The Intended Outcomes of 2012 Summer Olympics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Intended outcomes and role of partnerships
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The Olympic Games are no longer regarded only as a sporting event; nowadays they are strongly tied to the world of politics, economy and even international relations. This paper is aimed at assessing the intended outcomes of Summer Olympics which are going to be held in London in 2012.

Furthermore, we need to explain how different partnerships have helped in achieving them. Overall, a country that bids to host this event intends to attain some of these objectives: 1) to increase the international awareness about the city, 2) to improve the infrastructure of urban areas, 3) to gain international prestige; 4) to promote sports participation and healthy way of life; 5) to create employment opportunities for people (Preuss, 2004, p 286; Toohey & Veal 2007).

The goals set by the UK government are very much similar to these objectives. In the future, this sporting event can avail a great number of people but it is possible only if different governmental and non-governmental organization work closely on this task. Lastly, the expected outcomes can be attained only if there are well-developed strategies which would regulate the actions of different participants.

Intended outcomes and role of partnerships

Increased participation in sports

According to the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (2007), this sporting event may perform the following tasks: 1) to turn the United Kingdom a “world-leading sporting nation”, 2) to transform “the heart of East London”, 3) to encourage volunteering and physical activity among young people; 4) to promote sustainable living and eco-friendly urban planning; 5) to attract both tourists, entrepreneurs and investors to the country (DCMS, 2007, p 1). Apart from that, 2012 Summer Olympics are expected to create at least 3.000 jobs, yet this claim is often disputed (Samuel, 2005, unpaged). These goals closely resemble those ones which were identified in the introduction.

The primary outcome is to make the United Kingdom a “world-leading sporting nation” (DCMS, 2007, p 1). There is no point in denying the fact that 2012 Summer Olympics will provide a powerful incentive for young people to go in for sports.

Moreover, it is quite probable that many of these people will achieve considerable successes in this field. However, it does not realistic that these Olympic Games will enable the country to achieve this goal in no time. Besides, it is not quite clear how one prove that a certain country is a “world-leading sporting nation”. We do not kind of statistical data can substantiate this claim; for instance, this outcome can be measured by the number of people who go in for sports.

One may also focus on the results of the UK athletes in international competitions. Thus, it is quite possible to argue that there is no specific standard by which this outcome can be assessed. These Olympic Games are also expected to encourage volunteering and physical activity among younger generation. In this case, the results are more or less measurable, since one can obtain statistical information about the number of people who help voluntary organizations. However, one cannot determine accurately how many people go into sports.

Again, those individual, who postulated the expected outcomes, did not specify the steps should be taken in order to attract more people to sports. Certainly, a part of 2012 Summer Olympics will be numerous sport venues. Yet, one should first provide an incentive to children or adolescents to go to these facilities; otherwise they will become the so-called “white elephants” or very expensive possessions which are of no use for the owner (Poyntner & MacRury, 2009, p 135).

At this point several governmental and non-governmental organizations have already taken some steps to achieve these objectives. For instance, we can speak about such agencies as the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and Legacy Trust.

ODA is a governmental committee which is controlled by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport; it is primarily responsible for ensuring that the venues and infrastructure left this event will be utilized to their full capacity. In turn, Legacy Trust UK is a charitable non-governmental organization which supports a variety of sporting activities among children and adolescents (Legacy Trust UK, 2011, unpaged).

Legacy Trust UK has already contributed £6 million to hold multi-sport events for athletes of school age (Legacy Trust UK, 2011, unpaged). At this point, these agencies work together, and this cooperation may greatly promote participation in sports. This partnership can greatly avail both professional athletes and people who are interested in sports. Furthermore, we need to mention such organization as Youth Sport Trust; it was founded long before 2012 Summer Olympics.

This organization received funding from DCMS and Legacy Trust in order to conduct UK School Games (Youth Sport Trust, 2011, unpaged). Legacy Trust and Youth Sport Trust work together with local governments and schools. Many of its programs are specifically tailored for the needs of small towns. For instance, in the North West Legacy Trust has established more than one hundred partnership with local schools to organize sports competition for students living in this area (Youth Sport Trust, 2011, unpaged).

At the moment, more than 12.000 have taken part in this community games and for many of these people such games is a form of social inclusion (Youth Sport Trust, 2011, unpaged). This case illustrates that it is quite possible to achieve good results through close cooperation of governmental and non-governmental organizations.

These Olympic Games are expected to make sport an inseparable part of social life, but this task requires immense shift in public opinion and without it grand-scale sporting events can be of no use. Other countries have already encountered such problems, for instance, South Africa.

The stadiums which were built for the World Cup are not utilized to their full capacity, and their return on investment proved to be very low. Overall, this objective of the government is quite reasonable but they have not outlined their future polices and they still have to determine how to make the best use of infrastructure and sports venues. This is one of the most important questions that need to be resolved.

Economic and infrastructural benefits of 2012 Summer Olympics

Apart from that, 2012 Summer Olympics are aimed at changing the life of East London which is often viewed as the most economically-depressed area of the capital. Again, one cannot say that this claim is not substantiated because this project will give rise to numerous sports venues, and new jobs for people who work at these facilities. In addition to that, the Olympic village can be transformed into affordable housing for people.

So, from this point of view, the benefits of this sporting event are quite palpable. Nonetheless, we do not know whether this event will make East London more attractive from perspective. Overall, this objective appears to be more realistic and measurable. Still, one should not overlook the fact that the government has yet to propose any specific strategies that may help to attain these goals. The thing is that without specific action plan and schedule the intended outcomes of the Olympic Games may not come into being.

Furthermore, one has to discuss the economic benefits of 2012 Summer Olympics. A considerable income will be derived from ticketing but this income was not the main rationale for bidding to hold this sporting event. Again, we need to talk about close partnership of Legacy Trust and the Olympic Delivery Authority.

Many volunteers of Legacy Trust have already distributed a great number of tickets across the country (Legacy Trust, 2011, unpaged). This example shows how the partnership of public organizations can help the country in achieving economic objectives.

The main intended outcome is the creation of employment opportunities for people. As it has been said before, this claim is heavily disputed. It is believed that that approximately 11.000.000 Londoners will manage to find new jobs as a result of 2012 Summer Olympics (Samuel, 2005, unpaged). Yet, it is very difficult to determine how many of these people will retain these jobs after the Olympic Games.

Another important objective is effective utilization of infrastructure left after 2012 Summer Olympics. Several organizations contribute to the achievement of this goal. We need to speak about the role of London Development Agency.

This institution will be responsible for the transformation of Olympic village into housing that would be affordable to people. At this point, LDA works with Olympic Delivery Authority. On the whole, the main task of LDA is to make sure that the infrastructure left after 2012 Summer Olympics will benefits Londoners and the visitors of this city (LDA, 2011, unpaged).

This case illustrates the idea that investment into Olympic Games can offer reasonable return if the infrastructure is managed effectively. At least, in this case, these facilities will not be maintained at the expense of the country’s citizens. This is one of the most essential tasks that that the government has to perform, otherwise the sports venues will become very costly possession.

On the basis of this discussion, we can argue that 2012 Summer Olympics may have significant ramifications for social and economic life of London and the United Kingdom, in general.

They can benefit different layers of society but many of the objectives set by the government are not specific and measurable. Most importantly, there are not specific strategies that would accurately describe the future use of sports venues. This is probably the most important reason why the government’s initiative to bid for this event was criticized and is criticized.

Yet, we have to stress the point at these partnership do not fully contribute to the achievement of the intended outcomes. Of course, they promote participation in sports and effective utilization of infrastructure.

For instance, the sports venues built for this sporting event can greatly avail both professional and amateur athletes with physical disabilities. Yet, very little is being said about their ability to benefit from this legacy. Apart from that, economic goals of 2012 Summer Olympics can hardly be achieved without active participation of private companies.

They can play a very important role in the creation of jobs for Londoners. Again, at this point they are not actively involved. Without their participation it will be very difficult to retain a great number of jobs which are available to them now. Overall, close cooperation of governmental and non-governmental organizations is indispensible for the effective utilization of infrastructural legacy left by 2012 Summer Olympics.

Conclusion

This discussion indicates that sporting events such as Olympic Games can produce beneficial effects on the life of society. The major task of governmental and non-governmental organizations is to ensure that the infrastructure is used to its full capacity.

Sports venues must bring revenue and serve the community; otherwise they will inevitable become the so-called white elephants which cannot be maintained properly. In this paper, we have outlined the intended outcomes of 2012 Summer Olympics, some of them may appear to be slightly unrealistic and vague, for instance, making the UK “a world-leading sports nation”, while some of them are not fully measurable. At this point, several governmental and non-governmental agencies work together to achieve these objectives.

Yet, it should be noted that private companies do not take an active part in this process and it is not clear how they can avail from this sporting event. This question is one of the most crucial ones since it is related to job creation and job retention. Finally, as we have stated several times in the previous sections, effective utilization of sporting facility and infrastructure is hardly possible without detailed implementation plan and it is currently lacking.

References

Brummett. B. 2009. Sporting rhetoric: performance, games, and politics. NY: Peter Lang.

Department for Culture, Media, and Sports. 2007. “Our Promise for 2012: How the UK will benefit from the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games” Web.

Hylton. K. & Bramham. P. 2001 Sports development: policy, process and practice. Oxon Routledge.

Legacy Trust UK. 2011. The Official Website.

London. Development Agency.(2011). The Official Website.

Preuss. H. 2004 The economics of staging the Olympics: a comparison of the Games, 1972-2008. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Poynter G. & MacRury I. 2009 Olympic cities: 2012 and the remaking of London. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Samuel M. (2005). “Who needs an Olympic pool when there’s no room for a kickabout?”. The Times. Web.

Toohey K & Veal A. 2007. The Olympic games: a social science perspective. London. CABI.

Youth Sport Trust. 2010. The official website.

Click Here To Order Now!