The gold standard

The rewards - more medals

The most obvious reward for a host nation is the uplift in medals as a result of increased investment in facilities and from a performance boost derived from athletes competing on home soil.

We've analysed the medal haul for the most recent hosts and compared it with their medal total in the games immediately before and immediately after the one they hosted. A hosting advantage would be reflected in an increase in medals, particularly gold ones, in their host year compared with the number they achieved in the games either side of their hosting. 

The graphic shows the before, at home and after medal haul for the Olympics in South Korea in 1988 to Rio in 2016. Obviously, we can't include the Tokyo games in the after analysis but Japan got 17 more medals than in Rio and achieved 27 golds compared with 12 in 2016.

The chart shows that the host nation increased its medal haul from the previous games in all but one Olympics. The USA in 1996 got fewer medals than in 1992 although they did get more golds. In fact, every host nation got more golds compared with the number it achieved in the Olympics immediately before they hosted. One of the explanations could be that a nation sends more athletes to its home Olympics and would, therefore, have a better chance of winning more medals. In fact the data suggests that sending more athletes does not necessarily mean more medals. There are plenty of examples through history of nations achieving better with fewer athletes and worse with more.

The chart also shows that many host nations experienced a drop off in medals in the games immediately after hosting. The exception to this is Team GB that picked up more medals in Rio than they did in London (although they achieved slightly fewer golds) and Brazil that picked up two medals more than that achieved in 2016. Interestingly, Team GB's increased medal haul was achieved with fewer athletes than they took to London 2012.

The Olympic legacy

One of the central planks of the London 2012 bid was that the Olympics would inspire a generation to actively participate in sports and physical activities. Similar claims were made for the Olympics in Greece, Australia, China, Canada and Brazil. Did they deliver?

The answer is yes and no. Weed et al undertook a comprehensive literature review of the participatory outcomes of Olympic games and major sports events to assess whether there was, what they call, a demonstration effect, whereby people are inspired to participate in sport by such events.

They applied the outcomes in participation to a behaviour change model (BCM). We also use a BCM to assess where people are on a five stage pathway that goes from not being interested to being fully committed.

The research found that there was some evidence (although it was weak) to suggest that there is a demonstration effect particularly in the run up to the Games. This effect was must likely to be seen through existing participants either playing sport more often or switching to new sports.

It was also found that existing sports participants responded positively in behaviour to big sporting events hosted in other countries. Again this link was quite weak but it was there nonetheless.

There was no evidence in the research that major sports events encouraged new participants. There was, however, some evidence that previously lapsed participants came back to sport.

In relation to the BCM, the Olympic Games have more of an impact on those already engaged with sports (Planning, Action and Maintenance stages) rather than at the more attitudinal Pre-Contemplation and Contemplation stages.

Their conclusion was that big sporting events do not inherently inspire new participants to sport. Things are, however, a bit more complicated than this. Other research has shown that programmes that encourage people to be more active and grassroots initiatives for individual sports have resulted in increased participation off the back of an Olympics. Some of this is explained through people switching sports but it is also the case that a sport's exposure on a global stage combined with grassroots initiatives can start to change behaviours around new participation.

The implications for sports participation in the UK

Sports in the UK will want to build upon the exposure given by the Olympics. The big challenge is to address the more attitudinal barriers that stand in the way of behaviour change. The evidence shows that big sporting events on their own are not enough. Instead, sports need to adopt strategies that builds upon the global exposure by targeting growth at a local level. 

This is where research is vital to the success of a growth strategy. We have set out a four point research plan to help sports develop effective growth strategies.

1. Assessing attitudes and perceptions of the sport is essential. Sports need to understand how the public views it, especially how it is perceived in relation to others, how it fits into their lifestyle and the actions, events and messaging that will drive people to become aware, interested and engaged by the sport.
   
2. Sport will also need to understand drivers of participation. What are the push factors that will get more people involved and how can barriers to play be addressed? -  for example, access, facilities and availability.  Understanding what motivates people and how the sport can make an emotional connection is the key to sustaining participation.
   
3. The importance of schools in promoting interaction is key to long term growth in participation. Is your sport played in school and if not why not? What can be done to get more schools playing?
   
4. Inclusivity in sport is vital. Does your sport appeal across all community groups? What can be done to broaden its appeal?

The Tokyo Olympics has come after almost 18 months of lockdowns and restrictions. The spotlight is well and truly on sport. Now is the time to grab the opportunity.

If you'd like to know more about how our research can help your plans for growth, please get in touch.