Grahams HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:14199 - EE - MUNOZ:MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT 10. The geopolitics of organizing mega-events Martin Müller and Chris Steyaert INTRODUCTION When the American television network NBC clinched the broadcast rights for the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow in front of competitors ABC and CBS, it believed it had made a good deal. With the USD 97 million it had paid in fees, it expected to be able to rake in an estimated USD 170 million in the sale of commercial airtime. Even after accounting for additional costs of coverage, it expected to make a handsome profit and, perhaps more important, boost its image as a serious contender in the American television market. However, when the Red Army invaded Afghanistan just six months before the start of the Games, the United States drummed up support for a Western boycott of the Olympic Games as a demonstra- tive punitive measure. As a result, 62 nations decided to withdraw their teams from the competition, including the United States and Canada. With one fell swoop, NBC’s investment around the Olympic coverage was rendered void and advertisers were not slow to revoke contracts for airtime purchases. For NBC, geopolitics had turned the Olympic dream into a commercial nightmare. Mega-events such as the Olympic Games refer to the genre of “cultural and sporting events that achieve sufficient size and scope to affect whole economies and to receive sustained global media attention” (Gold and Gold, 2011, p. 1). The proliferation and growth of mega-events is coupled tightly with the rise of the cultural economy and the move towards con- sumerism (du Gay and Pryke, 2002) as well as global inter-urban compe- tition in what has become known as urban entrepreneurialism (Harvey, 1989). Events such as the FIFA World Cup, the Olympic Games, the Expo World’s Fair, the Eurovision Song Contest and a host of others are con- sidered the ultimate trophy in the intensified competition for public atten- tion and investment. Their potential for identification for people around the world, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender or social status, as well as the concomitant commercial appeal are thought to epitomize global capi- talism and consumer culture (Smart, 2007). For purporting to be universal affairs that transcend ideological fault lines, mega-events have, however, experienced more than their fair share of geopolitical posturing and rivalry. As Caffrey (2008, p. 808) observes: 139 MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT.indd 139 10/05/2013 10:08 Grahams HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:14199 - EE - MUNOZ:MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT Grahams HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:14199 - EE - MUNOZ:MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT 140 Handbook on the geopolitics of business “Games allow each state’s proxies to compete without killing each other.” Although governing bodies such as the IOC and FIFA are steadfast in asserting the supra-political character of the events, the unparalleled global attention they enjoy makes them susceptible to being hijacked for political agendas. At the same time, mega-events are also large-scale busi- ness ventures. With the recent shift towards awarding them increasingly to emerging economies, events that have always been characterized by a ‘think big’ frame of mind have become even more spendthrift affairs. With the lack of effective oversight of state spending, China staged the most expensive Olympic Games in history with a total investment of about USD 40 billion and the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi (Russia) 2014 are estimated to clock in at about USD 30 billion. Marketing revenues from the Olympic Games have experienced a continuous growth, doubling between the quadrennial of 1993‒1996 and 2005‒2008 to USD 5.5 billion (IOC, 2012). Organizing mega-events thus inevitably relates conducting business with politics, or indeed geopolitics: the global competition for power. While the Cold War geopolitics of two antagonistic blocs has been sup- planted by a fuzzier, multipolar map of global affairs, the rise of emerging economies, in particular the BRIC states (see Chapters 4, 5 and 17 in this handbook), has lent the hosting of mega-events a new geopolitical edge. This chapter uses the Olympic Games, the largest mega-event in terms of total investment and the most complex one in terms of preparation, as a running example to probe into the tight link that organizing mega-events enacts between business and geopolitics. It will do so distinguishing three major nexuses around three actors: nations and the geopolitics of global imagineering; corporations and the geopolitics of expanding markets; and cities and the urban geopolitics of (in-)visible effects. NATION BRANDING AND THE GEOPOLITICS OF GLOBAL IMAGINEERING With an awareness rating in excess of 90 percent, the five interlaced Olympic rings form a desirable icon for brand recognition and identifica- tion. The popular association with notions like success, high standards, peace and a continuous tradition of excellence makes the Olympic mark a particularly coveted symbol to be linked with (IOC, 1997). In addition, the unparalleled reach of the Olympic Games offers a platform for broadcast- ing messages to a global audience. Projections indicate, for example, that 3.6 billion people, that is, 53 percent of the world’s population, watched at least one minute of the Olympic Games in Beijing 2008 (IOC, 2009), MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT.indd 140 10/05/2013 10:08 Grahams HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:14199 - EE - MUNOZ:MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT The geopolitics of organizing mega-events 141 while the London Olympic Games were the most-watched TV event ever in US history (The Guardian, 2012). It does not come as a surprise then that many countries take advantage of the Olympic Games to engage in nation branding − “a process by which a nation’s images can be created or altered, monitored, evaluated and proactively managed in order to enhance the country’s reputation among a target international audience” (Fan, 2010, p. 101). The metaphor of putting a city or country on the map, often used in conjunction with hosting the Olympic Games, is indicative of this process of image construction often called ‘imagineering’. In geopolitical terms, nation branding can be interpreted as an exer- cise in public diplomacy to build what Joseph Nye (1990) introduced as ‘soft power’. It is the ability to affect through attraction, not coercion or payment, in order to obtain the outcomes one wants. Soft power rests on a nation’s culture and values, winning the hearts and minds of the publics of one’s own and other countries. It thus appeals to the affective dimen- sion of identification. It is to this effect that emerging economies in par- ticular often seek to leverage the Olympic Games. They are harnessed as vehicles to signal that the host nation has earned its rightful place among the leading powers as a nation of culture, sport and entertainment – over and above military might (e.g. Russia) or economic prowess (e.g. China). They help to create new symbolic values attached to leisure and consump- tion, both for an international audience and for the national population (Cornelissen, 2010; Tomlinson, 2010). At the same time, however, Chris Berg critically observes that “the Olympics offer totalitarian or other- wise oppressive governments an opportunity to repurpose the publicity accorded to sport for the benefit of the state and its ideology” (Berg, 2008, p. 17). The hosting of events can thus also serve as a distraction from or legitimization of inequitable policies or instill nationalist sentiments that enhance public loyalty. This is where the universal, internationalist impetus of the Olympic Movement clashes with the political rationalities of nation states. Leveraging the Olympic Games for nation branding, both for an international and an external audience, presented a chance for the 2008 Olympic Games in China. With regular violations of human rights, dis- reputable business practices and a poor environmental record China is not an epitome of soft power. This did not prevent it from declaring that building soft power was a national goal (Caffrey, 2010, p. 2418). Adopting the slogan “One Games, One World”, China attempted to signify its inte- gration into the international community, having completed a race for modernization. However, it did so underscoring Chinese characteristics and reiterating Chinese exceptionalism: China is not simply to take over Western values, but bring in its own cultural concepts. It seeks to lead MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT.indd 141 10/05/2013 10:08 Grahams HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:14199 - EE - MUNOZ:MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT Grahams HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:14199 - EE - MUNOZ:MUNOZ 9780857939746 PRINT 142 Handbook on the geopolitics of business by moral authority – an endeavor that the Olympic Games could help by restoring pride in Chinese traditions and promulgating a set of ideas revolving around Confucianism that would appeal not only to the Chinese population but also to states discontented with Western dominance. In offering an alternative to Pax Americana, China would then espouse a multipolar geopolitics through what Caffrey (2010, p. 2422) calls Lux Sinica. While stressing China’s distinctive characteristics, the hosting of the Olympic Games also responded to dominant negative narratives of China. Utilizing the three mottos of ‘Green Olympics’, ‘High-Tech Olympics’ and ‘Humanistic/People’s Olympics’ (luse aoyun 绿色奥运, keji aoyun 科 技奥运, renwen aoyun 人文奥运), China addressed the prevailing interna- tional misgivings about the country head on. International public opinion towards China, however, hardly budged as a result of the Olympic Games. Scholars concluded that if there had been a concerted attempt at building soft power at an international level, it was largely unsuccessful and that the main effect was on the national audience (Manzenreiter, 2010).