September 2003
Report to the
Secretary of State
(Physical Activity and Sport)
On
Hosting International Sport Events in
Canada –
September 2003
The Honourable Paul DeVillers
Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport) Government of Canada
Dear Secretary of State,
On behalf of my colleagues on the Strategic Hosting Work Group, I am pleased to provide you with our final report, a proposed strategic framework on hosting
international sport events in Canada.
This past April, you presented us with a difficult, but interesting challenge. As you know, the hosting of sport events in Canada provides a number of sport, cultural, social, and economic benefits to Canadians. However, in recent years, the
federal-provincial/territorial governments have faced various pressures and challenges in supporting the hosting of sport events in Canada, in maximizing their benefits while remaining fiscally responsible.
I had the privilege of chairing a diverse, dynamic, and dedicated group of individuals with vast experience and perspectives. They represented all regions of the country. Their knowledge was drawn from work with key organizations within the sport community and as event organizers, as well as in positions within the federal and
provincial governments, and the tourism sector. Those varied perspectives lead to considerable analysis and rich discussion, and ultimately to a broad consensus around a set of recommendations.
In arriving at their recommendations, the Work Group and its support team has analyzed recent trends in hosting in Canada, researched the approaches taken with hosting sport events in other jurisdictions, and consulted with a cross-section of stakeholders. The Work Group has been mindful of the precedent set by the Canadian Sport Policy and the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Priorities for Collaborative Action, 2002-2005 with respect to the need for a collaborative, sport development-driven
framework for hosting. Ultimately, the group has put forward a proposed framework that sets out a coordinated process among the Canadian sport community, all levels of
government and other stakeholders. It will ensure we have a strategic and coherent approach to funding international events and to maximizing the benefits that Canada, and the sport system, derives from them.
The Work Group and the staff team accomplished this work within a remarkably short time frame. Five meetings were held over five months; we also conducted two cross-Canada consultations. We even had to manage a power blackout at a critical time.
We recognize that our proposal is the initial step in a process that will require further discussion within and amongst the sport community, provincial and territorial governments, and other stakeholders. I feel confident, however, that the concepts and principles included in this report will provide sufficient guidance to governments to complete the process, and ensure a workable collaborative framework to hosting international sport events.
On behalf of the Work Group, I would like to thank the staff team from Canadian Heritage that provided support, both administrative and analytical, to the Work Group, as well as members of Sport Canada branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and in particular the Hosting and Major Games Unit and Bid Secretariat, for their input and expertise into this process. A special word of thanks must go, as well, to Judy Sutcliffe of The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated, for the considerable commitment and expertise that she brought to bear on this project.
Thank you too, to the Work Group for their time, responsiveness, and the spirit of openness and collaboration that they demonstrated throughout the process.
I have appreciated the opportunity to chair this group of enthusiastic supporters of the Canadian sport system.
Sincerely,
Jean-Pierre Blais
MEMBERS OF THE HOSTING STRATEGY WORK GROUP
Chair:
Jean Pierre Blais
Assistant Deputy Minister
International and Intergovernmental Affairs Department of Canadian Heritage
Government of Canada Graham McKay
Manager of Sport & Physical Activity Development Section
British Columbia Ministry of Community, Aboriginal & Women’s Services
Louie Di Palma
Manager - Recreation Unit Sport & Recreation Branch Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation
Ron Wight
Office of the Deputy Minister
Saskatchewan Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation
Guy Thibault Conseiller recherche
Direction du sport et de l'activité physique Secrétariat au Loisir et au Sport, Québec Rick Traer
Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance
Paul Hardy
FIFA Marketing Consultant Directeur des Compétitions Les 3es Championnats du monde d’athlétisme jeunesse de l’IAAF Sherbrooke, Québec
Éric Savard Directeur général
Les 3es Championnats du monde d’athlétisme jeunesse de l’IAAF Sherbrooke, Québec
Mr. Fred MacGillivray
President and Chief Executive Officer Trade Centre Limited
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Brian MacPherson Director General
Canadian Paralympic Committee
Mark Lowry
Executive Director, Sport Canadian Olympic Committee Peter Montopoli
Chief Marketing Officer Skate Canada
Stacey Allaster
Vice President and Tournament Director Tennis Canada
NOTE: The members of the work group were acting in their personal capacities, not necessarily as representatives of the organizations or governments for which they work
STAFF TEAM:
Mike McWhinney (Lead) Senior Policy Advisor
Assistant Deputy Minister’s Office Department of Canadian Heritage
Elaine Harvey Manager
Hosting and Major Games Sport Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage Judy Sutcliffe
Principal
The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated Social Research Consultants
Jennifer Brenning Program Officer Sport Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage Carole Romain-Saumier
Secretariat Coordination Sport Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
OBSERVERS: Stephanie Ashton Executive Assistant Canadian Heritage
Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport) Jean Gandubert
Special Advisor Canadian Heritage
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AWG Arctic Winter Games
CBET Competency-Based Education and Training
CONCACAF Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football
CSP Canadian Sport Policy
CSTA Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance
FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Association FINA Fédération Internationale de Natation
FIS Fédération Internationale de Ski F-P/T Federal – Provincial/Territorial
FPTSC Federal – Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee IAAF International Amateur Athletic Federation
IF International Federation
ISECG International Sport Event Coordination Group ISRC Inter-provincial Sport and Recreation Council ISSHP International Single Sport Hosting Program
MSO Multi-Sport Organization
NAIG North American Indigenous Games NSO National Sport Organization
P/T Provincial/Territorial P/TSO Provincial/Territorial Sport Organization PCH Department of Canadian Heritage
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 1
1.1 Issues 1
1.2 Research Findings 3
1.3 Strategic Hosting Framework 3
1.4 Key Recommendations 4
1.5 Conclusion 7
2.0 INTRODUCTION... 8
2.1 Policy Context 8
2.2 Hosting Strategy Work Group 11
2.3 Structure of the Report 12
2.4 Approval Process and Announcements 13
3.0 BACKGROUND... 14
3.1 Issues: Need for a Strategy 14
4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 16 4.1 History of Canadian Heritage Funding of International Sport Events in Canada 16 4.2 History of Other Federal Government Funding of International Sport Events 23 4.3 Economic Impact of Hosting International Sport Events 24 4.4 Canadian Municipal & Provincial Hosting Strategies 28
4.5 Other Countries Are Acting 29
4.6 Bid Guidelines from International Federations 31 5.0 NEXT STEPS... 33 6.0 PROPOSED STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK: ... 35
6.1 Purpose of Hosting 35
6.2 Principles 37
6.3 Scope - Categorization of Events 38
6.4 Conditions 42
6.5 Ideal Strategic Framework 43
6.6 Objectives of a Strategic Hosting Framework 43
6.7 Determining International Sport Events Canada Should Seek To Host 43
6.7.1 Major Multi-Sport Events 44
6.7.2 Single Sport Events 45
6.7.3 Small International Sport Events 46
6.7.4 Large International Single Sport Events 48
6.8 Tools to Assist Bidders 58
6.9 Coordinating the Bid Process – the International Sport Events Coordination
Group (ISECG) and the Roster of Experts 59
6.10 Process for Domestic Bids Operated By NSOs / MSOs 61
7.0 CONCLUSION ... 64
APPENDICES 65
APPENDIX A: List of Recommendations ... 66APPENDIX B: Communications Canada Program Requirements ... 70
APPENDIX C: Municipal and Provincial Hosting Strategies ... 71
APPENDIX D: Other Jurisdictions’ Hosting Strategies ... 75
REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPORT EVENT
HOSTING STRATEGY WORK GROUP
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hosting international sport events can bring direct and significant sport benefits. They can also assist in achieving other federal objectives such as economic and social development. The Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events (1996) noted that hosting international sport events can also provide a forum for the celebration of athletic, artistic and cultural excellence and provide Canadians with the opportunity to contribute to the expression of Canadian identity.
The Canadian Sport Policy (2002) (CSP) echoed the benefits to sport of hosting international sport events, but noted that Canada's fragmented approach had created pressure on public and private funding sources, prevented coordination, and resulted in regional disparities. The Federal –Provincial / Territorial Priorities for Collaborative Action, 2002 – 2005 setting out the joint actions that all governments would take to begin the implementation of the Canadian Sport Policy, identified one of the priorities of the Enhanced Capacity Goal as the development of a sport event hosting strategy. The actions were to create a working group with stakeholder representation, to assess feasibility, and then to consult, to maximize the substantial economic benefit associated with sport tourism.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group was appointed in April 2003 by the Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport) with a mandate to identify why and when Canada should host international sport events, if a collaborative framework to hosting was needed and if it was feasible to develop such a framework among governments to guide hosting, then to do so. The Work Group began work by identifying the issues currently surrounding the hosting of international sport events.
1.1 Issues
Requests for funding support for international sport events have put increasing fiscal pressure on governments at all levels. Discussions between the federal and
provincial/territorial governments about the size of their contributions sometimes take place after an event has been awarded. Careful planning and consideration of such issues as legacy—fiscal, sport programming and facility-based—may not be possible given the pressure to release the funds and begin preparing for the event. In such
situations the sport community tends not to be involved in these governmental discussions and the contribution they could make to legacy planning is sometimes missed.
In part due to this unplanned approach, the distribution of events across Canada has not been sufficiently balanced. Much of this has been mainly driven by enthusiastic communities who often have no prior experience bidding for or hosting international sport events, and have led the drive to attract these events to their communities primarily for economic or tourism reasons. The sport community is not involved, or involved at the level they should be, in these discussions to ensure the best interests of sport are being considered. As well, the National Sport Organization (NSO) /Multi-Sport
Organization (MSO) may only learn about the bid at the point that it is being brought forward for decision by the International Federation (IF) as the IF requirement is such that the bid must be submitted by the respective NSO/MSO. The event may not fit into the NSO / MSO’s long range plans for the development of their sport.
Although the most effective argument to account for the expenditure of public funds often is return on investment, to this point, measures of economic impact have not been consistent nor has data been consistently collected on every event that has been funded. The following needs identified by the Hosting Strategy Work Group were consistent with those set out in the CSP’s Priorities for Collaborative Action. To establish priorities; to strengthen planning resulting in fiscally responsible decisions; to balance the benefits of hosting across the country; to involve the sport community; to engage the
federal/provincial/territorial governments in a partnership; to harness positively the enthusiasm of community leaders and to develop a consistent approach to measuring economic impact.
In setting out its proposed framework, the Work Group adopted the definitions used by the Federal Hosting Policy and included the following international sport events: (1) major multi-sport games; (2) large single sport championships; and (3) small single sport championships. In all cases, participants must qualify to enter, or have entry that is restricted. Canada Games, North American Indigenous Games and the Arctic Winter Games were excluded from the Work Group’s purview because they are covered by Federal-Provincial/Territorial (F-P/T) agreements1. National sport events were excluded as they are covered by the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework of Sport
Canada2. Strategic focus events, such as les Jeux de la Francophonie that have an important cultural component and achieve broader government purposes, were not considered by the Work Group as they are determined by government objectives. A focus on events that are primarily developmental or high performance sport also excluded festivals or open invitational events that have not been identified in the NSOs
development plans.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group examined historical funding patterns both within the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and from other federal government departments. It examined the economic impact of hosting and undertook
cross-jurisdictional research to determine if other countries faced the same issues and how such
1 The Arctic Winter Games agreement is between the federal government and the territories.
2 The SFAF is a management tool used by the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) to ensure that funds allocated to
issues had been addressed. A consultation was conducted on the feasibility of developing a collaborative framework, with stakeholders at the municipal, provincial/territorial and national levels. It was confirmed not only that a framework was feasible but required. The Hosting Strategy Work Group developed a Strategic Hosting Framework that would not only result in a more orderly way to contribute to sport development and capacity building, but would address the needs set out above.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group developed a mechanism for Federal-Provincial/ Territorial governments to respond to funding requests, as well as a strategy for Canada to host a number of major multi-sport games and large single sport championships over the next 25 – 30 years.
1.2 Research
Findings
The history of the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) funding for
international sport events over the past 10 years shows a benefit of legacies (fiscal, sport programming and infrastructure) that are derived from hosting major international sport events. These benefits are primarily in the provinces where the events were held. These major sport events have been hosted disproportionately across the country resulting in regional imbalance in terms of legacies and building sport capacity.
Significant funding support can come to an Event Organizing Committee from
government departments other than Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and from other departments / ministries within provincial / territorial governments. However, many organizers are unaware of these various programs.
The data on the economic impact of hosting international sport events is shown in a variety of tables in the report. There is however, no consistent method being used to assess economic impact.
An examination of practices in other countries showed that other governments are taking the lead in developing approaches to international sport event hosting. The reasons varied from sport excellence to tourism, economic and community benefit. A number of Canadian municipalities as well as some provincial governments are also developing their own strategies around international sport event hosting, re-emphasizing the need for coordination and collaboration.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group adopted features of other jurisdictions’ strategies in developing its own proposed Strategic Hosting Framework.
1.3 Strategic Hosting Framework
The proposed Strategic Hosting Framework is a process of government decision-making. The Hosting Strategy Work Group reiterated that the rationale for governmental support
to hosting international sport events in Canada be the following: building capacity in the sport system (including enhancing excellence, participation, coaching and other human resource development, and sport infrastructure); maximizing economic benefits and maximizing community benefits (including an increased emphasis on physical activity and healthy communities), as stipulated in the Canadian Sport Policy; and promoting Canadian culture and values.
1.4 Key
Recommendations
The Work Group recommends that the principles underlying the Strategic Hosting
Framework be: strengthened planning resulting in fiscally responsible decisions; regional balance to distribute capacity building across the country; a sport development focus with community leadership; and coordination and collaboration among municipalities, both orders of government and the sport community.
The Work Group determined that Canada should clearly be involved in the hosting of major international sport events and should seek to host the major multi-sport events, as well as a specified number of single sport events.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group divided international single sport events into two categories based on the size of the event operating budget and / or request for government funding: large single sport events would have operating budgets of greater than $1
million and / or funding request to either order of government of greater than $250,000, and small single sport events would have operating budgets of less than $1 million and / or a funding request to either order of government of less than $250,000.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that the list of single sport international events Canada should seek to host derive from the NSO’s excellence and sport
development plans. This list is to be shared with provinces, municipalities and event promoters. Communities and event promoters wishing to host an event not identified by a NSO must seek the endorsement of the NSO prior to moving forward.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group set the following objectives for a Strategic Hosting Framework:
• To host two major multi-sport international sport events every ten (10) years (e.g. Olympic/Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games);
• To host one large international single sport event every two (2) years in Canada (e.g. FINA World Championships);
• To support financially thirty (30) or more small international single sport events every year in Canada (e.g. World single sport championships, World Cups); and
• To continue bidding for some events several times before a bid is successful, particularly for the more desirable events that other countries also want to host such as the Olympic / Paralympic Games.
This time frame of two major events every decade is consistent with the pattern that Canada has developed over the past 15 years.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that governments in Canada plan to host the major international multi-sport events over the next 25 – 30 years, as shown in Table 1, in an effort to achieve the significant sport capacity building outcomes, economic and community benefits and promotion of Canadian culture and values that hosting these events afford.
Table 1: Major multi-sport events Canada should host Major Multi-Sport Event Canada should bid
to host in Hosting Decision made by IF in Olympic/Paralympic Summer Games 2016/2020/2024 2009/2013/2017 Olympic/Paralympic Winter Games 2030 2023 Commonwealth Games 20143/20264 2007/2019
Pan American Games 2019 2012
Summer World University Games (FISU)
2015 2010 Winter World University Games
(FISU)
2015 2010 Special Olympics World
Summer Games 2017/2021 2012/2016
Special Olympics World Winter Games
2019/2023 2014/2018
It may be necessary to bid for more than two major international multi-sport events every 10 years to ensure that the objective of hosting two major multi-sport events each decade is achieved. The strategy recognizes that more bids may be won than planned over a period of time. In such an eventuality, it is recommended that governments support fewer bids for major international sport events over the next 10-year period to mitigate the fiscal impact.
The timing of the bids to host these major multi-sport international events, and the Canadian candidate city, is a matter to be discussed between the respective MSOs and governments.
To achieve a better regional balance of sport infrastructure and legacy, the Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that support be provided to Atlantic Canada to enable that part of the country to bid for and host a major international multi-sport or large single sport event within the next decade.
3 If Hamilton does not win the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid. 4 If Hamilton wins the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid.
As well, the Work Group recommended that a fixed percentage of both orders of governments’ contribution to the operating expenses for major multi-sport and large single international sport events be set aside for legacy.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that Event Organizing Committees be apprised of and encouraged to access other Federal/Provincial/Municipal programs. The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that the Sport Tourism Economic
Assessment Model (STEAM) developed by the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, form a mandatory element of the assessment in advance of a bid for a major multi- or large single international sport event and also a requirement for on-site completion while a major or large international sport event is being hosted.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends two approaches to government decision-making, based on the size of the event. For small international sport events, the impetus for hosting would come from interested NSOs / bid communities / event promoters. They would obtain government approval for bids prior to making contact with an International Federation. F-P/T governments would review their submissions and would be assisted in this review by a roster of experts with backgrounds in sport event bidding and hosting, business, law, municipalities, sport tourism, and with International Sport Federations.
For large international single sport events, governments and sport organizations would work together to determine what events Canada should host to best accomplish the purpose of building sport system capacity, economic and community development and promoting Canadian culture and values.
This process would involve assessing international sport events to see if they meet the purposes for hosting; estimating, with the assistance of the NSO/MSO, the likelihood of a successful bid; identifying interested bid cities; informing F-P/T Ministers of the regional distribution of bids; and if required, using a sport-run domestic bid process to identify the Canadian candidate city prior to confirming the extent of government financial support and submitting the bid to the International Federation. NSOs/MSOs undertaking a domestic bid process would be asked to have regard for governments’ purposes in hosting and the principles underlying the Strategic Hosting Framework.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that an International Sport Events Coordination Group be created to undertake and coordinate the tasks connected with the implementation of the Strategic Hosting Framework. The Coordination Group would perform this coordination function in collaboration with F-P/T officials.. The
Coordination Group would also provide a report, on an information basis, to the annual F-P/T Ministers' Conference. The Work Group proposes that the Coordination Group could: work with industry, municipalities, sport organizations and both orders of government to coordinate the development of analytical templates and materials to be used in the bidding process; monitor and facilitate the bid process for both small and
large international sport events; collect and maintain research materials on bids and hosting; and ensure that a website is maintained that could form a focal point for information exchange and update.
1.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted the complexity of the public policy problems faced by governments in addressing the issue of hosting international sport events. Hopefully, the proposed Strategic Hosting Framework begins to put order in the process of bidding for and hosting international sport events in Canada. Further work is needed by governments to refine this process. A challenge is also presented that all governments ensure the final process, once approved, is adhered to and respected. The recent history of all 14 F-P/T governments working together to develop and endorse the Canadian Sport Policy laid the groundwork for continued cooperative efforts. Finalizing and approving a Strategic Hosting Framework will need to follow that lead. To address the issues of consistency and adherence, the Work Group recommends that governments formally endorse this framework. The members of the Hosting Strategy Work Group are pleased to have had the opportunity to make this contribution to the development of sport in Canada.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Policy
Context
Hosting large international multi-sport events has made an important contribution to Canada in terms of economic impact, sport and cultural development, social cohesion, civic / national pride, international recognition and post-games tourism5.
Recognizing the direct and significant sport benefits and opportunity to achieve other federal objectives such as economic and social development that hosting international sport events can bring, the Government of Canada in 1996 approved the Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events (the Hosting Policy)6. Hosting international sport events also provides a forum for the celebration of athletic, artistic and cultural
excellence and provides Canadians with the opportunity to contribute to the expression of Canadian identity.
The Hosting Policy was needed because of the increasing number of requests for funding support to the federal government each year, the rising overall cost of each event and the associated escalation in the size of funding requests. The Hosting Policy was a decision-making framework for the federal government to determine the level of its involvement in hosting international sport events. It clarified the federal government’s role in hosting major international sport events (e.g. Olympics, Pan-American Games), strategic focus events (e.g. North American Indigenous Games) and single-sport hosting (e.g. world championships, world cups). The Hosting Policy did not apply to the Canada Games that are governed by a federal-provincial/territorial agreement.
Since 1996, the Hosting Policy’s requirement that federal support be obtained prior to a bid being made to an international franchise holder has in practice sometimes been by-passed. As well, the requirement that economic impact assessments be conducted was sometimes not implemented due to the cost of conducting such assessments.
Consequently, the available documentation on the economic impact of these international sport events is limited, and not consistent. Although the Hosting Policy provided for matching public sector funds, as a federal document, the Hosting Policy was not binding on provincial / territorial governments. On occasion, the arrangement of both federal and provincial financing for an international sport event became caught up with other federal – provincial discussions, unrelated to sport.
In 2002 the endorsement of the Canadian Sport Policy (CSP)by all 14 federal-provincial / territorial governments set a precedent. By endorsing a joint vision, as well as a joint action plan, the Federal –Provincial/Territorial Priorities for Collaborative Action, 2002
5 Mills Report (1998) “Sport – Leadership, Partnership and Accountability” 6 The Federal Hosting Policy originated in 1989 and was revised in 1996 and 2000
– 2005, both orders of government committed to work cooperatively to accomplish the vision and a number of actions.
The Canadian Sport Policy concurred with earlier documents that hosting international sport events provides significant benefits for sport. However, after noting the problem that “Canada's fragmented approach to hosting sport events … created tremendous pressure on public and private funding sources, prevented the coordination of public funding for such events, and resulted in regional disparities in terms of the significant benefits hosting brings to a community” the CSP called for “a coordinated approach to maximize the benefits of hosting events.”
The Canadian Sport Policy set a 10 year vision for sport in Canada and proposed to accomplish this through four policy goals: Enhanced Participation, Enhanced
Excellence, Enhanced Capacity and Enhanced Interaction. The Enhanced Capacity goal confirmed that efforts to address capacity building should focus on “identifying and strengthening the weak links in the system, at the national, provincial/ territorial, and community levels” to maximize the effectiveness of the sport system. One of the actions that governments agreed to take was to develop a long-term strategic process for the hosting of major national and international sport events to maximize their contribution to sport and community objectives.
The F-P/T Priorities for Collaborative Action, 2002 – 2005, set out 13 priorities and 22 actions that governments agreed to undertake in the first three years after the Policy was approved, to begin implementation. Ten workgroups were formed comprising
government and stakeholder representatives, to focus on the priorities requiring joint federal – provincial/territorial action.
As might be expected, given the comprehensive nature of the Canadian Sport Policy and the coordination required to implement it, some of the collaborative actions would have an impact on others. That is, some of the 10 workgroups would be affected by or would have an effect upon the development of a framework for hosting international sport events. These are:
1. Sport Excellence: Athlete development to podium level performance can be enhanced by Canada hosting an international sport event that gives Canadian athletes a chance to perform at home, as well as an inspirational target. In the context of a plan to achieve excellence, it is essential that National Sport
Organizations have strategic hosting plans that target Canada hosting international sport events in their sports. Ideally, the design of a Strategic Hosting Framework should take into account these strategic hosting plans of NSOs, but currently, these plans have yet to be drawn up.
2. Sport System Development: Similar to sport excellence, hosting an international sport event provides incentives / motivation for NSOs to develop international calibre coaches, technical officials, sport science and sport medicine practitioners as well as volunteers in sport organizations at all levels of the system. The
development of coaches through Competency Based Education and Training (CBET) and the numbers of coaches in those sports to be developed to the highest levels, should be tied to NSOs’ hosting plans as well as a Strategic Hosting Framework. Again, however, this comprehensive sport system development is in its early stages, and thus a Strategic Hosting Framework will need to ensure a fit with the objectives of a comprehensive approach to sport system development.
3. Infrastructure Development: The need for new or refurbished infrastructure has been identified by every province and territory. Hosting large and sometimes smaller international sport events can lead to the building of new or improvement of existing infrastructure. The Canadian Sport Policy noted that “the availability and accessibility of sport facilities … is a difficult challenge given Canada’s geography”. Identifying innovative funding sources, currently the focus of the
Canadian Sport Policy Work Group on Facilities will be helpful in addressing these challenges. Given the link between hosting major and large international sport events and the possibility of developing new infrastructure, work being done by the Facilities Work Group could help in this context. Because timing is
delayed, the findings with regard to innovative funding sources or new
approaches to facilities development will not be able to contribute to a Strategic Hosting Framework.
4. Participation Development: Participation in sport can be enhanced when a large event in those sports is hosted in Canada, or when Canadian athletes attain podium level performances. More people join a sport after seeing it displayed. This benefit has been shown to arise only, however, if there is a mechanism or plan devised by both the national and provincial / territorial sport organizations to receive new recruits to the sport at the community level.7 The NSO sport development plan should take this into account. Ideally, such a development plan should mesh with the Strategic Hosting Framework.
5. Enhance Collaboration between Sport Organizations: National and provincial / territorial sport organizations (P/TSOs) can enhance coordination and
collaboration around a specific project such as hosting an international event in their sport. Part of an NSO’s strategic hosting plan should be integration planning with their P/TSOs around the hosting of a sport event. The work being done to integrate and enhance collaboration among different levels within a sport is not moving forward on the same time schedule as this Strategic Hosting Framework. The contribution that could be made to a comprehensive Strategic Hosting
Framework by linking to NSOs’ strategic hosting plans, is not yet ready. In the F-P/T Priorities for Collaborative Action, one of the priorities of the Enhanced Capacity Goal was to develop a sport event hosting strategy. There were two actions associated with this priority. The first was to create a working group with stakeholder representation, to assess feasibility. The second was to consult, through provincial and
territorial governments, municipalities and universities and other key stakeholders, to maximize the substantial economic benefit associated with sport tourism.
In April 2003, the Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport) appointed the authors of this report, the Hosting Strategy Work Group to develop a strategic framework for hosting large sport events in Canada. At the time, the Secretary of State confirmed the benefits of hosting international sport events by noting that hosting major events in Canada benefits athletes, the Canadian sport system and communities, leaves a lasting legacy, from new or upgraded facilities to improved sports programming for youth and others, and from coaching development to a broad base of skilled and qualified officials and volunteers. A strategic framework for hosting major sport events, as part of building capacity, will ensure that all regions of Canada benefit from hosting major international sport events.
2.2 Hosting Strategy Work Group
A Hosting Strategy Work Group was composed of individuals from four provincial governments, two National Sport Organizations (NSOs), two Multi-Sport Organizations (MSOs), and four industry representatives, chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister International and Intergovernmental Affairs, in Canadian Heritage. A complete list of members is provided at the beginning of this Report.
The Work Group was charged with the task of determining if there was a basis for establishing a collaborative framework for hosting international sport events. If that was the case, the Work Group was to develop such a framework for deciding when and why governments should support the hosting of international sport events. The framework would include objectives, principles, conditions for supporting hosting events, and outline mechanisms for ongoing communication, consultation and collaboration. The framework would also include planning and evaluation mechanisms that would ensure the sharing of learnings, resources, and expertise with key partners. The Work Group was asked to document the perceived benefits of hosting international sport events and establish the relative importance of the various benefits. The Work Group was finally asked to determine if a separate body was needed to implement a collaborative
government framework.
In their first meeting, the Work Group adopted the definitions used by the Federal Policy on Hosting International Sport Events. Canada Games, North American Indigenous Games and the Arctic Winter Games were excluded from the Work Group’s purview because they are specifically covered by Federal-Provincial/Territorial (F-P/T) agreements8. National sport events were excluded as they are covered by the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework of Sport Canada.
8 The Arctic Winter Games agreement is between the federal government and the territories. The funding framework for NAIG was
The Work Group met five times between April and August, 2003. In that time they developed a strategy for the Federal and Provincial / Territorial (F-P/T) governments to respond to requests for funding support from cities and sport federations that were seeking the rights to host an international sport event and needed government funding support prior to approaching the International Federation (IF).
Perhaps more importantly, the Hosting Strategy Work Group also developed a strategy for Canada to seek to host a number of major multi-sport and large single international sport events, from which both Canada and its sport system could derive significant benefit over the next 30 years.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group sought the views of a number of representatives of both sport and tourism at the municipal, provincial and national levels. The response was generally very positive to the proposed “responsive model” to attract smaller
international sport events to Canada.
Similarly, a “strategic model” or more formal strategy to attract large international sport events was tested on representatives from all provinces / territories and a select group of respondents and the reaction was generally positive, with the details needing to be resolved.
2.3 Structure of the Report
Chapter 3.0 provides an overview of fundamental issues concerning hosting international sport events. Chapter 4.0 describes the research undertaken by the Work Group, to confirm the validity of the issues and, by learning how the issues developed, to determine how they might be addressed. The history of funding sport events in Canada is
examined, as is the economic impact of this investment. The issues faced at the community level with regard to hosting and the approach taken by municipalities and also provincial governments to address the issues are examined. Finally, the approaches taken by other countries are reviewed to establish if they faced the same issues and to identify what could be learned from their experience.
Chapter 5.0 outlines the consultation the Work Group conducted on a coordinated approach they had developed for governments to respond to funding requests. During this consultation and also from the cross-jurisdictional research the Work Group learned that for Canada to obtain the most benefit from hosting international sport events, a more planned, systematic, proactive approach was required. Chapter 6.0 describes the
Strategic Hosting Framework that the Hosting Strategy Work Group developed, that would not only result in the international sport events being attracted to Canada contributing in a more orderly way to sport development and capacity building, but would address the issues that caused the need for the framework at the outset.
2.4 Approval Process and Announcements
This report of the Hosting Strategy Work Group is presented to the Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport). However, the Work Group recognizes the importance of all governments in Canada being cooperatively engaged in a strategic approach to hosting international sport events and believes that an effective Strategic Hosting Framework will only work with agreement from both orders of governments to the recommendations contained herein. The Hosting Strategy Work Group is hopeful that once agreement has been obtained from all governments, the Strategy on Hosting International Sport Events can be formally announced.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Issues: Need for a Strategy
In addition to the specific direction from the F-P/TPriorities for Collaborative Action to develop a hosting strategy, a number of issues have converged to support the need for a comprehensive strategy to hosting international sport events in Canada.
Requests for funding support for international sport events has put increasing fiscal pressure on governments at all levels. The reaction of governments to these requests varies across the country, depending on whether or not a given jurisdiction has a specific policy or existing funded program to handle the request. Often the request for funding comes to governments with little time to implement the provisions of a policy and the decisions are made under less than ideal circumstances.
Support for major multi-sport events has mainly gone to three of the four western
provinces, while large and small-sized single sport events have been supported in central Canada. Few international sport events have been held in Atlantic Canada. The
significant benefits and legacies that can result from hosting international sport events have focused primarily on the provinces where the events have been hosted.
The unplanned approach has been mainly driven by enthusiastic communities who have recognized the benefits of hosting international sport events and have led the drive to attract these events to their communities mainly for economic as opposed to sport development, social or cultural development reasons. Most community groups have not had prior experience bidding for or hosting international sport events, and the industry – led mechanism to share this information across the country, the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, (CSTA) is still growing and developing. The sport community is not involved, or involved at the level they should be, in these discussions to ensure the best interests of sport are being considered. As well, the National Sport
Organization (NSO) /Multi-Sport Organization (MSO) may only learn about the bid at the point that it is being brought forward for decision by the International Federation (IF) as the IF requirement is such that the bid must be submitted by the respective NSO/MSO. The event may not fit into the NSO / MSO’s long range plans for the development of their sport.
International Federations (IFs) are increasing their expectations of what expenses the host country will cover. IFs are requesting that international delegate travel and athlete accommodation be covered, while retaining the rights for marketing and broadcasting the event. Host communities are then limited in what they can market to fundraise and so have turned to governments to request larger and larger portions of the budget be covered by the government contribution.
The most effective argument to justify the expenditure of public funds on international sport events is the return on investment, through job creation, often in the small and medium-sized business sector, regional development, increased tourism, increased exports, enhanced infrastructure and increased tax revenue. To this point, measures of economic impact have not been consistent, thus weakening the strength of this argument, nor has data been collected on every event that has been funded.
The detailed discussions that take place between the federal and provincial/territorial governments about the size of their respective contributions to an event have sometimes taken place after an event has been awarded. Careful planning and consideration of such issues as legacy—fiscal, sport programming and facility-based—is sometimes not possible given the pressure to release the funds and begin preparing for the event. In such situations, the sport community tends not to be involved in these governmental discussions and the contribution they could make to legacy planning is sometimes
4.0 RESEARCH
FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Hosting Strategy Work Group began by considering federal government
(Department of Canadian Heritage) funding of international sport events over the past decade to determine if any patterns emerged that would suggest future direction. It then moved on to look at funding sources outside those provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada); and gathered as much information as possible about the return on this investment in hosting international sport events, that is, the economic impact.
The Work Group reviewed strategies and models developed by Canadian municipalities and provincial governments to hosting international sport events then looked abroad and considered approaches that had been taken by other countries to address issues similar to those that Canada was facing. Finally, the Work Group examined trends that were emerging from International Federations.
4.1 History of Canadian Heritage Funding of International Sport
Events in Canada
The Hosting Strategy Work Group examined the Government of Canada’s financial contributions to international sport events from 1993 to 2003 through the Department of Canadian Heritage’s International Single Sport Hosting Program. It found that the number of events being hosted in Canada has increased from an average of 6-10 events a year (with a total PCH contribution of approximately $300,000) to an average of 30 events a year with a PCH budget of just over $1 million.
Interestingly, although the International Single Sport Hosting Program’s budget has increased, so has the number of events supported by the program thus resulting in a relatively stable level of PCH funding, on average, per event. Each event received between $35-40,000 PCH funding contribution. See Figure 1.
PCH Funding Across Time 1993-2003 $5 4 5, 00 0 $3 1 6, 000 $1 85,0 00 $2 15 ,0 00 $300 ,0 00 $ 25 0, 000 $ 33 5,00 0 $ 880 ,0 00 $9 92,0 00 $ 1, 33 0,0 00 1 4 9 6 6 7 8 11 27 25 33 $ 38,9 29 $35,1 11 $30, 833 $35, 833 $42, 857 $31 ,250 $30 ,455 $32 ,593 $3 9,680 $40,3 03 $0 $200, 000 $400, 000 $600, 000 $800, 000 $1 ,000, 000 $1 ,200, 000 $1 ,400, 000 199 3-94 19 94-95 19 95-96 19 96-97 19 97-98 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 200 1-02 200 2-03 Y ear $
P CH Fun ding SS H # o f Event s E ve nt A verag e
Figure 1: PCH Funding International Single Sport Hosting Program 1993-2003
Source: Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada)
The pattern of hosting over the past ten years demonstrates that the large international events have been in Western Canada (1994 Victoria Commonwealth Games, 1999
Winnipeg Pan American Games, 2001 Edmonton World Athletics Championships). (See Figure 2)
NT, NU & YT: $350,000 SK: $70,000 QC: $8,398,000 PE: $0 ON: $19,389,000 NS: $105,000 NL: $105,000 NB: $25,000 MB: $58,360,000 BC: $79,156,000 AB: $40,765,000 AB - 19.7 % (pop. 9.9%) BC - 38.3 % (pop. 13%) MB - 28.2 % (pop. 3.7%) NB - 0.01% (pop. 2.4%) NL - 0.05 % (pop. 1.7%) NS - 0.05 % (pop. 3%) ON - 9.4 % (pop. 38%) PE - 0 % (pop. 0.4%) QC - 4.1 % (pop. 24.1%) SK - 0.03% (pop. 3.3%) NT, NU & YT - 0.2% (pop. 0.3%)
Source: Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) NOTE: Above chart includes International Single Sport Hosting Program; large event hosting, strategic focus events. Legend shows % of total PCH funding received against % population.
In contrast to this, the distribution of small international sport events in Canada reflects a predominance of hosting opportunities in Ontario and Québec, while overall being more proportionate to the distribution of the population in Canada. (See Figure 3)
Figure 2: PCH funding distribution by province, 1993 – 2003 All events.
NT, NU & YT: $0 SK: $70,000 QC: $1,398,000 PE: $0 ON: $1,665,000 NS: $105,000 NL: $105,000 NB: $25,000 MB: $110,000 BC: $906,000 AB: $765,000 AB - 14.9 % (pop. 9.9%) BC - 17.6 % (pop. 13%) MB - 2.1 % (pop. 3.7%) NB - 0.5 % (pop. 2.4%) NL - 2.0 % (pop. 1.7%) NS - 2.0 % (pop. 3%) ON - 32.3% (pop. 38%) PE - 0 % (pop. 0.4%) QC - 27.2 % (pop. 24.1%) SK - 1.4 % (pop. 3.3%) NT, NU & YT - 0 % (pop. 0.3%)
Figure 3: PCH funding distribution by Province - International Single Sport Hosting Program
1993 – 2003 Source: Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada)
The Hosting Strategy Work Group examined the impact of the greatest financial investment for international sport events being in Western Canada (excluding
Saskatchewan). It found that this has resulted in the Western region having international calibre infrastructure, as well as the financial resources through legacy endowed funds for sport development. The Eastern part of Canada (Ontario to the Atlantic Provinces) has relatively limited international calibre infrastructure and no endowed funds for sport development arising from hosting international multi-sport events. This is particularly true in the Atlantic Provinces.
The Work Group concluded that hosting major international sport events provide the greatest impact in terms of capacity building. It is these major international events9, such as the Olympic/Paralympic, Commonwealth and Pan American Games that build
infrastructure and create endowed legacy funds to support sport development and grass roots participation.
9 The major international sport events (primarily multi-sport) are defined by their size and scope (# of countries and participants, # of
events, length of event etc.), ability to capture the attention of a world wide audience, and overall operating budget. A more detailed description is provided in section 6.3.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:
1. Governments’ support for bids to host major multi-sport international events be awarded to the community best positioned to be successful while being mindful of developing capacity across the country. To achieve a better regional balance of sport infrastructure and legacy, support be provided to Atlantic Canada to enable that part of the country to bid for and host an international multi-sport or large single sport event within the next decade. Even though it was outside the 10-year timeframe, the Hosting Strategy Work Group could not ignore the impact that the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympic Games had on sport development in Canada. The Calgary Olympics produced close to $120 million10 in financial support for sport development and operating international standard facilities for winter sports to the benefit of high performance sport and community participation. Similarly, the 1994 Commonwealth Games created a $16 million legacy11 fund for the Canadian Sport Centre – Greater Victoria and the continued operation of the
Commonwealth Aquatic Centre for use by the community and high performance athletes. The 1999 Pan American Games left a $4.25 million financial legacy fund for the
Canadian Sport Centre – Winnipeg, in addition to many sport infrastructure
improvements. The 2001 World Athletics Championship left Edmonton with $8 million in a financial legacy for programming in addition to infrastructure upgrades. The
approximate percentage that the legacy forms of the original federal government contribution has ranged between five and fifteen percent over the past ten years.
The infrastructure legacies left by these major events have equipped these cities and provinces to continue to host World Cups/Championships and other international sport events long after the hosting of the major event. The financial legacy has allowed for the maintenance of the facilities as well as attracting coaches wanting to use high
performance facilities, athletes who are drawn by the coaches, and so on. Although these legacies are theoretically available to athletes, coaches and officials from across the country, in practical terms geographic proximity is very relevant, especially for young athletes.
In contrast, the legacies from hosting international single sport events fall mostly in the area of human resource development at the time of the event (athlete, coach,
administration and volunteer capacity building) and in some cases financial guarantees and/or surplus revenues to the National Sport Organization. There are some legacy provisions in the large single sport events such as the 2003 World Road Cycling in Hamilton, Ontario where the surplus of the event will be placed in two legacy endowed funds. Likewise, the 2003 World Youth Athletics in Sherbrooke, Quebec will contribute $300,000 toward an endowed legacy fund for a high performance athletics training centre in Sherbrooke.
10 Includes the $60 million guarantee to the COC for sport programming
The Hosting Strategy Work Group observed that legacy plans vary from event to event due to the priority of the host community. Local Event Organizing Committees’ first priority is to deliver a successful, well-organized event. Other priorities tend to be focused on enhancing participation in the sport generally and community development broadly. In contrast, the NSO’s priority tends to be focused on high performance athlete and coach development.
In either case, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that legacy planning appears to be an afterthought to bidding for and hosting the event, unless reinforced by governments through the multi-party agreement. A multi-party agreement is negotiated among the Event Organizing Committee, the National/Multi-Sport Organization and the funding partners, the Government of Canada and / or the provincial / territorial governments. This agreement provides for the flow of operational and capital expenditures according to requirements set out in the agreement.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group believes that legacy planning should be initiated as a partnership among the local organizing committee, governments and the sport
organizations provincially and nationally as part of the strategy on bidding. The Work Group also noted the importance of domestic support for the Canadian team’s preparation for competition. It observed that the NSO should develop a plan to prepare Canadian athletes for competition as part of their strategic hosting plan. As well, event organizing committees should be encouraged to provide on site support to Canadian athletes such as accommodation and meals.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:
2. Every effort be made to sensitize Event Organizing Committees to the
importance of building a permanent, significant fiscal, sport programming or sport facility legacy from the events they host. These efforts should include “how-to” manuals on bidding for international sport events that emphasize the importance of legacy. Legacy should continue to form an integral part of the multi-party or contribution agreements.
In light of these factors, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted the recent award of the 2010 Winter Olympic / Paralympic Games to Vancouver, as well as the bid by Hamilton for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. The legacy for the 2010 Winter Olympics has already started with the “LegaciesNow” program developed by the 2010 Vancouver Bid Corporation. The plan is for 18% of the PCH contribution to hosting the Vancouver Games be set aside for legacy, that will result in significant sport programming and facilities legacies. A similar scenario will result if Hamilton is successful in November 2003 in its bid to host the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
The Work Group noted that legacies from hosting international sport events might be characterized as both intangible and tangible. The intangible legacies comprise the community and cultural development benefits that arise from hosting, involving such factors as volunteer development, opportunities for youth to experience new job
opportunities and the promotion of Canadian culture and values through linguistic and cultural aspects, arts and heritage activities and the exposure of international visitors to Canadian culture. Although these legacies are intangible they are nevertheless very valuable for achieving public policy objectives.
Tangible legacies are of two types: facility upgrades and retrofits or the construction of new facilities; and sport programming including athlete, coach and technical official development opportunities, as well as the opportunity to compete in future international sport events hosted at that site. Up to this point, Event Organizing Committees with the support of governments have generally been sensitive to the need for new facilities to have sufficient funds endowed for the ongoing operation of the facility after the event. However, the Work Group noted the need for ongoing vigilance in this regard.
The Work Group noted that funding is required to support the tangible legacies from hosting international sport events and recommends that:
3. Each major international multi- or large single sport event that is hosted should create a legacy fund. The objectives of the legacy are to build sport capacity consistent with the Canadian Sport Policy with resources to come from two sources. (A) Consistent with past practices, between five and ten percent each of provincial and federal governments’ contributions to the operational budget for hosting major multi and large single international sport events. (B) Any event surplus should be added to this legacy fund. The benefits from the legacy fund should be distributed consistent with the principle of equitable development and support for the national, provincial and regional / local levels of the sport system.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group is mindful of the fact that most provincial / territorial governments do not have a program fund for hosting international sport events, in contrast to the International Single Sport Hosting Program administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada), currently funded at $1.0 million annually. As with major international multi- and large single sport events at the federal government level, funding requests provincially and territorially to support most
international sport events are “off-budget” and require in-year submissions to the respective government’s Treasury Board and Cabinet. This can apply also to
governments’ support for bidding for major international multi-sport and large single sport events.
In view of the significant sport benefits identified as accruing to the sport system from hosting international sport events, as well as the economic, community and cultural development benefits accruing to communities in general, the Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:
4. Funding for hosting international sport events be increased at the federal government level and in provinces where programs now exist; and in provincial/ territorial governments, where no funding is ear-marked for hosting international sport events, that funded programs be created so that the benefits from hosting can be realized in a more consistent, planned manner. There should also be funding at both federal and
provincial/territorial government levels for bidding for major multi-sport and large single international sport events.
4.2 History of Other Federal Government Funding of International
Sport Events
The requirements of International Federations make it necessary for federal departments, other than the Department of Canadian Heritage, to be involved in hosting international sport events in Canada. For example International Federations require guarantees from the host for free access to the country for the participants, and so the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is involved.
In addition, other federal departments provide support to hosting the event, either as part of the multi-party / contribution agreement or through other programs whose objectives are met by the delivery of the international sport event. These additional departments include: the Department of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) for security; and the Department of Transportation for facilitating traffic at airports. The Department ofCanadian Heritage through the Sport Canada branch, establishes
interdepartmental Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to coordinate and pay for these services on behalf of the Event Organizing Committee. Canadian Heritage is “charged back” for these services by the other federal government departments, and the cost of these charge backs are included in the overall financial contribution provided by the Government of Canada to the Event Organizing Committees.
In addition to these essential service provisions, there are opportunities for Event
Organizing Committees to request funding from other departments and agencies of both the federal and the provincial / territorial governments, whose own programming
objectives will be met by the international sport event. This type of support is usually provided outside the programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage within the Government of Canada. For example, Human Resources Development Canada provides funding for youth employment programs; Industry Canada provides support to research and business development; the Canadian Tourism Commission provides support for tourism promotion; and Canada Post can provide funding for the development of
specialty stamps. Likewise, at the provincial / territorial level, Departments / Ministries of Tourism, Economic Development and Francophone Affairs are likely to have
programs that might provide support for hosting an international sport event.
Within the federal government, Communications Canada receives the most requests from Event Organizing Committees outside of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada).
Communications Canada’s program budget for which sport events are eligible is currently $40 million annually. In 2002-2003, six of the sport events sponsored by Communications Canada (contributions totalling $525,000) were also supported under the International Single Sport Hosting Program of Sport Canada (contributions totalling $365,000). See Appendix B for more program details. The direction of this program in 2003-2004 is focused on community events and less on promoting the word mark of the Canadian Government, as was the case in previous years.
Noting the significant contributions that other federal government departments and provincial/territorial departments and ministries other than sport, can make to supporting an international sport event, the Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:
5. Event Organizing Committees be given contact information regarding other federal and provincial / territorial departments’ program opportunities and that these Organizing Committees be encouraged to seek relevant and applicable additional support outside the PCH multi-party or contribution agreement.
4.3 Economic Impact of Hosting International Sport Events
There is a general understanding that hosting sport events results in a positive economic impact. There is also an extensive body of literature from other jurisdictions supporting this understanding. However, the pattern of impact of PCH funded major international sport events on the economy of the host city / region / province is less than clear, mainly due to lack of consistent data.
In addition, the tourism survey data collected in Canada provides limited and dated information regarding visits to amateur events. International sport events attract athletes, coaches, officials, volunteers and spectators into a province and in some case the country, spending their money on items such as accommodation, food and beverage, and
attractions.
According to Statistic Canada, many travel agendas include participation in recreation and competitive sports. In some cases, sport may be the overriding purpose for travel. The 1996 Canadian Travel Survey shows that nearly 8.6 million person trips taken by Canadian travelers included attendance at a spectator sporting event. 26% of all person-trips taken by Canadians include a sporting activity. With an $8.9 billion contribution to the GDP (direct and indirect), sport has an economic weight greater than aircraft, wood, logging and forestry industries.
The British have developed sophisticated levels of analysis detailing the scale of an event, its duration, additional expenditures due to the event, and the additional local income generated. This is the level of analysis, as shown in Table 2 below, the Work Group considers is required to begin to assess Canadian events.
Table 2: Economic Impacts Associated with Staging Large Sporting Events in the U.K. (pounds Sterling)
Event Scale Duration
Additional Expenditure Due to Event (£s) Additional Local Income Generated (£s) World Badminton Championships Glasgow, 1997 68 nations 603 officials 812 competitors 217 media reps Two weeks 2.2 million 445,000 or equivalent of 36 full- time job years European Junior Boxing Championships Birmingham, 1997 36 nation 226 competitors 83 mgrs/coaches 58 administrators 1,233 spectator visits 9 days 0.5 million 100,000 or eight full-time job years First Cornhill Test Match Birmingham, 1997 Between England and Australia 72,693 spectators
4 days 4.1 million 1 million or 82
full-time job years
IAAF Grand Prix 1 Sheffield, 1997
16,025 spectators 4-5 hours 177,000
million
35,387 or 3 full-time job years
European Junior Swimming Championships Glasgow, 1997 39 nations 479 competitors 243 officials 4 days 298,000 60,000 or 5
full-time job years
Weetabix Women’s British Open Golf Championship 50,000 visiting spectators 144 players 4 days 2.1 million 214,000 or 17 full-time job years
Source: UK Sport Council: Large Events: The Economics, 1998.
In the limited time available to complete this review, the Hosting Strategy Work Group was able to gather some data on the economic impact of hosting sport events in Canada generally. It will be noted that the data are shown in different formats in the two tables below (Tables 3 and 4), underlining the fact that studies completed are done so using different methodologies.
Table 3: Economic Impact of Selected Sport Events in Canada (in $ millions) Event Total Expenditures Total and % Government Contribution Total Economic Impact/Activity Canada Games 1999 Corner Brook, Nfld. $20.6 $ 5.63 (27%) $59.9 2001 London, Ont. $31.0 $10.83 (35%) $96.0 2001 World Athletics Edmonton, Alta. $114.7 $84.4 (73%) $183.4
1999 Pan American Games(Released prior to event.)
Winnipeg, Man. $131.7 $109 (82%) $424.
2001 Jeux de la Francophonie
Ottawa/Hull, Ont./Que. $35.7 $25.8 (72%) (Estimated) $70.
No report commissioned.
2002 NAIG
Winnipeg, Man. $9.2 $5.75 (62%) $26.
2003 World Road Cycling
Hamilton, Ont. $15-16 $14.0 (90%) (Estimated) $57
Table 4: Economic Activity of Selected Sport Events in Canada
Event Location Capital Operating Visitor Jobs Economic Activity 1988 Winter Olympics Calgary, AB 27,400 person years $1.2 B 1994 Commonwealth Games Victoria, BC $500 M 2001 World Figure Skating Vancouver, BC n/a $8.1 m $22.8 m 842 $82 M 2001 Canada Summer Games London, ON $13.1 m $13.6 m $9.57 m 834 $96 M 2002 North American Indigenous Games (NAIG) Winnipeg, MB n/a $7.3 m $4.6 m 220 $26M 2002 Skate Canada International Quebec City, QC n/a $1.06 m $4.14 m 98 $6.3 M 2003 Canada Winter Games Bathurst – Campbellton, NB $21 m $18.0 m $5.4 m 1,018 $70 M