Major events deliver exceptional tourism, media attention, reputation, and economic impacts on the organization and structure of an Olympics hosting nation. They are, therefore, of great importance and prestige to the host countries, mainly due to their capacity to increase not only the short but also the medium-long tourist flow of a destination. The Beijing Summer Games 2008 and London Summer Games 2012 are the most representative examples of such events. The Olympic Games have co-operated sponsorship, for instance, McDonald’s. It also conducts promotions to link with its sponsorship. McDonald’s ‘Champions of the Play for the Olympic Games’ was a part of the latest global initiative for encouraging a healthy approach to diet and exercise for children. It focused on the company’s previous youth campaigns during the Olympic Games in Beijing and Vancouver, which welcomed at least 200 youth from around the world to London. The study focuses on a SWOT analysis that will help decide whether Olympic sponsorship is problematic or it brings benefits.
Strengths
The strengths of event planning are what will make the Olympic sponsorship beneficial to the host country. The element of strong support from the state and regional governments is one of the main strengths of both Beijing and the London Summer Olympics (Larissa, 2012). In Beijing, for example, a financial guarantee was issued by the Chinese government. It promised that the organizing committee for the Olympic Games would finance any shortcomings, build facilities on the sites, and provide work resources. The government also offered financing in London. Therefore, the presence of a large number of stakeholders is strength. Sponsors like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Samsung, and Visa were available for the London and Beijing Olympics. Such corporations spend millions to support or to raise awareness of the event. The greatest strength in the 2008 Beijing Summer games was the public’s active support. This means that if the public supports the function in the region, the potential sponsors would be more interested. Strengths, therefore, make Olympic sponsorship beneficial.
Weaknesses
The past Olympic Games presented weaknesses that made the audience, or people wonder whether events are credible. The summer games in Beijing 2008 found the country in need to develop the public transport network. Traffic jams made it not possible to connect to the venue; hence many participants and spectators arrived late. Another weakness is doping that made the integrity of the event challenged by several sponsors (Larissa, 2012). Most of them did not want to contribute to an event that appeared deceitful. Furthermore, previous terrorism acts placed the safety of athletes, staff, and spectators in doubt. Besides, there was a low level of public support at London summer 2012, which prevented the sponsors from spending, especially if there was inadequate support. The other weakness in Beijing was the residents’ dissatisfaction. Those who responded did not see an improved picture of China and Beijing (Larissa, 2012). China was not only disappointed but also diminished, especially regarding its expectations of a significant change in the political privileges. Therefore, weaknesses limit the incentives for funding the Olympics.
Opportunities
The Olympic Games ‘ opportunities have regenerated economic growth in various countries. In London, it resulted in the building of the Olympic Park in the Lower Valley region. Besides, infrastructure increased, and so did the population and economic growth (Larissa, 2012). More field events, particularly sports available only in the host country, were included in the Olympics. Afterwards, Chinese games became popular. During the 2008 Beijing Summer Games, the foremost opportunity the city foresaw moving of the factories out of the town hence improving the quality of air in Beijing (Larissa, 2012). The other factories switched into using cleaner productions which thoroughly filtered air before release. The London Summer games and 2008 in Beijing were subject to higher levels of anti-doping, and it restored fans’ and sponsors ‘ trust. The London administration’s advertising campaign ‘Visit Britain’ and ‘Visit London’ gave more visitors and sponsors an incentive to invest.
Threats
The major threats are sponsors denying to fund the event. The first concern is that there will be more terrorist attacks in the future and that many supporters will not support the event (Larissa, 2012). In addition, Beijing’s greatest threat is the limited international broadcasting exposure, as the majority of Chinese do not speak English fluently and do not understand different sports. The biggest challenge in London was that the planned facilities were not completed before the games began. However, the legacies left behind after the games are another threat. After the 2012 London Summer Games, the lower-income residents, in particular, did not feel any benefits from hosting the games (Larissa, 2012). The residents revealed that the members did not think that hosting the games improved their wellbeing. When sponsors get this type of feedback, they may not want to invest in future games, since it may be negative publicity. Threats can, therefore, lead to the loss of Olympic sponsorship and thus to an inconvenience.
Recommendation/Conclusion
Olympic sponsorship is problematic, whether it brings benefits or disadvantages, and it remains highly controversial. The growing interest in hosting a sporting mega culture event in the past several decades arose due to its ability to produce visitor flows, attract the media’s attention, and above all, it is the essential economic impact on the host communities at different territorial rates. To prepare for the correct event at the right time, locations involved in coordinating the event need to implement suitable plans and adequate monitoring procedures. Most sponsors feel that they have significant advantages and that their role in the Olympic sponsorship creates goodwill for their brand. The strengths act as a forum for awareness building and networking by providing numerous possibilities for employee compensation and entertainment. On the contrary, the weaknesses make the Olympic sponsorship seem excessively commercialized despite USOC steps to make the Olympic Games wholesome. In any event, the success of and market integration of Olympic sponsorship insignificantly depends on that of any sports sponsorship.
