an growth’ urban revitalisation that meets the alternative, equitable model of urban devel- needs of all neighbourhoods and localities opment, one where the quadruple bottom (Devaney et al., 2017; Schaller, 2018; line is more apparent across all public Southern and Whittam, 2015). developments and investments. McTier 19

Declaration of Conflicting Interests democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s41021/ The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of Community interest with respect to the research, authorship, Coates D (2007) Stadiums and arenas: Economic and/or publication of this article. development or economic redistribution? Contemporary Economic Policy 25(4): 565–577. Funding Cuthbert A (2011) Understanding Cities: Method The author(s) received no financial support for in Urban Design. Routledge: Abingdon. the research, authorship, and/or publication of Del Casino V Jr, Grimes A, Hanna P, et al. this article. (2000) Methodological frameworks for the geography of organisations. Geoforum 31: ORCID iD 523–538. Alexander John McTier https://orcid.org/ Devaney C, Shafique A and Grinsted S (2017) 0000-0002-3639-5214 Citizens and Inclusive Growth. London: RSA Action and Research Centre. Doucet, B (2007) Flagship Regeneration: pana- References cea or urban problem? Paper presented to: Ahlfeldt G and Maennig W (2009) Arenas, arena EURA Conference, The Vital City, 12-14 architecture and the impact on location desir- September, 2007, Glasgow, Scotland. ability: The case of ‘Olympic Arenas’ in Available at: www.gla.ac.uk/media/ Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Urban Studies Media_47909_smxx.pdf 46(7): 1343–1362. Drygas W, Ruszkowska J, Philpott M, et al. Aiken M, Cairns B, Taylor M, et al. (2011) (2013) Good practices and health policy anal- Community Organisations Controlling Assets: ysis in European sports stadia: Results from A Better Understanding. York: Joseph the ‘Healthy Stadia’ project. Health Rowntree Foundation. Promotion International 28(2): 157–165. Baade R (1996) Professional sports as catalysts Duke V (2002) Local tradition versus globalisa- for metropolitan economic development. tion: Resistance to the McDonaldisation and Journal of Urban Affairs 18(1): 1–17. Disneyisation of professional football in Bale J (2000) The changing face of football: England. Football Studies 1: 5–23. Stadiums and communities. Soccer & Easton G (2010) Critical realism in case study Society 1(1): 91–101. research. Industrial Marketing Management Blackshaw T (2008) Contemporary community 39: 118–128. theory and football. Soccer & Society 9(3): Eckstein R and Delaney K (2002) New sports 325–345. stadiums, community self-esteem, and com- Brown A, Crabbe T and Mellor G (2008) munity collective conscience. Journal of Introduction: Football and community – Sport and Social Issues 26(3): 235–247. Practical and theoretical considerations. Flyvbjerg B (2011) Case study. In: Denzin N and Soccer & Society 9(3): 303–312. Lincoln Y (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Brown A and McGee F (2012) Grounds for Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Benefit: Developing and Protecting Oaks, CA: Sage, Chapter 17. Community Benefit in Football Stadia. Ginesta X (2017) The business use of stadia: London: Supporters Direct. Maximising the use of Spanish football Chase J and Healey M (1995) The spatial exter- venues. Tourism and Hospitality Research nality effects of football matches and rock 17(4): 411–423. concerts: The case of Portman Road Giulianotti R (2011) Sport mega events, urban Stadium, Ipswich, Suffolk. Applied football carnivals and securitised commodifi- Geography 15(1): 18–34. cation: The case of the English Premier City of York Council (2010) Community stadium League. Urban Studies 48(5): 3293–3310. – Business case. Report of the Director of Hamil S and Morrow S (2011) Corporate social City Strategy. Available at: https:// responsibility in the Scottish Premier League: 20 Local Economy 0(0)

Context and motivation. European Sport Parnell D, Curran K and Philpott M (2017) Management Quarterly 11(2): 143–170. Healthy stadia: An insight from policy to Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entre- practice. Sport in Society 20(2): 181–186. preneurialism: The transformation in urban Pike A, Rodriguez-Pose A, and Tomaney J governance in late capitalism. Geografiska (2007) What Kind of Local and Regional Annaler 71B(1): 3–17. Development and for Whom? Regional Heylighen A (2008) Sustainable and inclusive Studies 41(9): 1253–1269. design: A matter of knowledge? Local PMP (2008) Cambridge Community Stadium Environment 13(6): 531–540. Feasibility Stadium. South Cambridgeshire Jones C (2001) Mega-events and host-region District Council. Available at: https://www. impacts: Determining the true worth of the scambs.gov.uk/media/7564/cambridge-com- 1999 World Cup. International Journal of munity-stadium-feasibility-study-2008.pdf Tourism Research 3: 241–251. Pringle A and Sayers P (2004) It’s a goal!: Basing Kearns A and Turok I (2003) Sustainable com- a community psychiatric nursing service in a munities: Dimensions and challenges. ESRC; local football stadium. The Journal of the ODPM. Royal Society for the Promotion of Health Kelly L (2010) ‘Social inclusion’ through sports- 124(5): 234–238. based interventions? Critical Social Policy Raco M, Henderson S, and Bowlby S (2008) 31(1): 126–150. Changing Times, Changing Places: Urban Kennedy D (2012) Football stadium relocation Development and the Politics of Space- and the commodification of football: The Time. Environment and Planning A 40: case of Everton supporters and their adop- 2652–2673. tion of the language of commerce. Soccer & Roberts A, Roche N, Jones C, et al. (2016) What Society 13(3): 341–358. is the value of a Premier League football club Marriott P (1997) Forgotten Resources? The Role to a regional economy? European Sport of Community Buildings in Strengthening Management Quarterly 16(5): 575–591. Local Communities. York: Joseph Rowntree Rogerson R, Sadler S, Green A, et al. (eds) Foundation. Massey D (2005) For Space. London: Sage. (2011) Sustainable Communities: Skills and Massey D (2007) Space, Place and Gender. Learning for Place-Making. Hatfield: Cambridge: Polity Press. University of Hertfordshire Press. McKean A, Harris J and Lennon J (2017) The Roseland M (2012) Toward Sustainable Kelpies, the Falkirk Wheel, and the tourism- Communities. 4th ed. Canada: New Society. based regeneration of Scottish Canals. Sanders A, Heys B, Ravenscroft N, et al. (2014) International Journal of Tourism Research Making a difference: The power of football in 19(6): 736–745. the community. Soccer & Society 15(3): Mellor G (2008) The Janus-faced sport: English 411–429. football, community and the legacy of the Sayer A (1992) Method in Social Science: A ‘third way’. Soccer & Society 9(3): 313–324. Realist Approach. 2nd ed. London: Morgan A, Drew D, Clifford A, et al. (2017) Routledge. Success of a sports-club led-community Schaller S (2018) Public-private synergies: X-PERT Diabetes Education Programme. Reconceiving urban development in Sport in Society 20(2): 269–280. Tubingen, Germany. Journal of Urban Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Affairs. DOI: 10.1080/ Development (2007) Competitive Cities: A 07352166.2018.1465345. New Entrepreneurial Paradigm in Spatial Siegfried J and Zimbalist A (2006) The economic Development. OECD: Paris. impact of sports facilities, teams and mega- Paramio J, Buraimo B and Campos C (2008) events. The Australian Economic Review From modern to postmodern: The develop- 39(4): 420–427. ment of football stadia in Europe. Sport in Slack T (2014) The social and commercial Society 11(5): 517–534. impact of sport, the role of sport McTier 21

management. European Sport Management Van Holm (2018) Minor stadiums, major effects? Quarterly 14(5): 454–463. Patterns and sources of redevelopment sur- Southern A and Whittam G (2015) The re- rounding minor league baseball stadiums. appropriation of enterprise and urban entre- Urban Studies. DOI: 10.1177/ preneurialism. In: Mason C, Reuschke D, 0042098018760731. Syrett S, et al. (eds) Entrepreneurship in Vento A (2017) Mega-project meltdown: Post- Cities: Neighbourhoods, Households and politics, neoliberal urban regeneration and Homes. Camberley: Edward Elgar Valencia’s fiscal crisis. Urban Studies 54(1): Publishing, Chapter 5. 68–84. Spaaij R, Magee J and Jeanes R (2013) Urban Volker B, Flap H and Lindenberg S (2007) youth, worklessness and sport: A comparison When are neighbourhoods communities? of sports-based employability programmes in Community in Dutch neighbourhoods. Rotterdam and Stoke-on-Trent. Urban European Sociological Review 23(1): 99–114. Studies 50(8): 1608–1624. Walsh A and Giulianotti R (2001) This sporting Thornley A (2002) Urban regeneration and Mammon: A normative critique of the com- sports stadia. European Planning Studies modification of sport. Journal of the 10(7): 813–818. Philosophy of Sport 28(1): 53–77. Van Dam F (2000) Refurbishment, redevelop- Williams J (1995) English football stadiums after ment or relocation? The changing form and Hillsborough. In: Bale J and Moen O (eds) location of football stadiums in the The Stadium and the City. Keele: Keele Netherlands. Area 32(2): 133–143. University Press, pp. 219–253.