Abstract
Legacy has become a watchword of hosting mega-events in recent years, used to justify massive spending and far-reaching urban transformations. However, academic studies of legacy outcomes suggest there is only limited evidence for the efficacy of using mega-events to deliver broader policy goals. The discourse of legacy promulgated by the International Olympic Committee promotes a fantastical vision of the possibilities created by mega-events while obfuscating critical analyses of legacy. This paper explores legacy talk among a wholly different group – activists who have protested against the Olympic Games, specifically in Rio de Janeiro – based on interviews conducted two years after the Games as part of a broader ethnographic study. The positive connotations of legacy, even among these Olympic critics, places a straitjacket on conversation, leading activists to discuss specific legacy projects, at the expense of highlighting the very real harms of mega-event development, such as evictions, gentrification and militarization. As such, there is a need to deepen understanding that legacy encompasses all that is left behind after mega-events, not only the positive impacts.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 20-35 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | International Review For the Sociology of Sport |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 2 Oct 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2021 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.
Funder
The research was supported by The Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland Research Incentive Grant [Grant Number RIG007745].Funding
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5470-1780 Talbot Adam Abertay University, UK Adam Talbot, Division of Sport and Exercise, Abertay University, Bell Street, Dundee, DD1 1HG, UK. Email: [email protected] 10 2019 1012690219878842 © The Author(s) 2019 2019 International Sociology of Sport Association and SAGE Publications Legacy has become a watchword of hosting mega-events in recent years, used to justify massive spending and far-reaching urban transformations. However, academic studies of legacy outcomes suggest there is only limited evidence for the efficacy of using mega-events to deliver broader policy goals. The discourse of legacy promulgated by the International Olympic Committee promotes a fantastical vision of the possibilities created by mega-events while obfuscating critical analyses of legacy. This paper explores legacy talk among a wholly different group – activists who have protested against the Olympic Games, specifically in Rio de Janeiro – based on interviews conducted two years after the Games as part of a broader ethnographic study. The positive connotations of legacy, even among these Olympic critics, places a straitjacket on conversation, leading activists to discuss specific legacy projects, at the expense of highlighting the very real harms of mega-event development, such as evictions, gentrification and militarization. As such, there is a need to deepen understanding that legacy encompasses all that is left behind after mega-events, not only the positive impacts. discourse framing legacy mega-events Rio 2016 Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000582 RIG007745 edited-state corrected-proof I would like to thank all the activists who generously gave their time and engaged in discussion with me. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments, which have greatly improved the paper. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by The Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland Research Incentive Grant [Grant Number RIG007745]. ORCID iD Adam Talbot https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5470-1780
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland | RIG007745 |
| Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland |
Keywords
- discourse
- framing
- legacy
- mega-events
- Rio 2016
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Sociology and Political Science
