I listened on recently as a member of the Scottish parliament described the transformation effect sport has had on his city, Glasgow, over the course of his relatively short adulthood. While, as a child, being subjected to pervasive messaging which labelled Scotland’s largest city ‘the sick man of Europe’, he now takes particular delight in the continued regeneration on our west coast. 

This renaissance owes much to the foresight and subsequent effort of those who have successfully secured events like the 2014 Commonwealth Games, FIG World Artistic Gymnastics Championships and 2018 European Championships for the city, amongst many others. 

Accordingly, the catalyst for this revolution of sorts has been sport. A great love of sport, has, in the words of this MSP, driven and irreversibly altered how his constituents experience the city in which they reside: be it in the evolving cityscape, the upgraded infrastructure or prevalent belief among citizens that Glasgow is, once again, a powerhouse. No longer in an industrial sense, of course, but as the eighth greatest sporting city on earth. 

As a slight aside, I would argue that these events have altered the consciousness of the Scottish nation as a whole, not only in a sporting sense. Scotland now recognises that its sons and daughters are capable of shining on the world stage and that our investment in sport has engendered invaluable social impacts, as well as numerous medals and new records. 

Aside from partisan praise for Glasgow and Scotland, this anecdote serves a very simple purpose in this wider narrative; it demonstrates the potential created by events governed well. 

And as all of those involved in the process of attempting to secure events for their respective municipalities will know, good governance starts from the initiation of the bidding process.  

Now, I cite Glasgow as a recent example in which, through rigorous care and procedural best practice, the city has reaped myriad benefits which were successfully sown many years previously. There are many others, however, that do not realise such prosperous outcomes, the reasons for which are both too numerous and complex to discuss herein. The solution for the unpredictable nature of results in an industry where, at least on the pitch/track/court, results are the only thing of any consequence, is, fortunately, less obscure. It is the more transparent governance around the process of event bidding. 

Technical evaluations are, in principle, an excellent means towards this end. However, controversy arises when they inform the choice of candidates, rather than underpin their decisions. Of course, factors not taken in to account in the process of a technical evaluation have to be considered, not least political climate. But to those unacquainted with event bidding as it presently stands, the fact that the, apparently, most accomplished bid often loses out in the final reveal, bears further scrutiny. And probably rightly so. 

It begs the question over whether there is scope for a standardised stable of tools to be provided to federations and governing bodies to help inform their decisions. Objective criteria, consistently adhered to across all sports and all major events, would help better gauge the competency of competing bids and help to eradicate votes potentially cast on instinctive or misguided judgement. 

In support of this line of argument, it has even been reasoned that completed technical evaluations should be published to encourage stricter adherence to their recommendations, or at least to elicit an explanation as to why any departure from the recommendations of a technical evaluation is selected as the chosen course. 

Leaving aside any insinuations of wrongdoing, more must also be done to encourage economic transparency in order to eradicate the ramifications experienced by host cities who fail to predict difficulties some way down the line. 

At present, a situation often arises where, in an effort to impress, candidates overpromise only to, ultimately, under-deliver. To give one example, the Olympic Games are seemingly beset by a perennial sprint finish, whereby, only aware of shortcomings all-too-late, infrastructure projects are rushed or pared-back by the host city. At best, this erodes confidence in the potentially profound social impacts mega-events should guarantee; at worst, it risks dereliction of duty and gives rise to social unrest.

For those familiar with game theory, the competitive nature of bidding must be of the greatest interest. Lacking definitive criteria to meet, cities and states must simply seek to outshine their nearest competitors. Or, more accurately, seek to outshine what capacity they imagine their nearest competitor may have. The result of this ‘blind bidding’ is a less than ideal outcome for all involved, including the winner. 

With more strongly defined and widely publicised benchmarks upon which bids are judged, one can claim with some confidence that capability and credibility, rather cash, will become the foundations upon which successful bids are constructed. The result? Greater likelihood of well-placed investment, improved legacy benefits and less empty stadia as the circus leaves town. 

While it is not for me to pass judgement on the current health of global sporting governance, I am more than willing to indicate the current circumstances, while regrettable, present an invaluable opportunity. 

In the course of numerous allegations, withdrawal of support and widespread condemnation in recent months, we have learned in no uncertain terms that the forces behind the extraordinary commercial success of sport will no longer endure dubiety. Due to the extent of its own success, all of sport, particularly its governance, is being called to account, and it must reform. 

Emboldened by the voice offered by social media and the internet age, the public can no longer be categorised as homogenous factions of brand advocates. Today, the consumer more fluidly elects those it wishes to trust, and brands with a sponsors’ stake in sport will no longer tolerate its flaws. 

That being said, it should not be forgotten that, by the same token, the consumer of today is now open to more routes of engagement than ever before thanks to those same technologies. As such, the potential is more people, more enthused by a greater diversity of sporting pursuits. For the general health of the sector, that can only be an exciting prospect. But it can only be realised through change. That change being excellent governance from the ground-up. 

And, if we agree with the assertion above that good governance is established from the outset of the bidding process, what better area for us to concentrate those initial efforts towards reform. 

This opinion piece was written by Paul Bush OBE, VisitScotland’s Director of Events and Chairman of Commonwealth Games Scotland

The European Capitals of Culture programme has grown immeasurably since its launch in 1985. 

“We started modestly 30 years ago and now we are typically having cities spend up to EUR 70-100m for a yearly programme being a European Capital of Culture,” says Karel Bartak, Head of the Creative Europe Coordination Unit at DG Education and Culture, European Commission.

“So it is very prestigious from the point of view that there is a huge interest in every country.”

Initiated by Greek culture minister Melina Mercouri and originally called “European City of Culture”, the programme was renamed “European Capitals of Culture” in 1999. Two hosts are now appointed each year, enabling a wider range of destinations to benefit. 

“In the past most of the bidding and winning cities were capital or very big cities, but now many of these have already been European Capitals of Culture, so now we are seeing smaller cities bidding and it brings a new and very interesting edge”.

“If you have a smaller place of 100-200,000 inhabitants, the impact is much, much bigger and also much more visible for the city's inhabitants than if you have a European Capital of Culture in say Paris or Athens.”

In 2013 the medium-sized Slovakian city of Kosice was a European Capital of Culture. 

“Everyone who comes from there says the city has been changed beyond recognition by the year, and it has really become a cultural hub including Ukraine, Hungary, Poland and so on,” says Bartak.

“In Umea last year in Sweden it was similar case; and this year the town of Mons in Belgium, which has only 80,000 inhabitants, is having a huge impact and the whole country is celebrating.”

Mons is joined by Pilsen in the Czech Republic as a European Capital of Culture for 2015.

How to bid

The bidding procedure is based on a “Decision” of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which is the legal basis for the selection and monitoring processes.

“This legal basis determines which countries are concerned with European Capital of Culture for the next eighteen years, so we all know well in advance which countries are going to be concerned,” says Bartak.

The country concerned typically issues a call for applications six years in advance of the title year. Interested candidates submit a bid book of 80-100 pages and present it to a panel that pre-selects a shortlist of candidates. 

The pre-selected candidates then have another seven to eight months to prepare the final bid. 

The panel is now composed of 10 members who are selected by European Commission, Parliament, Council and Committee of the Regions, plus two selected by the governments of bidding country. This international jury of experts is renewed by a third every year. 

The process is democratic. “The chairperson, who is always chosen by the jury from among its members, is always trying to have a consensus. But if there is no consensus then there is a vote,” says Bartak. 

“It is always tense as the responsibility is huge, cities investing a lot of energy, hope and financial resources in their bid.”

Once selected, the host cities have four years to prepare their programme for the year. During this phase, the Commission convenes monitoring meetings during which the panel give cities advice and guidance and take stock of their preparations.

How are the bids evaluated?

The international jury judges the bid on criteria specified in the Decision of the European Union. 

One of these criteria is the European dimension of the programme: how it brings to the fore the cultural diversity in Europe and our common cultural features, how it leads to new or reinforced cultural partnerships and cooperation at EU level. Another is the participation of the citizens and of the various cultural, social and economic stakeholders of the city in the design and implementation of the yearly programme. The jury also looks at sustainability and legacy issues as the project must be embedded into the longer term cultural development strategy of the city.

“They make sure that once the year is over the overall level of cultural life and the investment in culture has long lasting effect, and the level of cultural life stays much higher than it was before the year,” says Bartak.

“Besides that, the jury is looking into the financial sustainability – the composition of the package of money that is available. We are always keen on having a good mix between private and public funding and so on.”

The financial contribution of the European Commission is relatively small.

“The Melina Mercouri prize which is given to each city which has won the title is 1.5m Euros, so it is just a kind of symbolic contribution; otherwise the city has to find the budget. Many hosting cities however use the money coming from the EU Structural Funds.”

Future hosts

The selection process for 2020 European Capitals of Culture is now underway. Ireland and Croatia are currently running their competitions for 2020 and the bidding process is set to change slightly. 

“The current situation is that the Commission is monitoring the process, but is not at all interfering in it. This is run by the independent panel, the jury. Until now, the national governments and then the institutions of the EU (European Parliament, Commission and Council) would then take on board the recommendation of the jury,” says Bartak.

“As of the 2020 titles, this will be done differently; the jury will recommend the city to the government concerned, so the institutions of the European Union will be left out of the process – to make it simpler and less bureaucratic.”

The pre-selection process in Croatia was completed in May 2015. “We had nine cities competing and four were preselected. The recommendation for the final selection will happen in January of next year.” 

By October, it will be clear which cities in Ireland are competing to host the 2020 European Capital of Culture. “I think all bidding cities have a chance. Each application is judged on its merits,” says Bartak.

Creating a network of cities

There is a great opportunity for the European Commission and its network of European Capitals of Culture to share experiences.

“As previous title-holders, Mons and Pilsen have organised a gathering of previous and future European Capitals of Culture, which was an interesting moment of brainstorming and bringing together their experiences and stories of preparation and implementation.

“We feel that with our thirty years of experience, we have more and more knowledge and advice to give and, with the lessons learned it becomes easier for cities to avoid mistakes made in the past.”

The European Commission will discuss these issues and opportunities in greater detail at HOST CITY 2015 on 9th and 10th November in Glasgow.

To find out more about the bidding process for European Capital of Culture visit http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc-candidates-guide_en.pdf or register to attend HOST CITY 2015

The bidding process for the 2021 and 2023 FINA World Championships is underway, with ten cities from seven countries across four continents having expressed an interest. 

Budapest had originally been selected for the 2021 Games, but its hosting was brought forward to 2017 when Guadalajara, Mexico pulled out of hosting the 2021 edition. 

FINA said it has received expressions of interest from Argentina, Australia (Melbourne or Sydney), China (Wuhan or Nanjing), Germany (two potential cities), Japan, Turkey and Qatar to host the showcase aquatics event.

FINA said it is in discussions with each of the potential candidates, providing them with all the necessary information to plan their proposals. 

An information meeting will take place on 30 June 2015 for nations and cities that have shown an interest in bidding.

FINA said it hopes to announce the chosen host cities of the 2021 and 2023 FINA World Championships by the end of 2015.

“We are delighted with the strong level of interest from a number of different cities who want to host swimming’s showcase event,” said FINA President, Dr. Julio C. Maglione.

“I believe that they are all attracted by the evidence that the FINA World Championships brings clear economic, social, cultural, tourism and sports impacts to every host city. There is a measurable benefit through better youth and community facilities, through high-performance opportunities, and through showcasing your city to a global audience.”

The FINA World Championships is one of world’s most followed international sport events. A cumulative audience of 4.5 billion watched the 2013 FINA World Championships in Barcelona, Spain, across six platforms.

The 2015 FINA World Championships will take place in Russia for the first time on 24 July to 9 August 2015, in the city of Kazan. 2,200 athletes from a record 188 countries have registered so far.

The next two editions will be held in Budapest, Hungary, in 2017 and in Gwangju, Korea, in 2019. 

FINA, the Fédération Internationale de Natation, is the governing body for aquatics worldwide. Its five disciplines – swimming, open water swimming, diving, water polo and synchronised swimming – are all included in the Olympic programme.

In an address to the Danish National Olympic Committee (NOC) Congress on Thursday, IOC president Dr Thomas Bach made it clear that the choice of host city is not an endorsement of a country’s political system, because the IOC is politically neutral.

He also explained how the Host City contract now prevents discrimination of athletes and binds the organisers of the Games to uphold international agreements applicable in the host country. 

The theme of the NOC Congress was called “Can Sport Save the World?” 

Bach said “Sport can neither save the world alone nor can it alone make the world a better and peaceful place. But sport has the power to contribute to a better harmonious and peaceful world.”

Sport can do this through the universal law of fair play, he said. “Regardless of where we practice sport, regardless of who is playing sport, the rules are the same. They are recognized worldwide. They are based on a common ‘global ethic’ of fair-play, tolerance and friendship. 

“This means in sport all people are equal. In order to be able to apply this universal law worldwide and to promote this global ethic sport must be politically neutral. If not, we could not ensure the equal treatment of all people without any kind of discrimination – sport would be torn apart by politics.

“We have seen this in the past with some political boycotts which did not serve any good purpose. Furthermore, boycotts are a fundamental contradiction to the spirit of sport depriving it of the means to work for peace, mutual understanding and solidarity.

“To be politically neutral does not mean to be apolitical. In fact in the past many people pretended falsely two things: Firstly, that sport has nothing to do with money. Secondly, that sport has nothing to do with politics.” 

While remaining politically neutral, the IOC must consider the political implication of its decisions, Bach said. 

“This is most obvious when it comes to choosing the venues for major sports events, above all for the biggest and most important of these, the Olympic Games. Because already a candidature for the Olympic Games draws the world’s attention to the candidate country. This is even more true for the host country with the additional economic implications and investments. 

“Choosing a host city does not mean that the IOC necessarily agrees with the political and/or the legal system in the host country. It does not mean that we agree with the death penalty or with discrimination, just to give two examples.

“It means however that in every country where we organize Olympic Games, we want to send the strong message of tolerance, respect and fair play. It means that we require compliance with all the values of the Olympic Charter for all participants at the Olympic Games.”

Bach gave examples, such as how the IOC asked for and received assurances that Russia’s law prohibiting the public promotion of homosexual orientation would not apply to any of the participants of the Olympic Games. 

He also cited how the IOC raised the issue unpaid migrant workers on the Olympic sites, leading to more than 500 companies being investigated and more than US$ 8m in unpaid wages being paid to 6175 workers. 

In another example, he pointed out that the IOC made the internet fully accessible to all participants of the Youth Olympic Games in Nanjing. 

Agenda 2020 has created a new clause in the Host City Contract that “the organization of the Games must comply with local, regional and national legislation and international agreements and protocols applicable in the host country with regard to planning, construction, protection of the environment, health and safety and labour laws.” 

And through its Agenda 2020 review, the IOC has amended the Olympic Charter to state: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” 

Bach said this language “mirrors the text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” 

“It is the responsibility of the IOC to ensure the application of the Olympic Charter at the Olympic Games. At the same time we must acknowledge that we have neither the mandate nor the capability to change the laws or the political system of a sovereign country.”

The full text of the speech is available here.

Marius Vizer, the president of SportAccord, the umbrella group of international sports federations, has directly criticised IOC president Thomas Bach and his programme of reform, Agenda 2020. 

Agenda 2020 was unanimously approved by IOC members in December 2014, but Vizer said the reforms are not in the interests of sports and international federations. 

He criticized the IOC’s decision to launch the new Olympic TV channel, which he said was taken without consultation or transparency. 

Speaking at SportAccord Convention in Sochi on Monday, Vizer also complained that the IOC is preventing the launch of new multi-sports Games event. 

“After becoming SportAccord President, I always tried to develop a constructive collaboration with the IOC and with President Bach. A collaboration based on respect towards the Olympic Movement, its members and the values in which I believe. Unfortunately, it never became reality,” Vizer said. 

“I made a number of proposals in favour and for the benefit of IFs and SportAccord but we have never received a positive reaction. Mr. President, stop blocking the SportAccord strategy in its mission to identify and organize conventions and multi-sport games. 

“Do not try to create a theory around which sports are and are not eligible for multi-sport games. Do not try to impose upon the organizers of SportAccord events guidelines on how to distribute funds generated and earned by ourselves. Do not interfere in the autonomy of the sport organizations.”

The primary feature of Agenda 2020 is its reform of the bidding procedure for Olympic Games, which has been changed to reduce the cost of bidding to make it more appealing to cities. 

One of the changes brought in was to prevent bidding cities from presenting at SportAccord Convention. “The voting for potential host cities of the Olympic Games is compromised,” said Vizer. 

“Key stakeholders are excluded from making informed decisions when selecting Olympic host cities: the bid cities cannot present their candidatures at SportAccord Convention to all stakeholders, IOC members cannot visit bid cities and during the IOC Session, when the vote takes place, IF presidents – who are organizers of the Olympic Games, are obliged to leave the room.”

Vizer said the interests of the international federations (IFs), which SportAccord represents, were not properly addressed.

“The Agenda 2020 hardly brings any real benefit to sport, to IFs, or athletes. It did not bring about more clear criteria, rules and principles,” he said.

Vizer singled out recommendations 9 and 10 of Agenda 2020 as leading to “a destabilizing of the Olympic sports”. 

Recommendation 9 manages the scale of the Summer Olympic Games by limiting accreditations to 10,500 athletes competing in 310 events, and the winter Games to 2,900 athletes and 100 events. 

Recommendation 10 sets out to structure the Olympic programme around events rather than sports. The IFs are to be involved in regular reviews of the programme and organising committees will be able to suggest adding one or more sports to the programme, but the IOC retains ultimate decision making power over which sports and IFs to include in the programme. 

“We must protect the Olympic sports and disciplines currently in the Olympic programme and at the same time we must encourage and support the new sports and disciplines who want to join,” said Vizer.

He also described recommendation 19, to launch an Olympic TV channel as “very surprising”. 

“The IOC Members voted in December 2014, in the IOC Session, unilaterally, without a clear business plan, a commercialization plan and project, to reduce the dividends to International Federations in order to establish the Olympic channel. Leaving from the premise that the Olympic Movement has the assets, any business project in the world needs a business plan, investors, professional partners, breakeven points, strategy, consultation with stakeholders – International Federations and to generate a benefit for all stakeholders. Only after the decision it appears that a plan is in process. 

“At the same time, the cost of more than 450 million dollars to establish a digital channel seems exaggerated. Do consult us as stakeholders of the Olympic Movement regarding all the proposals, contracts and partnerships that are being signed and make them transparent!”

Vizer took over as president of SportAccord in May 2013, before which he was president of the International Judo Federation. He is faces no challenger in the presidential election due to take place at the SportAccord Convention.

Read the full transcript of the speech here.

The International Committee on Thursday launched a Register of Consultants representing cities bidding for the 2024 Olympic Games. 

The register was one of the recommendations of Olympic Agenda  2020, the “strategic roadmap for the Olympic Movement” initiated by IOC president Thomas Bach and unanimously approved by IOC members last year. 

The news was welcomed by Mike Lee OBE, chairman of Vero Communications, who has been involved in a number of successful Olympic bids including London 2012, Rio 2016, PyeongChang 2018 and Buenos Aires 2018. 

“I think the idea of a register and codes of ethics and conduct are a very good way forward; we are very pleased to see that.” he told HOST CITY. 

“Like others, we will be making an application to be on that register and I think it’s a healthy development and it’s something which the business in sport in general should embrace. 

“Certainly you see it in other walks of life – it’s been around in the public affairs industry in many countries, so it’s a good thing and all part of increasing the opening and transparency of the bidding process."

According to the IOC, all consultants wishing to participate in or support a candidature for the Olympic Games must be entered in the IOC’s Register of Consultants list for the city concerned.

Entry in the Register is a prerequisite for providing any service and/or signing any service contract by the National Olympic Committee (NOC) and/or the city.

The Register and Rules of Conduct form part of Olympic Agenda 2020’s Recommendation 3, which aims to reduce the cost of bidding for the Olympic Games, stating: “The IOC to create and monitor a register of consultants/lobbyists eligible to work for a bid city. Formal acceptance of the IOC Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct by such consultants/lobbyists as a prerequisite for listing in the register.”

The IOC considers a consultant to be any individual or company not linked by an employment contract to the NOC, the city or the bidding committee, and which/who participates in or supports a candidature by providing consultancy or similar services in any way and at any time.

The register will be published on www.olympic.org

The inaugural Host City: Bid to Win conference has provided a thought-provoking and timely debate on bidding procedures for major events.

The conference examined engaging themes central to the debate including the IOC’s proposed Agenda 2020 reforms and emerging trends in the bidding for and hosting of large-scale, multi-sport and cultural events.  

Speaking at the one-day conference at the St James’ Court, A Taj Hotel in London, IOC Vice-President, Sir Craig Reedie, said the IOC is determined to change its approach in response to the current bidding climate around major events.

“The evidence of the 2022 winter bids shows us that this is necessary. The IOC is right to look at its processes and try and correct the current situation. It wants to adopt a partnership approach and start a dialogue with bid cities.

Reedie also called for the communications gap to be plugged between the IOC and Host Cities.

“The IOC faces a communications gap. There has been a failure to get Host Cities and members of the public to understand that there are two budgets, an organising committee budget for staging the games, and a non-organising committee budget which looks at infrastructure and legacy for the host city.”

“Sochi was certainly not encouraged by the IOC to make the scale of investment that they did. It was for the future of the city not the two weeks the games were hosted.”

Stefan Lindeberg, President, Swedish Olympic Committee, agreed a breakdown in communication had occurred during Sweden’s recent attempts at bidding for the Winter Olympic Games.

Lindeberg, said: “The public has to understand the costs and the risks. The process needs to be transparent and this needs to be communicated much earlier in the bidding process.

“We want much more cooperation from the IOC. We want a situation where we start with a discussion about our city, our legacy, what we want from the Games then work with the IOC to create a host city contract that we understand not something that is imposed on us.”

On declining to bid for 2022 Winter Games, Lindeberg said: “If we could do it again our answer would be yes. At the time we needed a much clearer statement from the IOC about exactly what it means to bid. If we had had the discussion we are having now in January, our answer would have been yes.”

Speaking on the same panel, Alexander Koch, FIFA Corporate Communications Manager, discussed how rights holders choose host cities:

“We need to be asking the countries why they are bidding. In the media it is quite often reduced to the economic value but if you ask this question to each country you will get vastly different answers. If we take Germany, for example, they had a very clear vision for why they wanted to host the 2006 World Cup – to present a unified Germany to the world. The decision to host has to make sense for that country. That is why 2018 went to Russia and 2022 went to Qatar because their bids made the most sense for their countries.”

In a later panel which looked at evaluating bidding and hosting around the world Mario Andrada, Executive Director of Communications for Rio 2016, said:

“The venues will be ready on time; we are 100% confident of that. Our focus will be on transport, accommodation and getting the people ready so they have confidence in the legacy for Rio.

“We will, of course, learn lessons from London 2012 but Rio 2016 will be a different Games, it will have a Brazilian soul. We have to show it is good for the city, good for the country and good for the population. We want to focus on the self-esteem of our people and to deliver an intelligent and efficient Games with a clear and tangible legacy.”

WPP Chief Executive Sir Martin Sorrell, on the issue of the cost of hosting major events, said:

“The argument has not been as made cogently as it could be, bidding just accelerates the investment which is necessary anyway, be it airports, rapid transport or other city infrastructure.  The benefit of the legacy is not being articulated as strongly as it could be by cities.

“Communicating the legacy of hosting these events, the intangible side of it, is critical to engaging the public. In order to achieve success you have to articulate clearly the benefits of staging an Olympics, a World Cup or a Grand Prix.”

Host City: Bid to Win brought together experts and decision makers to explore the challenges and benefits of bidding for major global events. At a time when the bidding process for events is under the spotlight Host City: Bid to Win has engaged expert insight into the heart of the debate including the IOC’s proposed Agenda 2020 reforms and emerging trends in the bidding for and hosting of large-scale, multi-sport and cultural events. 

For further information on Host City: Bid to Win please visit: http://www.bidtowin-hostcity.net

HOST CITY: Having hosted the biggest and best event in the world in 2012, what type and scale of events is London aiming to host over the next 10 years? 

Iain Edmondson: We have secured a calendar of championships for Olympic sports, such as European Hockey 2015, World Track Cycling 2016 and the World Athletics 2017 in the permanent Olympic venues. 

And there’s the Rugby World Cup next year, which takes place in existing venues and the new assets we have, including the Olympic stadium. Complementing that are events where London provides the opportunity to globalise, like the NFL. 

What was once termed a decade of sport has now been rounded off with the announcement that the 2020 European football championships will be finishing here, with the semi-finals and finals. 

What we are doing now is to see how we can bring our reputation from sport and major events into the cultural content that we have. People visit London largely because it is a diverse city with great attractions in a number of different ways – not just museums and galleries but the performing arts that appeal to people throughout the year.

You see some great examples of light festivals in cities around the world in the winter. The idea of a London Light Festival is something that we are looking at seriously.

HOST CITY: How seriously are you considering a bid for the 2025 World Expo?

Iain Edmondson: Very seriously. Our experience of delivering major international events over the past decade means we now have the capability to evaluate the practicalities as well as potential benefits of hosting the biggest and the best, like a World Expo. 

Ten years or so ago we wouldn’t have had the same degree of understanding and intelligence to look at its potential to deliver our strategy and aims for London. We are better placed to consider whether or not the World Expo is right for the city and whether we want to enter the race. 

If you are going to host something of that scale you need certain infrastructure, so we have looked into that as well. We are looking at the assets in the city that we have now, like Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, what the situation might be for London in ten years’ time and how this might align with an Expo. 

The good thing is that the Mayor understands the power of major events and wants to hear recommendations as to whether we should bid or not.

HOST CITY: What do you think the owners of major events are most looking for in a host city?

Iain Edmondson: There are basic factors that you’ve got to be able to demonstrate, such as transport and security, but one the biggest is the ability to reach an audience. Rights holders are interested in the markets where the events are hosted. If you’ve got partners that are proactively investing in engaging with and marketing events, then that is appealing to rights owners.

HOST CITY: How can London compete with emerging markets in this space?

Iain Edmondson: We are one of the best in the world in terms of an event-going public, so there is an appetite to attend and physically spectate. We are also one of the best from a media perspective, to be able reach people who aren’t seeing an event in person, but through media channels and the press. 

Our challenge compared to some competitors is the ability to justify large sums of investment up front from public funds, because the business case for investing multi-millions in destination marketing for a city that is already established is different to a new city that needs to make a mark. 

But we are working with the Mayor and all the difference agencies in the city to demonstrate that you don’t necessarily need that. We can still work to provide a commercially successful event, without having a large cash downpayment where there isn’t necessarily an audience behind it. However, there are often other grounds for justifying public investment, such as the long term business benefits where London has proven to have invested wisely over the past decade.

HOST CITY: What do rights holders need to do make bidding more attractive to cities?

Iain Edmondson: Transparency is a must-have for public democratic processes where big money is open to scrutiny. We work in an environment where we expect to be asked awkward questions and justify the answers. 

If a bid process is open and transparent, you can choose to engage or not. It’s just a minimum requirement that everyone can see up front the basis on which they are making decisions. 

Another thing that is important is recognising the ability for rights holders to work in partnership with hosts. The city staffs the event and puts together commercial deals – they often become the people with the most invested in the success of it, so if the rights owner can work closely with the city and understand its aspirations for hosting it, it’s more often going to be a win-win on both sides. 

For example, the ASO are very well resourced; they have looked after the Tour de France for a hundred years. We’ve had some good experience of working with them in 2007 and 2014 and they understand what the host brings.

But some smaller federations often don’t have the capacity to do a lot of detailed planning. The more they can work together and align the events with the expectations of host cities, the better.

For more information about London’s event plans visit www.londonandpartners.com/events

The drop-out of several European cities bidding for the 2022 Olympic Games has created “shockwaves”, but IOC reforms and stronger communication from cities will enable them build the public support needed to bid for future Games.

This is the view of Mike Lee, chairman of Vero, who led on the communications strategies for Rio 2016 and London 2012.

“The race for 2022 has sent a few shockwaves around the Olympic movement, so it’s good that the IOC have already been thinking about this for a while under President Bach,” Lee told HOST CITY. 

A lack of public support led the European cities of Stockholm, Munich, Krakow and Oslo to withdraw from bidding for the 2022 Winter Games. The perceived cost of hosting, at a time when Sochi was investing billions in hosting the 2014 Winter Games, was a major factor in suppressing public appetite for hosting the Games. 

The Olympic Agenda 2020 reforms set in motion by IOC president Thomas Bach are addressing this issue in a number of ways. “A number of the reforms that are being proposed for the bidding process and the way that cities engage with the IOC are all good news,” said Lee.

One important recommendation is the possibility of regional bids, which would allow existing venues in different cities to feature in bids. “There’s definitely going to be a lot more dialogue and flexibility – tailoring, if you wish, the way in which a bid is constructed.”

While these changes from the rights holder are clearly a positive step, city governors will also have a major role to play in building public support for bids.

“You will still need to have support from the relevant levels of government. The lessons from all the recent cycle of bidding is that that remains central. The way you have democratic scrutiny and, in some cases, all the requirements of a referendum – it’s a reminder that you need to build public support.”

The two cities left in the race for 2022 – Beijing and Almaty – do not have a tradition of public referendums. Some observers fear that democratic nations might remain disadvantaged in future bidding cycles.

“This issue of public opinion and political support go hand in hand and you’ve got to pay a lot of attention to it. It’s clearly solvable; otherwise you’d never see bids emerging from democratic countries.”

The timing of polls needs to be considered carefully. “Ideally you want to be able to test public opinion after you’ve had some sort of campaign, because if you have a cold test, don’t be surprised if you have a negative result.

“The London bid would be a very good example. If were depending on the poll in the early days of the London bid, London would never have progressed. It took some time to build the campaign and in the end the polling figures for London were very good, and the national joy came with London winning in Singapore.” 

Warning Signals

Rights holders of major events can expect to see a larger number of applicant cities emerging from this bearish period. “It would be wrong to judge the state of the appetite for major events just from the Olympic bidding process for 2022,” says Lee.

“Most mega events do have multiple bidders – people can’t be looking at the willingness of cities to host purely through the prism of the 2022 Winter Games race, because that is a bit of a one-off. But it’s sent off some warning signals and Agenda 2020, from an Olympic perspective, is all a part of responding to that.”

The findings of FIFA’s long awaited ethics report into the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were announced today (Thursday), with the judge’s summary saying there was limited evidence of improper conduct. However, the investigator who produced the report says the summary misrepresented his facts and made erroneous conclusions. 

In his summary, Judge Hans-Joachim Eckert concluded that there was not enough evidence to remove Russia or Qatar’s rights to host the World Cup or reopen the process, saying that any breaches of rules by bidding nations had only a “limited scope”. 

Michael Garcia was hired by FIFA 18 months ago to find out the truth about widespread allegations of collusion and bribery in the bidding process that saw Russia and Qatar win the hosting rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. 

“Today’s decision by the Chairman of the Adjudicatory Chamber contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the Investigatory Chamber’s report,” he said on Thursday. He is now expected to appeal to FIFA’s ethics committee.

In his 42-page summary of Garcia’s 430-page report, Eckert said that concerns over the activities of bidding nations were “limited” and not sufficient cause to question the outcome of the election.

“The effects of these occurrences on the bidding process as a whole were far from reaching any threshold that would require returning to the bidding process, let alone reopening it,” said Eckert.

Contraventions identified in the summary included improprieties in England’s bid campaign, namely incentives to executive committee member Jack Warner.

“England’s response to Mr Warner’s – improper – demands, in, at a minimum, always seeking to satisfy them in some way, damaged the integrity of the ongoing bidding process. Yet, such damage was again of rather limited extent,” said Eckert.

“We cooperated fully with the Ethics Committee’s investigation and continue to believe that a fair and appropriate review will demonstrate the integrity and quality of our bid,” said the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy said in a statement. 

“FIFA welcomes the fact that a degree of closure has been reached with the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber stating today that ‘the evaluation of the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup bidding process is closed for the FIFA ethics committee. As such, FIFA looks forward to continuing the preparations for Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 which are already well underway,” said FIFA’s statement.