DOCSLIB.ORG

2012 Games Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Report 5: Post-Games Evaluation Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games RESEARCH QUESTIONS 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) For: Department for Culture, Media & Sport Prepared by: Grant Thornton UK LLP Ecorys Loughborough University Oxford Economics Future Inclusion July 2013 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) Contents Acknowledgements 1 1 Introduction 4 2 Method 7 3 Harnessing the UK's Passion for Sport 11 4 Exploiting Opportunities for Economic Growth 81 5 Promoting Community Engagement & Participation 134 6 Driving the Regeneration of East London 157 7 Lessons Learnt 200 8 Headline and Cross-Cutting Research Questions 212 Annex A: List of Research Questions 250 Annex B: Note on National Audit Office Games Review 256 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) Acknowledgements The Department for Culture, Media & Sport and the meta-evaluation team would like to thank the many people and organisations who contributed to the meta-evaluation. Their invaluable participation and feedback throughout the project helped ensure the meta-evaluation was a comprehensive undertaking which provides a robust assessment of the legacy and impact of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Evaluation Steering Group Big Lottery Fund Cabinet Office Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Children Schools and Families Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture, Media and Sport Department for Education Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Work and Pensions Department of Health Economic and Social Research Council Foreign and Commonwealth Office Government Olympic Executive Greater London Authority HM Treasury Host Borough Unit London Development Agency London Legacy Development Corporation London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Nations and Regions Group Office for Disability Issues Olympic Delivery Authority Olympic Park Legacy Company Prime Minister's Delivery Unit Scottish Government (Devolved Administration Representative) Skills Funding Agency Sport England UK Trade and Investment Academic Experts Tony Bovaird, University of Birmingham David Gough, University of London Steve Martin, Cardiff University Academic Peer Reviewers Beatriz Garcia, University of Liverpool Iain Macrury, Bournemouth University Stefan Szymanski, University of Michigan Peter Wells, Sheffield Hallam University 1 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) Government Peer Reviewers Thanos Alifantis, HMRC Mike Daly, Department for Works & Pensions Consultees Accessible Tourism Stakeholder Forum, Department for Culture, Media & Sport Association of Colleges BioRegional British Olympic Association British Paralympic Association Business Disability Forum Cabinet Office Channel 4 Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 CBI EDF Energy Dame Kelly Holmes Legacy Trust Department for Business, Innovation & Skills Department for Communities & Local Government Department for Culture, Media & Sport Department for Education Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Health Department for Transport Disability Rights UK Driving Inspiration East Thames English Federation of Disability Sport ExCeL London Exhibition and Convention Centre Federation of Small Businesses Foreign and Commonwealth Office Greater London Authority Groundwork Hackney Community College Higher Education Funding Council for England Host Borough Unit Inclusion London Join In Kraft Foods Land Prop Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Legacy Trust UK Level Playing Field London & Partners London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Newham London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Waltham Forest London Chambers of Commerce Local Government Association London Legacy Development Corporation London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralymic Games London Travel Watch McDonalds National Children's Bureau National Council for Voluntary Organisations 2 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) Northern Ireland Office Office for Civil Society Office for Disability Issues Office for National Statistics Olympic Delivery Authority Parasport Physical Activity Alliance Podium Scope Scottish Government Skillset Skillsmart Skills Active Skills Funding Agency Sport England Sustrans Tourism for All Transport for All Transport for London UK Sport UK Trade and Investment vInspired Visit Britain Visit England Youth Sport Trust Youthnet Welsh Government Westfield 3 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games ('the Games' or '2012 Games') was one of the largest events ever hosted in the UK. A key element of London's bid was the commitment that the Games would result in a lasting legacy for the whole of the UK. It was a commitment that was subsequently reflected in the overall vision for the Games as the Government sought to use the power of the Games to inspire lasting change – before, during and after the Games. In light of this commitment, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) commissioned a consortium led by Grant Thornton, including Ecorys, Loughborough University, Oxford Economics and Future Inclusion, to undertake a comprehensive and robust 'meta-evaluation' of the additionality, outputs, results, impacts and associated benefits of the investment in the 2012 Games. The consortium was supported by a team of independent academic peer reviewers – Beatriz Garcia (University of Liverpool), Iain Macrury (University of Bournemouth), Stefan Szymanski (University of Michigan) and Peter Wells (Sheffield Hallam University) – who provided a source of guidance, check and challenge through the course of the work, though did not formally sign-off the meta-evaluation reports. This commission went beyond anything that has been done before in trying to understand the difference made by hosting an Olympic and Paralympic Games. It was driven by a real desire across Government to understand the impact of the Games and the role they have played in inspiring lasting change. Due to its innovative and boundary pushing nature, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) part funded the project to enable it to make a contribution to advancing meta-evaluation methods. Over a three year period the evaluation team worked closely with those involved in delivering the Games and its legacy, as well as those involved in researching its impact. This resulted in the creation of a comprehensive evidence base that enabled a robust assessment to be made of the success and impact of the Games in delivering a lasting legacy. One year after the Games, and with legacy being thought about over at least a 10 year timeframe, there are obviously still many legacy benefits to emerge and impacts to be unpicked. However, what this work shows is that there is already much that can be said about how the Games have helped change places, organisations and individuals. 1.2 The structure of the meta-evaluation The Government's plan for the meta-evaluation consists of four phases: Phase 1: Inception (March 2010 – April 2011); Phase 2: Baseline and pre-Games interim evaluation (February 2011 – Summer 2012); Phase 3: Post-Games evaluation (June 2012 – June 2013); and Phase 4: Longer-term evaluation of the impacts and legacy of the Games. It is planned that Phase 4 of the work, looking at the longer-term impacts and legacy of the Games, will take place separately at a later date and cover the impacts up to 2020. This report (Report 5) is the final report in a series of five reports, which cover phases 1 to 3 of the meta-evaluation: Report 1: Scope, research questions and data strategy; 4 2012 Games Meta-evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Games Evaluation) Report 2: Methods; Report 3: Baseline and counterfactual; Report 4: Pre-Games interim evaluation; and Report 5: Post-Games evaluation. The work undertaken in Reports 1 to 4 was of critical importance in providing the foundations for this report by establishing – among other things – the research questions the study would answer, the approach and method taken to gathering the evidence and the context against which the impact of the legacy should be measured and evaluated. This report builds directly on these foundations and the early look at the impacts and legacy emerging from pre-Games activity that was covered in Report 4, to provide an overall assessment of the available evidence of the impacts and legacy up to the end of 2012. 1.3 Report 5 This report examines available evidence of the impacts and legacy that emerged from activity taking place in the pre-Games, Games-time and immediate post-Games period (up to the end of 2012). It draws on a wide range of available sources of evidence, including monitoring and output data, evaluations and research undertaken by other organisations and individuals and primary research commissioned or undertaken directly by the meta-evaluation team. It also incorporates outputs from a large programme of stakeholder consultation. This report is therefore an initial assessment of the emerging legacy from the 2012 Games for each of four legacy themes (Sport, Economy, Community Engagement and Regeneration of East London), primarily setting out what has already been achieved and
Recommended publications
  • Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park: an Assessment of the 2012 London Games Legacies Simona Azzali*

    Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park: an Assessment of the 2012 London Games Legacies Simona Azzali*

    Azzali City Territ Archit (2017) 4:11 DOI 10.1186/s40410-017-0066-0 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park: an assessment of the 2012 London Games Legacies Simona Azzali* Abstract The London 2012 Olympics were the frst Games with a legacy plan already in execution well before the beginning of the event. This study aims at evaluating the legacies of this Olympic edition, with particular regard to the new public open spaces created and their sustainability. The research carries out a post-occupancy evaluation of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, which is the main output of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Results show good achievements in terms of physical and social integration while the economic impact appears to be the weakest legacy from hosting the Games. Keywords: Olympic Legacies, Mega sports events, London 2012, Sustainable open spaces, Legacy planning Background the frst hosting city with a comprehensive legacy plan Mega-events, from the Olympics to the World Cups, are that was already in execution before the staging of the often regarded by planners and politicians as key driv- Games (Chappelet 2008). Indeed, in 2003, the Olympic ers for the overall redevelopment of a city (Azzali 2017; Committee amended its charter to include an additional Malfas et al. 2004). Mega-events have driven the urban statement in its mission that focused on the generation transformation of cities such as Barcelona, London, Rio, of benefcial legacies for hosting cities. Since 2003, all Beijing, and Shanghai, but while the prospect of eco- bidding cities are required to have a legacy plan in their nomic growth is the driving force for hosting a major candidacy fles, explaining post event usage for sports event, the legacies that follow their hosting have been dif- facilities and long-term plans for the areas involved in the fcult to design and quantify (Preuss 2007).
  • The Olympic Games and Civil Liberties

    The Olympic Games and Civil Liberties

    Analysis A “clean city”: the Olympic Games and civil liberties Chris Jones Introduction In 2005, the UK won the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Seven years later, the Games are due to begin, but they are not without controversy. Sponsors of the Games – including McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury’s, BP and, perhaps most controversially, Dow Chemical [1] – were promised “what is chillingly called a ‘clean city’, handing them ownership of everything within camera distance of the games.” [2] In combination with measures put in place to deal with what have been described as the “four key risks” of terrorism, protest, organised crime and natural disasters, [3] these measures have led to a number of detrimental impacts upon civil liberties, dealt with here under the headings of freedom of expression; freedom of movement; freedom of assembly; and the right to protest. The Games will be hosted in locations across the country, but primarily in London, which is main the focus of this analysis. Laying the groundwork Following victory for the bid to host the Games, legislation – the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 – was passed “to make provision in connection with the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games that are take place in London in the year 2012.” [4] It is from here that limitations on freedom of expression have come, as well as some of the limitations on freedom of movement that stem from the introduction of “Games Lanes” to London’s road system. Policing and security remains the responsibility of the national and local authorities.
  • A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical

    A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical

    A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical Activity and Health Legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BASE FOR DEVELOPING A PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND HEALTH LEGACY FROM THE LONDON 2012 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES by the CENTRE FOR SPORT, PHYSICAL EDUCATION & ACTIVITY RESEARCH (SPEAR) Canterbury Christ Church University Report Authors: Mike Weed Esther Coren Jo Fiore With Louise Mansfield Ian Wellard Dikaia Chatziefstathiou Suzanne Dowse Commissioned by Physical Activity Network West Midlands on behalf of Regional Physical Activity Teams in the West Midlands, the East Midlands, the East of England, London and the South East. February 2009 1 Foreword Planning our Route to a 2012 Health & Physical Activity Legacy The 2012 Games will aim to set a new standard for the Olympic and Paralympic movement in staging a ‘once in a lifetime’ event that delivers genuine nationwide legacies in the form of economic, social, health and environmental benefits for the United Kingdom. In order to achieve a tangible and lasting legacy for the country, we need to start to prepare now. We need to be planning, creating policy and building capacity to encourage and allow more people to get more active. We have a rare opportunity to radically change the sedentary culture in the United Kingdom. Regional physical activity teams in London, West Midlands, East Midlands, the East and the South East are already collaborating to drive this work forward. This systematic review sets out the lessons learned from the best available international evidence. It will enable us to work with greater confidence towards securing a true and lasting health and physical activity legacy from the 2012 Games.
  • A Capital City: London Events and Anniversaries in 2012

    A Capital City: London Events and Anniversaries in 2012

    UCL LIBRARY SERVICES A CAPITAL CITY: LONDON EVENTS AND ANNIVERSARIES IN 2012 An exhibition of material from UCL Special Collections, SSEES Library and Cruciform Library archives, with additional Items on loan from the UCL Institute of Archaeology, RUMS medical students and the UCL Union April – November 2012 A CAPITAL CITY: LONDON EVENTS AND ANNIVERSARIES IN 2012 Forrow, Alexander. The Thames and its docks : a lecture London : Spottiswoode & Co., 38 Royal Exchange, and to be had of all booksellers, 1877. Special Collections: LONDON HISTORY 1877 FOR A Capital City: London Events and Anniversaries in 2012 | 3 Foreword In 2012 UCL Library Services is celebrating anniversaries and events with a London connection in three exhibitions in the Main Library. Sports Ancient and Modern This display celebrates the Olympics and includes artefacts borrowed from UCL’s Institute of Archaeology which itself is celebrating its 75th Anniversary this year. The pottery and figures are all from the Ancient World and were created in a time when unity and physical prowess were held in high regard. Also on display is paraphernalia from the Olympic Congress held in Paris in 1914, at which the symbol of five interlocking rings was adopted for the Olympic flag. Team photographs and trophies reflecting the athletic achievements of UCL’s students feature too from the 19th Century to the present day, but particularly from the time of the British Olympic Games held in 1908 and 1948. Charles Dickens at 200 Charles Dickens was born in 1812 and this year marks his 200th birthday. He drew much inspiration from London in his writing and lived in and around Bloomsbury for many years.
  • SELECT COMMITTEE on OLYMPIC and PARALYMPIC LEGACY Oral and Written Evidence

    SELECT COMMITTEE on OLYMPIC and PARALYMPIC LEGACY Oral and Written Evidence

    SELECT COMMITTEE ON OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC LEGACY Oral and written evidence Contents Active in Time Ltd—Written evidence ................................................................................................. 3 Association for Physical Education (afPE)—Written evidence ......................................................... 8 Big Lottery Fund—Written evidence .................................................................................................. 16 BioRegional—Written evidence ........................................................................................................... 21 Boff, Andrew—Written evidence ........................................................................................................ 24 Boggis, Emma—Written evidence ........................................................................................................ 35 British Gliding Association (BGA)—Written evidence ................................................................... 49 British Standards Institution (BSI)—Written evidence .................................................................... 51 British Swimming and the Amateur Swimming Association—Written evidence ...................... 55 British Paralympic Association (BPA)—Written evidence ............................................................. 64 Community Safety Social Inclusion Scrutiny Commission—Written evidence ......................... 70 Dorset County Council—Written evidence ....................................................................................
  • 1 Forecasting the Olympic Medal Distribution During a Pandemic

    1 Forecasting the Olympic Medal Distribution During a Pandemic

    Forecasting the Olympic medal distribution during a pandemic: A socio-economic machine learning model ∗ Christoph Schlembach, Sascha L. Schmidt, Dominik Schreyer, and Linus Wunderlich First Version: December 09, 2020 This Version: June 21, 2021 Abstract Forecasting the number of Olympic medals for each nation is highly relevant for different stakeholders: Ex ante, sports betting companies can determine the odds while sponsors and media companies can allocate their resources to promising teams. Ex post, sports politicians and managers can benchmark the performance of their teams and evaluate the drivers of success. To significantly increase the Olympic medal forecasting accuracy, we apply machine learning, more specifically a two-staged Random Forest, thus outperforming more traditional naïve forecast for three previous Olympics held between 2008 and 2016 for the first time. Regarding the Tokyo 2020 Games in 2021, our model suggests that the United States will lead the Olympic medal table, winning 120 medals, followed by China (87) and Great Britain (74). Keywords: Olympic Games, medals, sports, forecasting, machine learning, random forest JEL: C53; Z20 Running head: Forecasting the Olympic medal distribution ∗ Schlembach: WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Erkrather Str. 224a, 40233, Düsseldorf, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]); Schmidt: WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Erkrather Str. 224a, 40233, Düsseldorf, Germany, and CREMA – Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Switzerland, and LISH – Lab of Innovation Science at Harvard, 175 N. Harvard Street Suite 1350, Boston, MA 02134, USA (e-mail: [email protected]); Schreyer: WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Erkrather Str. 224a, 40233, Düsseldorf, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]); Wunderlich: School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS (e-mail: [email protected]).
  • 1 Sport Mega-Events and a Legacy of Increased

    1 Sport Mega-Events and a Legacy of Increased

    SPORT MEGA-EVENTS AND A LEGACY OF INCREASED SPORT PARTICIPATION: AN OLYMPIC PROMISE OR AN OLYMPIC DREAM? KATHARINE HELEN HUGHES A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Leeds Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. JANUARY 2013 1 Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 7 Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 8 Student’s declaration ....................................................................................................... 10 List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................ 11 List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 12 Preface ............................................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 1: Context of the study ....................................................................................... 17 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 17 1.2 Structure of the thesis ......................................................................................................... 19 1.3 Research aims and questions ..........................................................................................
  • OLYMPIC GAMES LONDON July 29 - August 14, 1948

    OLYMPIC GAMES LONDON July 29 - August 14, 1948

    Y.E.A.H. - Young Europeans Active and Healthy OLYMPIC GAMES LONDON July 29 - August 14, 1948 The Austerity Games The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olym- piad, were held in London , United Kingdom . After a twelve-year hiatus caused by the out- break of World War II ; these were the first Summer Olympics held since Berlin 1936. The 1940 Olympic Games had been scheduled for Tokyo , and then for Helsinki ; the 1944 Ol- ympic Games had been provisionally planned for London. The event came to be known as the Austerity Games, because of the difficult eco- nomic climate and rationing imposed in the aftermath of World War II . No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation at the Wembley area instead of an Olympic Village , as were the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games and the subsequent 1952 Games . A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines . Germany and Japan were not invited to participate in the games, however, the Soviet Union was invited but chose not to send any athletes. Great Britain almost handed the 1948 games to the United States due to post-war financial and rationing prob- lems, but King George VI said that this could be the chance to restore Britain from World War II . The official report of the London Olympics shows that there was no case of London being pressed to run the Games against its will. In March 1946 London was selected ahead of Baltimore , Minneapolis , Lausanne , Los Angeles , and Philadel- phia .
  • Nadim NASSIF ANALYSE DE LA POLITIQUE DU SPORT AU LIBAN

    Nadim NASSIF ANALYSE DE LA POLITIQUE DU SPORT AU LIBAN

    16th Annual International Conference on Sports: Economic, Management, Marketing & Social Aspects, 9-12 May 2016, Athens, Greece Elite Sport Ranking of the “International Society of Sports Sciences in the Arab World:” An Accurate Evaluation of Nations Performances in International Sports Competitions Nadim Nassif, PhD, Academic Advisor of the Physical Education and Sports Major Manager of the FIFA/CIES Sport Management Program Notre-Dame University. Results and rankings are a predominant and unavoidable measurement of the performance of athletes, clubs and national teams Countries rankings are therefore very appropriate tools in determining which national sport movements are the most efficient in the establishment of policies leading to international success The most known ranking worldwide is the medal table proposed by the International Olympic Committee at the end of each edition of the Winter and Summer Olympics Although according to the Olympic Charter, the Olympic medal table is just informative and the IOC shall not draw up any global ranking per country, scholars, media and national sport leaders mainly refer to it when they want to measure the performance of a country in international competitions "I believe each country will highlight what suits it best. One country will say, 'Gold medals.' The other country will say, 'The total tally counts.' We take no position on that.” IOC President Jacques Rogge (Washington Post, 2008) The global acknowledgement of the Olympic Medal Table arises from the fact that the Olympic Games are the
  • Annual Report 2012-13 the Mayor’S Office for Policing and Crime

    Annual Report 2012-13 the Mayor’S Office for Policing and Crime

    ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13 THE MAYOR’S OFFICE FOR POLICING AND CRIME MOPAC – ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13 COPYRIGHT MAYOR’S OFFICE FOR POLICING AND CRIME July 2013 Published by: MOPAC City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Enquiries to 020 7983 6532 This report is available at www.london.gov.uk/policing MOPAC – ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 Foreword from the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime 5 About MOPAC 7 About this report 7 1. THE YEAR IN SUMMARY 8 Defining the Mission 9 The Police and Crime Plan 9 Delivery of Mayoral manifesto commitments 9 Management of routine business 10 Budget 11 Change at MOPAC 12 2. POLICE PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY 13 Effectiveness 14 Efficiency 15 Accountability 16 3. CRIME PREVENTION, JUSTICE & RESETTLEMENT 18 Work to make London safer 19 APPENDICES 21 MOPAC – ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13 4 INTRODUCTION MOPAC – ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13 5 Foreword from the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime The Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC) is a young organisation that has spent the last year establishing itself, whilst at the same time producing London’s first Police and Crime Plan, launched by the Mayor and the Commissioner in March. Created in January 2012, MOPAC has undergone a rapid evolution into a strategic oversight body for London, reflecting the Mayor’s democratic mandate, and with the vital task of holding the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and other criminal justice agencies to account. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 established MOPAC to replace the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and made the Mayor the elected Police and Crime Commissioner for London.
  • Hosting the Olympic Games: an Overstated Advantage in Sports History

    Hosting the Olympic Games: an Overstated Advantage in Sports History

    The International Journal of the History of Sport ISSN: 0952-3367 (Print) 1743-9035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fhsp20 Hosting the Olympic Games: an Overstated Advantage in Sports History Stephen Pettigrew & Danyel Reiche To cite this article: Stephen Pettigrew & Danyel Reiche (2016) Hosting the Olympic Games: an Overstated Advantage in Sports History, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 33:6-7, 635-647, DOI: 10.1080/09523367.2015.1132201 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2015.1132201 Published online: 01 Feb 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 58 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fhsp20 THE INtERNAtiONAL JOURNAL OF tHE HiStORY OF SPORt, 2016 VOL. 33, NOS. 6–7, 635–647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2015.1132201 Hosting the Olympic Games: An Overstated Advantage in Sports History Stephen Pettigrewa and Danyel Reicheb aDepartment of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA; bDepartment of Political Studies and Public Administration, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Previous research on the home advantage in the history of the Olympic Games; Summer Olympic Games has found initial evidence that host nations have Olympics; Winter Olympics; won more medals than non-hosts. In this paper, we argue that these home advantage; International Olympic findings are a myth of sports history, providing poor estimates of Committee the home advantage in the Olympics. We argue that selection bias accounts for the findings in previous work, which uses an empirical strategy of comparing host nations to all non-hosts and to historical performances of host countries with much smaller delegations.
  • The Rio Review the Official Report Into Ireland's Campaign for the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games

    The Rio Review the Official Report Into Ireland's Campaign for the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games

    SPÓRT ÉIREANN SPORT IRELAND The Rio Review The official report into Ireland's campaign for the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games RIO 2016 REVIEW Foreword The Olympic and Paralympic review process is an essential component of the Irish high performance system. The implementation of the recommendations of the quadrennial reviews has been a driver of Irish high performance programmes for individual sports and the system as a whole. The Rio Review process has been comprehensive and robust. The critical feature of this Review is that the National Governing Bodies (NGBs) took a greater level of control in debriefing their own experiences. This Review reflects the views of all the key players within the high performance system. Endorsed by Sport Ireland, it is a mandate for the NGBs to fully implement the recommendations that will improve the high performance system in Ireland. There were outstanding performances in Rio at both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Olympic roll of honour received a new addition in Rowing, with Sailing repeating its podium success achieved in Moscow 1980, demonstrating Ireland's ability to be competitive in multiple disciplines. Team Ireland has built on the success of Beijing and London, and notwithstanding problems that arose, Rio was a clear demonstration that Ireland can compete at the very highest levels of international sport. Sport Ireland is committed to the ongoing development of the Sport Ireland Institute and adding to the extensive facilities on the Sport Ireland National Sports Campus. These are real commitments to high performance sport in Ireland that will make a significant difference to Irish athletes who aspire to compete at the top level.