Social Responsibility and the Competitive Bid Process for Major Sporting Events

http://jss.sagepub.com/Journal of Sport & Social Issues

http://jss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/23/0193723511416985The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0193723511416985

published online 25 July 2011Journal of Sport and Social IssuesMeaghan Carey, Daniel S. Mason and Laura Misener

EventsSocial Responsibility and the Competitive Bid Process for Major Sporting

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Northeastern University's Center for the Study of Sport in Society

can be found at:Journal of Sport & Social IssuesAdditional services and information for

http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

at UNIV OF WESTERN ONTARIO on August 4, 2011jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jss.sagepub.com/

http://jss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/23/0193723511416985

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.sportinsociety.org/

http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jss.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Journal of Sport and Social IssuesXX(X) 1 –18

© 2011 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0193723511416985http://jss.sagepub.com

416985 JSSXXX10.1177/0193723511416985Carey et al.Journal of Sport and Social Issues

1University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada2University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:Daniel S. Mason, University of Alberta, W1-16G Van Vliet, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H9, Canada Email: [email protected]

Social Responsibility and the Competitive Bid Process for Major Sporting Events

Meaghan Carey1, Daniel S. Mason1, and Laura Misener2

Abstract

The 2016 Summer Olympic Games1 bids were selected as a case study to explore how the focus on social responsibility (CSR) and community development (CD) differs in traditional versus nontraditional bid cities. We employed a media framing methodology to examine how the bids were represented through media and articulated by various stakeholders. Of specific interest was the finding that the discourse surrounding the Rio de Janeiro bid put a greater focus on the capability of sport to reach out to disadvantaged populations and create balance within the global economy. The results from this study will provide insights into how the global media has framed megaevent bids from nontraditional cities, and the social and economic benefits event proponents argue can be accrued from hosting.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility, community development, major sporting events

In recent years, the competitive process of bidding for and hosting major sporting events has undergone changes to both the expected benefits that host cities might engender and the types of cities that have sought to host the games themselves. Mega-events, including major sporting competitions, are short-term, high-profile events, possessing “a dramatic character, mass popular appeal, and international significance”



2 Journal of Sport and Social Issues XX(X)

(Roche, 2000, p. 1). Historically, events have been promoted in terms of their tourism and economic impacts (Getz, 1997; Hall, 1992). In the academic community, evalua-tions of event hosting have focused on infrastructure development, visitor rates and spending, and fit with broader government policy (Burbank, Andranovich, & Heying, 2001; Hall, 1992; Ritchie, 1984; Whitson & Macintosh, 1996), while others have examined the social, psychological, and political benefits that host communities are thought to receive (Atkinson, Murato, Szymanski, & Ozdemiroglu, 2008; Preuss & Solberg, 2006). Some researchers have claimed that hosting mega-sporting events will primarily benefit a select proportion of the population, most notably business and political elites (Burbank et al, 2001; Whitson & Horne, 2006). To address this imbal-ance there is a growing interest—both within the academic community and in the event hosting industry itself—in exploring how hosting sporting events can be used to create positive change within the host cities, regions, and even countries, particu-larly changes impacting those from socially excluded or disadvantaged populations (Levermore, 2010; Misener & Mason, 2008, 2009, 2010; Smith & Westerbeek, 2007).

With changes in views towards the types of benefits that can be achieved through hosting events, and the groups who might receive them, there has also been a corre-sponding shift in the types of cities participating in the bid process for sporting mega-events. Historically, hosting large-scale sporting events has been the preserve of established cities in the western hemisphere or developed world, due to the costs asso-ciated with staging the event, infrastructure requirements, and the need for political stability to facilitate organization among various state and nonstate actors (Hiller, 2000). However in recent years leaders of international sport organizations, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), have positioned themselves as agents of global change, institu-tions that have the ability to leave legacies of regeneration for the host of their premier events, such as the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup (Levermore, 2010; Misener & Mason, 2010). At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of cities from emerging economies participating in the bid process for megaevents; recent examples of cities engaging in the bid process include Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Istanbul, and Rio de Janeiro. This raises the question, “Are the expectations, benefits, and costs of hosting different in these emerging economy cities than of those cities that have traditionally hosted megaevents in the past?”

As a starting point to examine this question, it is appropriate to first explore whether differences in the ways in which bid cities—and the benefits they might receive from hosting—are represented. In other words, are bids from nontraditional bid cities indeed viewed differently? Are the merits of these locations discussed and represented in the same ways? Finally, and most important for the current study, how are community development and corporate social responsibility elements represented in the discourse surrounding these emerging economy bid cities? Thus, we seek to explore how bids from cities are discussed in terms of these differences. To do so, the authors will exam-ine the discourse surrounding the bid cities for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games found within global media sources. The 2016 Summer Olympic Games bids were



Carey et al. 3

selected as the case study for this project, given that of the four finalist cities, three of the cities could be considered traditional, northern cities in established economies (Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo) and one a southern hemisphere city (Rio de Janeiro), repre-senting the new breed of city bidding to host major events. In doing so, we explore how the fact that one bid city represented a nontraditional bid city in an emerging economy affected the manner through which media commentators and other stake-holders interpreted the efficacy of the bid in relation to the other bid cities. In addition, we seek to explore whether supporters of the Rio de Janeiro bid sought to use com-munity development to differentiate their bid from the other potential host cities, and how it related to the types of positive and negative impacts that host cities are thought to receive by virtue of hosting the event.

As we are not so much interested in the actual attempts to employ social responsi-bility at this point, we employed a media framing methodology to examine how vari-ous stakeholders represented the bids. To focus this analysis on social responsibility (CSR) and community development (CD), we draw on the corporate social responsi-bility literature as it relates to sport and event-related development initiatives. This allowed us to develop a conceptual framework of media framing for CSR and CD. We utilized this framework to demonstrate that through commentary in global media cov-erage of the bid process, bid organizers, key stakeholders, and other 2016 Olympic Games host competitors took different approaches in promoting their bids to the IOC and public. In particular, we will highlight the discourse surrounding the Rio de Janeiro bid, where a greater focus was given to the capability of sport to reach out to disadvan-taged populations and the creation of balance within the global economy and North–South relations. The results from this study will provide insights into how the global media has framed megaevent bids from nontraditional cities and the benefits event proponents argue can be accrued from hosting.

Sport and Development: Role of Corporate Social ResponsibilityEarly academic work examining Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) first dis-cussed general notions of corporate philanthropy. Bowen (1953), in his landmark book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, initially described “the obligation of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (p. 6). The field of CSR has grown to include a variety of theories, definitions, approaches, and terminologies. For example, Carroll (1999) reviewed the historic progression of CSR definitions and presented more than 25 ways in which CSR has been defined in the academic literature over the past 50 years. Generally speaking, CSR “represents a set of actions that appear to further some social good, extend beyond the explicit pecuniary interests of the firm, and are not required by law” (Godfrey, 2009, p. 704). Or, put more simply, CSR provides an overarching framework for the social role of business in society.




Despite the emergence of academic work examining CSR, there have been calls for CSR to move beyond its application in traditional business contexts, and expand into more nontraditional sectors, such as sport and culture (Godfrey, 2009). In practical terms, most professional sport organizations, teams, and athletes engage in programs designed to support social causes. For example, the NHL’s “Hockey Fights Cancer” program raises both money and awareness about the disease. FIFA’s “Football for Hope” initiative supports programs around the world that combine football and sus-tainable social development.

Sport is viewed by many as a natural partner for corporations in the delivery of CSR initiatives, due to the “ubiquitous appeal of sport and the economic might of the cor-porate sector” (Smith & Westerbeek, 2007, p. 43). To explain this phenomenon Levermore (2010, p. 229) offered three rationales:

First, sport as a social entity connects with many grassroots communities, whereas business has more difficulty being regarded in such a manner. Second, sport is seen as being important because “it has a set of well understood values,” “can actively demonstrate the benefits and sustainability of a partnership approach” and allows “common ground” where “people and organizations can work together.” Third, sports programs and events provide a natural and nonpo-litical arena where partners can meet up and therefore strengthen the interaction of business, NGOs, civil society, and political institutions.

There are many well-documented examples of sport-related CSR programs, aside from the above noted examples from the NHL and FIFA, in which nonsport businesses use sport as a tool for their CSR delivery. Examples of these programs include Barclays Bank’s “Spaces for Sports,” which develops sport fields in underprivileged communi-ties; and Coca-Cola’s “Mission Olympic,” which partners with the German Olympic Sports Confederation to promote healthy and active lifestyles in German cities.

Sport-related CSR research has been limited to date, and generally focused on three specific areas: cause-related marketing, corporate citizenship, and civic engagement (Smith & Westerbeek, 2007). More recently, there has been an expansion in the field of sport CSR research, which examines the role of sport in aiding social and commu-nity development (cf. Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Kidd, 2008; Levermore, 2010; Misener & Mason, 2009, 2010; Sheth & Babiak, 2010).

Little research has specifically addressed how corporate social responsibility is employed in conjunction with events for social development. However, there is a growing interest in using sporting events to jumpstart community and social develop-ment programs (Levermore, 2010; Misener & Mason, 2010). As part of this trend, many sport and nonsporting organizations have tied the CSR agenda to sport for development opportunities such as promoting health awareness and disease preven-tion; peace building and conflict prevention or resolution; postdisaster trauma relief; and economic development (United Nations Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group [UN SDPIWG], 2008, p. 8). Mega events present a



Carey et al. 5

unique opportunity for organizations to tap into vast resources and extensive media exposure to promote their CSR efforts. These advantages can result in sport having greater effects than other businesses for social and community development, particu-larly in areas such as education and health care for children; health and exercise; con-cern for the environment; and social/cultural enrichment (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Headlee, 2006).

Despite the mystique of the potential of sport events to enhance CSR and sport development, little is actually known about how host cities develop and undertake CSR initiatives. Furthermore, as developing nations and cities enter the arena of host-ing these large scale events, the focus on CSR for these cities is likely to be signifi-cantly different from traditional host cities that typically have a wealth of resources. For example, Cape Town’s bid for the 2004 Summer Olympic Games focused on the potential of the Games to dramatically enhance social and human development in the postapartheid country (Hiller, 2000). Despite the Cape Town bid being unsuccessful, it did mark a departure from traditional bid strategies with a developing nation enter-ing the competition with high expectations as to how the Olympic Games could be used to enhance social development. Since that time, there has been a growing expec-tation from the IOC to demonstrate how cities can use this transformative potential to enhance social responsibility through event hosting. In 2010, the United Nations offi-cially recognized the IOC and the role of sport as a means to promote education, health, development, and peace, thus further demonstrating the societal demand for CSR and sport for development initiatives from bid/host cities.

There has been some controversy as of late regarding the true utility of sport for development, in particular CSR efforts. Levermore (2010) discussed the potential and limitations of using sport for this purpose, and further cautioned that CSR for develop-ment through sport schemes need to be assessed based on their effectiveness in differ-ent locations around the world. We are not attempting to enter the debate about the utility of sport with this research, but we are beginning to address the deployment of sport for development through CSR schemes in different global locations. This is part of a larger ongoing study regarding CSR and sport events in emerging economies. For this portion of the study we have employed a strategy that focuses on media framing of CSR in bid cities from both developed and developing nations.

Media FramingA key to our study is to understand how opportunities for community development may influence the ways in which competing bids are represented in the media. To examine this, we draw from the literature on media framing. The basic assumption of framing theory is that context informs behaviors, actions, and understanding. A frame is a definition of a situation, which includes organization and subjective elements (Goffman, 1974). Gitlin (1980, p. 6) defined frames as “principles of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters.” A more functional definition states that frames are




“conceptual tools which media and individuals rely on to convey, interpret and evalu-ate information” (Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992, p. 60). In other words, the ways in which the media shares the “news” with the public influences our understanding, and beliefs relating to that information.

The media play a particularly important role in shaping audiences’ perceptions, and actively create the frames of reference that the public readers and viewers use to inter-pret and discuss events (Tuchman, 1978). The frame manifests itself within the media content through various forms of framing devices, such as word choice, metaphors, exemplars, descriptions, arguments, and visual images (Gamson & Lasch, 1983; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Pan & Kosicki, 1993). “Frames are a central part of a culture and are institutionalized in various ways” (Goffman, 1981, p. 63). As such, frames have the possibility to control the number of alternatives that are available to the receivers when they are constructing social reality (McCullagh, 2002; Potter, 1996; Reese, 2001). Accordingly, media as sources of news “. . . give the story a spin, . . . taking into account their organizational and modality constraints, professional judgments, and certain judgments about the audience” (Neuman et al., 1992, p. 120). This construc-tionist approach to framing, purports that audiences rely on “. . . a version of reality built from personal experience, interaction with peers, and interpreted selections from the mass media” (Neuman et al., 1992, p. 120).

Acknowledging the differing approaches and definitional constructs dispersed across various academic disciplines, Entman (1993) referred to the study of framing as “scattered conceptualization” (p. 51). He noted that despite its’ “omnipresence” in social sciences, “nowhere is there a general statement of framing theory that shows exactly how frames become embedded within and make themselves manifest in a text, or how framing influences thinking” (p. 51). This lack of consensus has resulted in the term framing being used interchangeably with other terms such as script or schema (Lodge & Hamill, 1986; Van Gorp, 2007) and has been operationalized with other concepts such as agenda setting or priming (McCombs, Shaw, & Weaver, 1997; Weaver, 2007). To address these definitional differences, Entman (1993, p. 52) put forth his own conceptualization of framing:

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular prob-lem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recom-mendation for the item described.

Thus, framing is a dynamic process (Van Gorp, 2007), where multiple sponsors struc-ture discourse to define a problem, identify the cause, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies for the problem and predict effects (Entman, 2007, 1993; Gamson, 1989). Two areas of sport-related research where framing analysis has been utilized include sport and gender roles (e.g., Messner, 1988; Wright & Clarke, 1999), and the public subsidization of sports stadia (e.g., Buist & Mason, 2010; Delaney & Eckstein, 2008).



Carey et al. 7

Method

Given our use of media framing, newspaper and other online news articles were the primary data source for this project. The media have the ability to convey key mes-sages, to broadcast the attitudes and behaviors of key stakeholders, and to capture the value and beliefs of their target audience (c.f. Bryant & Miron, 2004; Neuman et al., 1992). To explore these messages within the context of this case study, a web-based search of global media sources was conducted. The data collection focused on the time period of 2006 to 2009, which was reflective of the bidding process time frame from the host city’s first indication of interest to the final vote by the IOC in October 2009.

Articles collected included editorials and commentaries concerned with the compe-tition to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. This often included quotes from key actors and were from various sections of the media sources including “front-page” news, sport, business, editorials, letters, and life/human interest stories. Sources included BBC (United Kingdom), Sydney Herald Newspaper (Australia), Telegraph Newspaper (United Kingdom), ABC News (United States), Rio Times Online (Brazil), Channel News Asia (Singapore), and the Globe and Mail (Canada). The collected articles were copied into a Word document totaling 325 pages of data.

A preliminary inductive content analysis of the data set was undertaken to begin to determine themes that emerged from the data. The data set was read and reviewed first to determine a baseline of frames to help guide the coding process. The data were then manually coded to determine how the four bid cities were framed within the global media. From the initial coding process, a number of frames emerged that were further analyzed to form a set of themes. From this process, three central themes emerged relating to the bid competition for the 2016 Olympic Games that were relevant to this research. The first theme identified within the data set was a development discourse, which broadly encompassed both tangible and intangible development elements asso-ciated with the respective bid cities. A second theme related to the potential benefits that could be accrued through the hosting of the Olympic Games for the bid city or the benefits to the IOC through the selection of said city. The third theme that emerged from the articles was an element of competition or comparison between not only the host cities but also the northern and southern hemispheres. The themes were then fur-ther refined through coding to examine more specifically how the issues were framed within the global media.

Following the initial identification of the theme of a development discourse, the coding was advanced to specify the type of development being associated with the event hosting, that is, social, sport facilities, or other build infrastructure. The second theme concerned with potential benefits was further coded according to who was receiving the benefit and then coded for the type of benefit: economic, social, cultural, or environmental. The third theme, which focused on the element of comparison or competition between the bid cities, was additionally coded to identify statements that presented the emerging nature of the Southern hemisphere or conversely the dominance




(culturally, financially) of the Northern hemisphere. Last, from that initial content analysis, the coded data were categorized according to the four cities to complete a cross-comparison of the 2016 Olympic bid cities to identify the different ways in which the bid city competitors were framed within the media.

This process was coupled with a deductive analysis focusing on specific reports of social or community development benefits. We anticipated that the Rio de Janeiro bid was likely to have a higher level of CSR and development-related coverage compared to the reporting on the other three bids and thus were particularly cautious in extrapo-lating frames related to this theme.

Results and DiscussionA number of themes emerged from the data set relating to the ideas of development and social responsibility. However, the data demonstrated a significantly different approach to the reporting of community development and social responsibility initia-tives among the 2016 bid cities. As we expected to find, there was a higher level of CSR and development-related reporting for Rio de Janeiro compared to the other bid cities. We present the results in terms of two central broad themes: Sport for Development and North–South Divide. These broad categories are used to demon-strate the focus of the media on issues of development and CSR, and to demonstrate the media’s portrayal of the power relations present in the traditional versus nontradi-tional city bids. We discuss the broad themes supported by the frames below.

Sport for Development: Reaching out to the DisadvantagedThere are now new expectations of the role prominent sport organizations and institu-tions play in society and their responsibilities to society (Roche, 2002). For example, UNESCO’s2 web site states that sport “. . . also plays a significant role as a promoter of social integration and economic development in different geographical, cultural, and political contexts” (UNESCO, 2011). Sport governing bodies have long associ-ated themselves with the “idealistic discourse of internationalism” (Whitson & Macintosh, 1996), while positioning themselves as catalysts capable of reaching out the disadvantaged or segregated portions of the population.

There is an increased awareness that megaevents, such as the Olympic Games, contribute to urban transformation (Hiller, 2000). Development, by definition, includes some sort of change. Keywords that linked the concept of social and economic devel-opment in a positive frame to the Olympic bid emerged throughout the media’s fram-ing of the Rio de Janiero’s bid. These concepts included “legacy,” “catalyst,” and “transformation.” In terms of the ideas of catalyzing social change through sport, one author noted “Rio, in a metropolitan area with 12 million people, centered its bid on using sports as a catalyst for social integration, celebration, and transformation of the city, the region, and the country” (Duff & Sulugiuc, 2009, para. 10). These commen-taries mirrored those of the 2004 Cape Town Olympic Bid in South Africa where the



Carey et al. 9

Games were to be about jumpstarting social transformation. But not only were the ideas of catalyzing social change framed around the celebratory aspects of the Games, commentators also focused on the infrastructure investments that would ultimately change the city:

Rio’s campaign is centered on dragging decrepit infrastructure into the first world using not only the 2016 Olympics but the 2014 World Cup as a catalyst for public investment. “It’s necessary for the long-term benefit of the city,” Carlos Roberto Osorio, the bid’s secretary-general, said. (O’Connor, 2009a, para. 21)

Not surprisingly the term legacy was evident throughout the analysis, as this has become the cornerstone of bids for any games. The media represented Rio’s bid with a strong emphasis on the potential to transform a city and a nation that would leave not only an infrastructure legacy but also a social legacy. Importantly, this framing also centered on the idea of ensuring sustainability and affordability demonstrating a strong inclination toward social responsibility in legacy planning. For example, in the Fall of 2009 two articles appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald described Rio’s bid in terms of its legacy. One noted that

The IOC report cited Rio as embracing the “potential power of the games to transform a city, a region and a country” and said the Olympics would leave “a lasting and affordable legacy.” (Wilson, 2009, para. 13)

Similarly, another article quoting former Brazilian President Lulu da Silva speak-ing on why Rio de Janeiro and Brazil should be awarded hosting rights stated that “for other countries the Olympic Games is just another sporting event—for us it will be unique and extraordinary, a chance to build things that will last as a legacy for other generations.” (Irwin, 2009a, para. 14). Ultimately, the media focused on Rio’s poten-tial to host the games as a key transformative process for the city. The narrative devel-oped throughout the coverage centered on how different the potential to affect social change and influence development in this country would be in comparison to compet-ing bids. “Our concept is broader, we believe, presenting a new country, a new conti-nent and an opportunity for transformation much more powerful than our competitors, said Carlos Roberto Osorio, Rio 2016, secretary-general” (Bradley, 2008, para. 6). Key actors framed Rio de Janeiro’s bid as potentially transformative for the city and nation. The discourse surrounding the Rio de Janeiro bid focused on the human devel-opment nature of the bid and the social benefits of the hosting the Olympic Games to the average Brazilian. The key actors championed the belief that hosting the Olympic Games would offer the nation opportunities to develop partnerships that would not be available otherwise. Organizers of the Rio de Janeiro bid positioned the bid as poten-tially transformative, for example, Carlos Osório, the secretary-general of the Brazilian Olympic bid committee stated, “We are going to use the power of an Olympic and




Paralympic Games to transform a city, a country and a continent,” (Barrionuevo, 2009, p. D2). The above quote provides an example of the types of arguments employed to differentiate the Rio de Janeiro bid from the other three bids, by privileging the development component of the bid plan and the symbolic nature of bringing the Olympic Games to a new territory. Throughout the media coverage of the 2016 bid competition, these “development”-related words (catalyst, legacy, transformation) were threaded through the discussion of Rio de Janeiro; at the same time, they were largely absent from discussion of the remaining bids.

The media coverage of the Madrid bid focused on the existing infrastructure of the city (sporting, transportation, and hospitality), the past successful hosting of interna-tional event (Barcelona 1992 Olympic Games), and recent success of Spanish athletes in global sports (Spain, UEFA 2008 Champions; Rafael Nadal, 2008 Olympic Gold Medal-Tennis, 2008 French Open and Wimbledon). Thus the promotion of the Madrid bid centered on the “reliability” of that city to deliver a successful games. The promo-tion and discussion of the benefits of the Madrid bid within the media coverage was largely absent of any notions of CSR or socially responsible development initiatives.

Similarly, notions of development did not figure prominently in the discourse of the bids from Chicago and Tokyo. Coverage of the Chicago bid described a different kind of legacy, in terms of motivating young people, showing a new face of America, and emerging from under the image of former President, George W. Bush. The following commentary on President Obama’s speech to the IOC indicates the reimaging of the United States that was taking place during this time:

Though the President didn’t mention George W. Bush by name, it was clear he saw the Games as a vital strand of his strategy in rebuilding bridges with the rest of the world which under his predecessor had seen American relations abroad take a hammering. (Irwin, 2009b, para. 3)

However, we do know that regardless of the lack of media coverage the Chicago bid book demonstrated a strong orientation toward ensuring a socially responsible Games (Chicago 2016, 2009).

Media coverage of the Tokyo bid focused on the environment benefits of their pro-posal, including the delivery of a “green Games,” which featured nearly all of the Games venues situated within an 8-km radius. Speaking to environmental benefits of the Tokyo bid, the former Japanese Speaker of the House of Representatives stated,

Tokyo’s bid is ground-breaking in that athletes will live, train, compete and travel within the heart of the city. We think that is a first in Olympic history. It will be a compact and green Games with carbon-free transport between venues. It is not just the big picture but the small details which are important and we have a thorough plan. (Himmer, 2008, para. 9)



Carey et al. 11

Aside from the environmental component, discussion of the Tokyo bid also focused on the financial strength and commitment of the government of their proposal. Within the data key actors involved with the Tokyo bid repeatedly referred to the strength of their urban economy, stating that they “have more financial stability than any other city in the world” (Kelso, 2009, para. 7).

In terms of development and social benefits, early on in the bid process there was commentary on the cleaning up of the impoverished “red-light” district in Tokyo. Attempts to address impoverished urban areas are now common components of event bids and hosting (i.e., Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games). However, critics would argue that there are a host of social issues, which are exacerbated, not corrected, by elite sport, megaevents, and sport institutions. These issues include, but are not limited to, gender inequality, performance enhancing drugs, crowd control/violence, promotion of sex trade, alcohol offences, resident displace-ment, and racial vilification (Bird & Donaldson, 2009; Hall & Hodges, 1996; Hiller, 2000). These issues are contrary to the idealized view of event-driven development creating positive social change that was represented in the media. In sum, commentat-ing on the presentation of the Brazilian bid at the Beijing Olympic Games, and the bid’s ability to reach out to the disadvantaged while improving social ills, an American journalist stated,

Organizers of the Brazilian city’s Olympic bid sambaed their way into Beijing promising to bring energy and beauty to the Games while, at the same time, using the power of the Olympics to improve impoverished parts of Rio de Janeiro. (Bradley, 2008, para. 4)

Thus representations of social change focused on the ability of Rio to tap into the vast resources and transformative potential of hosting the Olympic Games to leave a positive legacy for the city. Social development opportunities were rarely discussed in the media by event supporters for the other bids, who focused little attention on the social responsibility component of hosting the Games in these cities.

North–South Divide—Bridging or Intensifying the DivideCSR initiatives that use sport and sport events for development have been accused of being driven by powerful groups, exacerbating power relations that are reflective of hegemonic practices and reinforcing of the North–South divide or Western hemi-sphere dominance (Roche, 2000; Tomlinson, 2007). Tomlinson (1986) argued that megaevents embody fundamental tensions. Meanwhile postcolonial perspectives of sports and megaevents argue that modern, northern-dominated sports, perpetuate unequal economic and political relations (Levermore, 2010). These arguments con-tradict the stated philosophies of sporting institutions such as the IOC who views




their role in society as agents capable of spurring and creating long-term, meaningful change among the world’s disadvantaged and socially excluded populations.

Speaking to the power of sport and the less tangible benefits, such as strengthening ties between nations and providing equality, one commentary on why Rio de Janeiro should be the 2016 Olympic host stated,

There is the symbolic strength of Rio de Janeiro’s bid. Should it be successful Rio will be a signal to the other continent so far left out of the Olympic spotlight that there is hope. Africa has not yet been a host and the votes of their delegates could be crucial to the outcome. If they decide en masse for Rio de Janeiro it will be a sign that they want the Olympic partnership to involve an equality of nations. (Russell, 2009, para. 10)

While the author is noting the “symbolic strength” of Rio de Janeiro’s bid, and the potential for partnership development, this statement acknowledges the imbalance that exists in the competitive field for megaevent hosting—the “other continent so far left out.” This passage, from a Canadian media source, illustrates the media’s representa-tion of a North–South divide in the Olympic world through partnering South America and Africa as the two continents excluded from the “Olympic spotlight.” Noting that the partnership between the two continents would signify the desire for “equality of nations,” which frames for the audience that equality among nations does not currently exist in the Olympic world. These commentaries seemed to perpetuate the stereotype of the weak, underdeveloped South that is struggling to compete with the dominant North.

In addition, there was the concern that development through sport “simply imposes the values of the first world middle class on the disadvantaged of the low-income countries” (Kidd, 2008, p. 377). This is congruent with concerns that CSR in general is driven by Northern aims, objectives, and what is seen as being feasible, which mar-ginalizes the alternative approaches taken by the developing nation (Levermore, 2010). As illustrated in the framing of the 2016 Olympic bids by the global media, sport and the neoliberal perspective on development—which is supported by central actors such as the UN—are linked, thereby contributing to the discourse of the type of political and economic environment that is required for development in emerging mar-kets to succeed. For example, former Brazilian President da Silva stated as follows in an interview with a British Newspaper:

Why does a poor country not have the right to host the Games?” asked Mr. Lula da Silva, whose socialist values do not naturally fit with a movement often criti-cized for its elitism . . . He sees an Olympics in Brazil as another way to reflect the shift of political power towards emerging markets. “The Olympics should not be the privilege of the developed world. As Africa deserved to host the World Cup in 2010, it is an opportunity to improve the living conditions of the people of a country,” he said. “We know the Games transformed Barcelona and we want to do the same in Brazil. Besides gold medals, we will get the benefits of urban



Carey et al. 13

development. We need to make the Olympic world perceive that the South American continent has the right to host a Games.” (O’Conner, 2009b, para. 7)

There are several key issues within this passage. First, is the leading question “why does a poor country not have the right to host the Games?” followed by the subsequent comment that “the Olympics should not be the privilege of the developed world.” These statements by the former President of Brazil are speaking to the concern that development through sport initiatives are driven and controlled by Northern or Western institutions and ideals. This statement indicates former President Lula da Silva holds the perception that developed nations have a privileged role in the Olympic Movement, and therefore emerging economies are disadvantaged. This is confirmed within his last statement of the passage “. . . make the Olympic world perceive that the South American continent has the right to host a Games.” Therefore, it is the Western per-spective that dominates in deciding the objectives of an Olympic Games and what is not only feasible but also expected for a host city to deliver.

Second, many consider the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games to be a model for development and successful urban transformation where major investments in new transport systems were made and the rejuvenation of a run-down coastal area was undertaken. This process exemplified the need facing many Western cities to reinvent themselves and to define new roles and new images appropriate to a post-Fordist world where economic production and consumption are central (Essex & Chalkley, 1998). The assumption that such political and economic Western practices, such as those used to “transform” the city of Barcelona can simply be transferred and used in a Southern context is contentious at best. Notwithstanding that, Brazil’s development scheme very well may provide meaningful urban transformations, but the develop-ment scheme needs to be in line with broader objectives and aspirations and sensitive to the context of that country’s political and economic environment.

ConclusionThe media coverage of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Olympic Games focused on the capacity of the Olympic Games to aid in the transformation of the “underdeveloped” city to meet the Northern or Western standards of infrastructure and social program-ming provision. The Olympic bid represented to Brazil a chance to show the world that it was now a competitive, influential, modern country, to both investors and tourists, and to showcase its economic growth. However, as explored throughout the discussion the media framed the bid as an opportunity to spur development and cre-ate a positive social transformation not only in Rio de Janeiro but also throughout all of Brazil, which would not be possible without the hosting of the Olympic Games. A quote from the former President of Brazil Lula da Silva shared within the discus-sion portion of the article stated that “for other countries the Olympics is just another sporting event—for us it will be unique and extraordinary” (Irwin, 2009a, para. 14). The quote directly above exemplified how the media differentiated the bid cities.




While the Rio de Janeiro bid was framed in themes of positive transformation of both social and infrastructure development, that discourse of development and positive transformation was largely absent from the media coverage of the remaining three bid cities Chicago, Madrid, and Tokyo.

From the analysis, it was evident that the media portrayed Rio de Janeiro differ-ently than the other cities in the coverage of the bid competition. The media coverage of the Rio de Janeiro bid portrayed the city in need of the Olympic-related develop-ments, framing the bid within the perception of the weaker, undeveloped South. Whereas, within the media coverage for the Madrid, Chicago, and Tokyo bids the opportunities for development in the cities were framed as an added bonus to the privi-lege of being awarded the host city of the 2016 Olympic Games. These opportunities received scant media coverage, despite the fact that the Chicago bid focused heavily on community development, social inclusion, and poverty alleviation agendas through its community benefits agreements (Wolf-Powers, 2010). Given that the media chose not to concentrate their coverage on these initiatives with the Chicago bid, while heav-ily focusing on similar initiatives in the Rio de Janeiro bid, amplifies the unequal North–South relations and the problematic nature of how the global media framed each of the 2016 Olympic bid cities.

While in the past 20 years we have witnessed the IOC placing a greater emphasis on engaging in socially responsible initiatives both within the hosting of their premier event and within their other sport and education programming, CSR and social devel-opment was not prominent throughout the reporting for all of the 2016 Olympic bid cities. Therefore, we are proposing that future research examine who is driving the process of bidding and how this influences the social responsibility schemes included within those bids. Furthermore, an attempt should be made to determine if CSR and social development is actually an integral part of the overall bid process or is it merely driven by corporations who are attempting to utilize the value and altruistic nature of sport to fulfill their own goals.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (No. 410-2010-0438) for providing support for this research.

Notes

1. All references to Olympic Games refer to both Olympic and Paralympic Games bid for simultaneously and hosted in succession by the same city.

2. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization works to create the condi-tions for dialogue among societies, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly



Carey et al. 15

shared global values. Sport has become an important vehicle for conveying these values and, in particular, for attaining the Millennium Development Goals.

References

Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., Szymanski, S., & Ozdemiroglu, E. (2008). Are we willing to pay enough to “Back the Bid?” Valuing the intangible impacts of London’s bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Urban Studies, 45, 419-444.

Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2006). More than just a game? Corporate social responsibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 154, 214-224.

Barrionuevo, A. (2009, May 4). Rio stresses the positives and personal. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/sports/olympics/04rio.html?_r=1&fta=y

Bird, R., & Donaldson, R. (2009). “Sex, sun, soccer”: Stakeholder-opinions on the sex industry in Cape Town in anticipation of the 2010 FIFA soccer World Cup. Urban Forum, 20(1), 33-46.

Bowen, E. (1953). Social responsibilities of a businessman. New York, NY: HarperBradley, B. (2008, August 5). Brazil lobbying for 2016 Games in Beijing. ABC News. Retrieved

from http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6309145Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Com-

munication, 54, 662-704.Buist, E., & Mason, D. S. (2010). Newspaper framing and stadium subsidization. American

Behavioural Scientist, 53, 1492-1510.Burbank, M. J., Andranovich, G. D., & Heying, C. H. (2001). Olympic dreams: The impact of

mega-events on local politics. Boulder, CO: Reinner.Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Busi-

ness Society, 38, 268-295.Duff, A., & Sulugiuc, G. (2009, October 2). Rio, Madrid reach final vote for 2016 Olympic bids.

Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aepixkeLxQak

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Com-munication, 43(4), 51-58.

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing basis: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Commu-nication, 57(1), 163-173.

Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: Catalyst for urban change. Leisure Studies, 17, 187-206.

Gamson, W.A. (1989). News as framing: Comments on Graber. American Behaviourist Scien-tist, 33, 157-161.

Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In S. E. Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state. Social and political perspectives (pp. 397-415). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.

Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism. New York, NY: Cognizant.




Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media and the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkley: University of California Press.

Godfrey, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport: An overview and key issues. Jour-nal of Sport Management, 23, 698-716.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Goffman, E. (1981). A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology, 10, 60-68.Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: Impacts, management, and planning. London, UK:

Belhaven Press.Hall, C. M., & Hodges, J. (1996). The party’s great, but what about the hangover? The housing

and social impacts of mega-events with special reference to the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 4, 13-20.

Headlee, C. (2006). Environmental impact of Super Bowls on host cities. Day to day. National Pub-lic Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5180609

Hiller, H. H. (2000). Mega-events, urban boosterism and growth strategies: An analysis of the objectives and legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 439458.

Himmer, A. (2008, January 15). Tokyo shrugs off Beijing factor for 2016 Olympic bid. Reuters. Retrieved from http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/01/15/idINIndia-31409820080115

Irwin, P. (2009a, October 2). Charisma, culture clash in 2016 Games vote. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/charisma-culture-clash-in-2016-games-vote-20091002-gg4u.html

Irwin, P. (2009b, October 2). Games would restore U.S. reputation: Obama. Sydney Morn-ing Herald. Retrieved from http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/games-would-restore-us-reputation-obama-20091002-ggft.html

Kelso, P. (2009, February 12). Recession to overshadow 2016 bids. Telegraph Newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/4604891/Recession-to-overshadow-2016-Olympic-bids.html

Kidd, B. (2008). A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society, 11, 370-380.

Levermore, R. (2010). CSR for Development through sport: Examining its potential and limita-tions. Third World Quarterly, 31, 223-241

Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan scheme for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80, 505-519.

McCombs, M., Shaw, D., & Weaver, D. (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCullagh, C. (2002). Media power: A sociological introduction. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.Messer, M. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological

terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 197-211.Misener, L., & Mason, D. S. (2008). Urban regimes and the sporting events agenda: A cross

national comparison of civic development strategies. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 603-627.



Carey et al. 17

Misener, L., & Mason, D. S. (2009). Fostering community development through sporting events strategies: An examination of urban regime perceptions. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 770-794.

Misener, L., & Mason, D. S. (2010). Towards a community centered approach to corporate community involvement in the sporting events agenda. Journal of Management & Organi-zation, 16, 494-513.

Neuman, W. R., Just, M., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construc-tion of political meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

O’Connor, A. (2009a, February 11). Chicago, Tokyo, Madrid and Rio in race for the 2016 Olympics. The Times. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/arti-cle5696967.ece

O’Conner, A. (2009b, April 4). Brazil deserves the 2016 Olympic Games’. The Times. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article6032127.ece

Pan, Z. P., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55-75.

Preuss, H., & Solberg, H. A. (2006). Attracting major sporting events—The role of local resi-dents. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6, 391-411.

Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, UK: SAGE.

Reese, S. D. (2001). Introduction. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 1-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ritchie, J. R. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events. Journal of Tourism Research, 23, 2-11.

Roche, M. (2000). Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London, UK: Routledge.

Roche, M. (2002). The Olympics and global citizen. Citizenship Studies, 6(2), 165-181.Russell, S. (2009, October 1). Reasons why Rio is the right Olympic choice. CBC News

Sports. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2009/10/01/spf-olympics-2016-bids-russell.html

Sheth, H., & Babiak, K. (2010). Beyond the game: Perceptions and practices of corporation social responsibility in the professional sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 433-450.

Smith, A. C. T., & Westerbeek, H. M. (2007). Sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25, 43-54.

Tomlinson, A. (1986). Going global: The FIFA story. In A. Tomlinson, & G. Whannel (Eds.), Off the ball: The 1986 football world cup (pp. 83-98). London, UK: Pluto.

Tomlinson, A. (2007). Lord, don’t stop the carnival: Trinidad and Tobago at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 259-282.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: Free Press.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2011). Sport for peace and development. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/sport/physical-education-and-sport/sport-for-peace-and-development/




United Nations Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group. (2008). Sport for Development and Peace: From Practice to Policy. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Jour-nal of Communication, 57, 60-78.

Weaver, D. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57 (1), 142-147.

Whitson, D., & Horne, J. (2006). Underestimated costs and overestimated benefits? Comparing the outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan. Sociological Review, 54, 71-89.

Whitson, D., & Macintosh, D. (1996). The global circus: International sport, tourism, and the marketing of cities. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20, 278-295.

Wilson, S. (2009, September 3). Rio 2016 Olympic bid gets a lift. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/rio-2016-olympic-bid-gets-a-lift-20090903-f8o0.html

Wolf-Powers, L. (2010). Community benefits agreements and local government. A review of recent evidence. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 141-159.

Wright, J., & Clarke, G. (1999). Sport, media, and the construction of compulsory heterosexual-ity. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34, 227-243.

Bios

Meaghan Carey is a PhD Student in the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation at the University of Alberta. Her research focuses on how sporting strategies and amenities are used as part of broader urban development planning in small to mid-sized cities.

Daniel S. Mason is a Professor of Physical Education and Recreation and an adjunct with the School of Business at the University of Alberta. His research focuses on cities, sport events, franchises, and infrastructure development.

Laura Misener is an Assistant Professor in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Western Ontario. Her research focuses on the social impacts of hosting sporting events, and how events can be leveraged to enhance community development and sport participation opportunities.



Social Responsibility and the Competitive Bid Process for Major Sporting Events

Documents