New international study evaluates mega-event stadiums

Mega-events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup generally trigger the building of iconic stadiums and plenty of promises about a sparkling future.
But, while looking impressive and providing a spectacular stage for the event, are such stadiums fulfilling their promises of a long-lasting sport legacy and a bright future for the communities that invest heavily in them?
Or are they in fact ending up becoming more of a burden when the party is over and the mega-event has moved on the next willing host?
A new study from the Danish Institute for Sports Studies presented at the recent Play the Game 2011 conference puts a critical perspective on ongoing stadium building. The study indicates that many stadiums actually suffer so severely from the lack of events and spectators that they are end up as so called 'White Elephants', monuments to broken dreams and a waste of public money.
While some stadiums indeed are spectator magnets with more than a million visitors a year, other stadiums can count their customers in a few thousand.
The study has identified 75 stadiums that since 1996 have been erected or upgraded in connection with the hosting of mega-events like the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup, UEFA European Championships, Africa Cup of Nations, Commonwealth Games, Pan-American Games and Asian Games.
The study, which is still ongoing, has been focusing on collecting factual data on construction costs, capacity, number of annual events and visitors, and major tenants supplemented with qualitative information on the different venues.
So far the study has collected data from 65 stadiums in 20 countries, and despite the lack of some stadiums, the numbers are awe-inspiring: The total construction costs of the 65 stadiums were US$13.1 billion with an average of US$201.5 million per stadium. The price tag of the most expensive stadium, Cape Town Stadium, was US$600 million (while) the least expensive stadium in the survey, the upgrade of Baba Yara Stadium in Ghana, was builit for just $25.9 millions.
Even more striking is the difference between the use of stadiums.
While the downgraded Olympic stadium of Atlanta 1996, with its high profile anchor tenant, the Atlanta Braves baseball team, attracted over 2.5 million spectators in 2010, the former Euro 2004 stadium Est�dio Dr. Magalh�es Pessoa in Leiria, Portugal, with a capacity of 24,000, only managed to get 53,000 spectators through the gates in 2010 and the stadium has become a financial burden for the local municipality.
Proper data on the utilisation of all 65 included stadiums are still not available, but based on the data collected so far, the study has calculated an index showing the differences between the most used and less used stadiums in 2010.
The difference is significant: Atlanta's former Olympic stadium managed to attract 50 times more spectators than its capacity of 48,000. At the other end, four Portuguese stadiums couldn't even fill their arena five times with all of their visitors in 2010.

Common pitfalls

Such numbers are thought provoking, said Director Henrik H. Brandt from the Danish Institute for Sports Studies.

Brandt drew some preliminary conclusions from the study:

ï¾ Without having a high profile anchor tenant/operator in place before the opening of the venue, the success of the stadium is heavily at risk;

ï¾ Existing venues are often better at meeting local needs and will be tough rivals to a new stadium built for a one-off event;

ï¾ Estimates of the regional and local needs after the events must be realistic. Emotions often seem to rule the construction plans;

ï¾ Sometimes proper plans are needed to downscale or modify the stadium after the mega-event;

ï¾ Mottos like 'Visions for the future' do not constitute business plans ï¾ they are really a disguise for no planning at all!

The Danish Institute for Sports Studies is planning to continue collecting and analysing stadium data. So

http://bit.ly/sqeO5D