The London 2012 Olympic Games Case Study
9-510-039
REV: FEBRUARY 4, 2011
JOHN T. GOURVILLE
MARCO BERTINI
The Lond don 2012 Olym mpic Gaames
Paaul Williamso on could not help h but be am mazed. As hee looked dow wn from the 233rd-floor offices of the Lo ondon Organ nizing Commiittee of the Ollympic Gamees (LOCOG), he h could see all a of East Lon ndon, one of the poorest areas in Greaater London. Historically
H
a working-claass neighborh hood and indu ustrial centerr, East Londo on had been bombed b heav vily during World
W
War II and had never fully recov vered. Yet, as a if rising fro om the ashes,, the Olympicc Park was beeginning to taake shape. In n three short years, y Londo on would pla ay host to th he 2012 Gamees and the Olympic Park would be itss crown jeweel (see
Exhib
bit 1 for a ma ap of London n and the locaation of the Olympic
O
Park
k). And if all went accordiing to plan, the sporting venues, houssing, transporrtation links, and a parks built to supportt the Games would w serve to revitalize the t East Lond don communiity. o 2009, howeever, William mson had mo ore pressing issues i to con nsider. As Heead of
In the spring of
Ticketting for the 2012 Games,, he and his team were responsible r f developin for ng the policiees for pricin ng and distrib buting the milllions of tickeets that would d go on sale starting s in latee 2010. In a perfect p world d, he knew, th heir decisions would satisfy y many criterria. First, giveen the importaance of ticketing to the Games’
G
bottom m line, they had h a strong incentive to maximize reevenues. Seco ond, given thaat the entiree world would be watchiing, they wan nted to maxiimize attendance—not just at the Opening
Cerem
mony and sw wimming finalls, which trad ditionally werre easy sells, but b also at ev vents like han ndball and table t tennis, which weree not. Third d, they wantted to fill seats s with th he right peo ople— know wledgeable fan ns who added d to the energ gy and atmossphere of the event. Finally y, tickets had d to be accesssible not only y to the world d’s elite but also a to averag ge Londonerss, many of whom w lived arround the co orner from thee Olympic Paark.
Ass Williamson considered th hese criteria, two commen nts stuck in hiis mind. The first f came fro om his boss, Chris Townssend, the Com mmercial Direector of the LO
OCOG. Town nsend had saiid, “Missing either our revenue r or our o attendancce target is simply unaccceptable.” The
T
second came c from Jo oanna Mann ning-Cooper, Head of Pu ublic Relation ns and Mediaa, who had said, “We arre billing theese as
‘Every
ybody’s Gam mes,’ which meeans the majo ority of ticketss have to be at a prices the public p can affo ord.” Th he good newss was that Wiilliamson and d his team haad time to develop their plans—tickets p were not sccheduled to go g on sale fo or another 18 months. Thee bad news was w that Olym mpic ticketing g had proveen tricky in th he past—with h some host cities c at a losss to explain unsold u ticketss, empty seatss, and frustrrated sports fans. As Town nsend noted, “Ticketing reepresents abo out 20% of an n Olympic Games’ reven nue, but 80% of o its public reelations headaches.”
______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professo
or John T. Gourvillle of Harvard Busiiness School and Professor Marco Bertini of London Bu usiness School prep pared this case. Some data have been simplified to aid in classroom discussion. HBS casess are developed so olely as the basis fo or class discussion. Cases are not inteended to urces of primary daata, or illustrations of effective or inefffective managemen nt. serve ass endorsements, sou ght © 2009, 2010, 20
011 President and Fellows
F
of Harvard d College. To order copies or request permission p to repro oduce materials, caall 1-800Copyrig
545-76855, write Harvard Bu usiness School Pub blishing, Boston, MA
M 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard w d.edu/educators. This publication maay not be digitized d, photocopied, or otherwise reprodu uced, posted, or tran nsmitted, without the t permission of Harvard
H
Business School.
S
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
The Olympic Games
The modern Olympic Games were first held in 1896 in Athens, Greece, where they featured 241 amateur male athletes from 14 countries competing across 10 days in nine sports. Staged every four years since, with exceptions for World Wars I and II, the Games had grown to include more than
10,000 male and female athletes from over 200 nations competing in as many as 28 sports over 17 days (see Exhibit 2 for a chronology of the Games).1
The governing body of the Games was the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a non-profit organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland. Headed by an elected president, governed by 115 voting members who represented their respective nations, and staffed by 150 full-time employees, the
IOC was the parent organization for the Olympic Games. In this capacity, it chose the Olympic host cities; provided contractual guidelines to those cities; managed the copyrights, trademarks, and other assets associated with the Games; and supported and coordinated efforts among all members of the
Olympic Movement.2
The management of the Games themselves was entrusted to the host city’s Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG), which typically was formed shortly after the IOC announced which city had won the rights to host the Games. The typical OCOG employed several hundred individuals over the four to seven years leading up to and including the Games.
Economics of the Games
By almost any measure, staging the Olympic Games was big business. For instance, the 2000
Sydney Games had generated over $2.8 billion in revenue (see Table A) from five principal sources:
•
Broadcast rights—the rights to broadcast the Games in countries around the world. In recent times, the rights for the United States accounted for about 50% and the rights for
Europe accounted for 25% of the total broadcast revenue. Exhibit 3 provides broadcast revenues for past Games.
•
International sponsorship—the rights for a company to proclaim itself an “Official
Sponsor of the Olympic Games” on a worldwide basis in the four years leading up to the
Games. Exhibit 4 shows revenue from international sponsorships for past Games.
•
Ticketing—the tickets to the individual Olympic events. Exhibit 5 provides ticket revenues for past Games.
•
Domestic sponsorship—the rights for a company to proclaim itself an official sponsor of the Olympics within the country hosting the Games.
•
Licensing rights—the rights to use the Olympic logos and trademarks on items ranging from stamps and coins to t-shirts and stuffed animals.
1 Beginning with the addition of the Winter Olympics in 1924, the Games were now often called the Summer Olympics. For simplicity, in this case study the phrases “the Olympics” and “the Games” refer to the Summer Olympics.
2 The Olympic Movement consisted of those entities that supported the running of the Games—including the IOC, the host city Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games, the 205 National Olympic Committees, and the International Federations that governed each Olympic sport.
2
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
Of these five sources of revenue, the IOC was responsible for negotiating and managing the broadcast rights and international sponsorships, while the host country OCOG was responsible for ticketing, domestic sponsorships, and domestic licensing.
Table A
Revenues for the 2000 Sydney Games
Source
Organization Responsible
Broadcast Rights
IOC
Amount (in millions)
International Sponsorship of Games
IOC
405
Ticketing to Games
Sydney OCOG
551
Domestic Sponsorship of Games
Sydney OCOG
492
Licensing Rights
Sydney OCOG
$ 1,332
52
Total
$ 2,832
Source: Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
In turn, these revenues were allocated to four organizations within the Olympic Movement. The major beneficiary was the host city OCOG, which used the funds to stage the Games. Historically,
50% to 65% of the revenue from broadcast rights and international sponsorships, plus 100% of the revenue from ticketing, domestic sponsorship, and licensing rights, went to the OCOG. Of the remaining revenue, the IOC kept a share to cover its administrative and operational costs, and allocated the rest to the 205 National Olympic Committees of the IOC’s member nations (to help support the training and development of each nation’s athletes) and to the International Federations of the sports of the Olympic Games (to help develop those sports on a worldwide basis). The allocation of the revenues from the 2000 Sydney Games is shown in Table B.
Allocation of Revenues from the 2000 Sydney Games
Table B
Source
Approximate Amount (in millions)
Sydney Organizing Committee of the Olympics Games
National Olympic Committees
International Federations
International Olympic Committee
Total
2,137
321
200
$ 174
$ 2,832
Source: Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
Preparing For and Managing the Games
Using its allocation of the Olympic revenues, the host city OCOG had to plan for, organize, and manage the 17 days of the Games, all within the contractual obligations set forth by the IOC. The major tasks included:
•
Staging the Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony, and sporting events
•
Arranging for the required stadia, arenas, training facilities, and equipment
•
Housing and feeding the athletes and officials
•
Anticipating and solving potential transportation problems
•
Meeting the needs of the media
•
Providing security to ensure a safe and peaceful Olympics
3
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Importantly, while the OCOG was responsible for “arranging” for the Games’ infrastructure, responsibility for actually providing that infrastructure rested with the host city and country. This included the stadia and arenas to stage the events, the Olympic Village to house the athletes, the national and international transportation systems to efficiently get people to and from the host city, and the local transportation systems to shuttle people to and from the events. If funds were needed to build this infrastructure, they typically were raised through taxation, lotteries, and private investment. Chris Townsend explained:
The costs of any Olympics can be broken down into “software” or people costs and
“hardware” or infrastructure costs. Software costs are the responsibility of the OCOG, and include the expenses associated with planning the Games, housing the athletes, and running the events. In contrast, hardware costs are the responsibility of the host city and depend greatly on the existing infrastructure. For instance, prior to hosting the 2000 Games, Sydney had good venues and a modern transportation system. But Beijing bid on the 2008 Games knowing it would need to build many new facilities and significantly upgrade its transportation system.
For the past three Games, these infrastructure costs ranged from $2 billion for Sydney, to $15 billion for Athens, to $40 billion for Beijing. In the case of Sydney, the need for new infrastructure was limited to several new venues. In contrast, China built a new terminal at the Beijing Airport, doubled the size of the Beijing subway system, and built a new 80-mile intercity railway system into Beijing. It also constructed 12 new sports venues and upgraded many others. Finally, it built the Athletes
Village—living, dining, and relaxation quarters for athletes and officials—which was to be turned into apartments and public housing after the Games.
The 2012 Games
Great Britain was no stranger to the Olympic Games. It was one of only four nations to compete in all 26 Olympic Games, holding third place in total number of medals won. It had successfully hosted the 1908 and 1948 London Games. And it had bid on the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Games.
Winning the rights to the 2012 Games was far from certain, however, with Paris, New York,
Moscow, and Madrid also in the final running. The process to select the host city consisted of a series of secret ballots, with each IOC member voting for the city of his or her choice. After each round of voting, if no city obtained a majority of the votes cast, the city with the lowest number of votes was eliminated, and the remaining cities advanced to a new round of voting.
By most accounts, Paris was the favorite to win the rights to the 2012 Games. However, many believed the London bid was aided by the addition of Sebastian Coe to the London Bid Committee in
2004. Coe was the 1980 and 1984 gold medalist in the 1,500-meter run, was widely considered one of the greatest middle-distance runners of all time, had served as a member of the British Parliament, and was widely respected both within and outside the Olympic community.
In the end, the IOC apparently was impressed by the proposal that the London Bid Committee submitted. As announced on July 6, 2005, to the joy of its many supporters,3 London had won the
3 Surveys in 2004/2005 showed that 70% of the people of the UK and 68% of Londoners supported the London bid.
4
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
rights to host the 2012 Games in a final, head-to-head ballot in which London received 54 votes to
Paris’s 50.
The Plans for the 2012 Games
The 2012 Games were scheduled to run from July 27 to August 12, with over 12,000 athletes from
205 countries expected to compete across 26 sports and 300 events.
With 7.9 million tickets up for sale, the LOCOG anticipated an average of 500,000 spectators per day to attend the Games, with up to 800,000 on the busiest days. It estimated that roughly 30% of all tickets would be purchased by Londoners, 25% by United Kingdom residents who lived outside of
London, 20% by people from the rest of Europe, and 25% by people from the rest of the world.
In addition, it expected 10,000 Olympic and political dignitaries to watch some or all of the
Games, 20,000 journalists and media personnel to cover the Games, 60,000 security personnel to ensure safety, and 100,000 paid and volunteer workers to help run the Games.
Location and Venues
A key selling point in the London bid was the plan to build the centerpiece of the Games—the Olympic Park—in East London. As stated in London’s bid document:
Great Games leave welcome legacies. Consistent with London’s long-term plan, the Games will stimulate vital economic and social regeneration in what is now a disadvantaged area.
Creation of the Olympic Park will involve restoring large tracts of land in East London, with new green spaces and revived wetlands. The Olympic Village will become a desirable and socially diverse new residential area, providing 3,600 new homes in a community transformed by the Games.
The intent was to develop 500 acres of existing industrial and waste land in East London into the
Olympic Park. By 2012, this would include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium—for Opening and Closing Ceremonies and athletics
The 17,500-seat Aquatics Center—for diving, swimming, and water polo
The 12,000-seat London Velopark—for indoor track cycling and outdoor BMX cycling
The 12,000-seat Basketball Arena
The 15,000-seat Olympic Field Hockey Center
The 17,000-bed Olympic Village
After the Games, the plan was to reduce the size of several of the larger venues to fit with the surrounding community, to relocate several of the smaller venues to other parts of the country where they could be better utilized, and to convert the Olympic Village into 3,600 units of affordable housing, with an additional 5,400 new homes to be built later.
The remaining sports would use existing venues located throughout London and the UK, including Earl’s Court (volleyball), ExCeL London (judo, weightlifting, wrestling), Hyde Park
(triathlon), the Millennium Dome (gymnastics), Wimbledon (tennis), and Wembley (football).
Transportation
A second critical element of the London bid was a plan to make the 2012
Games the first “public transport” Olympics, with close to 100% of ticketed spectators traveling to the
Olympic events by such means. To make this happen, existing transportation links to and from the
East London area were to be expanded and upgraded, turning it into one of the best-connected
5
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
communities in the city. The most talked-about of these efforts was a 12-car subway shuttle called the
“Olympic Javelin,” which would ferry passengers from King’s Cross Station, in the heart of London, to the Olympic Park in just 7 minutes.
These efforts were expected to support the transport of up to 240,000 passengers per hour into and out of the Olympic Park area. In turn, to encourage spectators to use public transportation, the
LOCOG had announced that the price of every ticket to an Olympic event would include the use of
London’s public transportation network on the day of that event.
Atmosphere
Finally, the LOCOG hoped to engage and excite the British public. While Sydney came to be called the “Laid-Back Games,” and Beijing had been unofficially dubbed the “No Fun
Games,” the LOCOG wanted the legacy of the 2012 Games to be one of inclusiveness. Toward this end, Sebastian Coe noted:
Whilst London will be the principal venue, it is the entire United Kingdom which will be the host. The London 2012 Games will be Everybody’s Games. . . . London 2012 will be the most accessible and participative Games ever . . . . Putting on Everybody’s Games, we are clear that our stakeholders are the 60 million people living in Britain.4
Manning-Cooper, Head of PR and Media, highlighted what this meant at a practical level:
To deliver on the promise of Everybody’s Games, we plan to have free open-air festivals in and around London every night of the Games, we will place large screen TVs throughout the
UK to encourage a community atmosphere, and we will bring football—the most popular sport in the country—to the public by having preliminary rounds in Glasgow, Cardiff,
Manchester, Birmingham, and Newcastle.
Yet, the reality is that the average person wants to talk about tickets. First, they ask about availability, worried that the vast majority of tickets will be snapped up by the IOC, corporate sponsors, and wealthy foreigners. Second, they ask about pricing, fearing that even if tickets are available, they won’t be affordable. Ultimately, the thing that will make these “Everyone’s
Games” will be fair and equitable access to the events themselves.
Delivering the 2012 Games
The two groups responsible for delivering the 2012 Games were the LOCOG, which would stage the Games, and a quasi-governmental organization called the Olympic Delivery Authority, which would build the infrastructure.
The LOCOG’s forecasted budget was $3 billion.5 Roughly $1.2 billion of this would come from its share of the broadcast revenues and international sponsorships, as determined by the IOC. The
LOCOG was responsible for the rest, with a planned $1 billion coming from about 60 domestic sponsors, $650 million from ticket sales, and $150 million from licensing fees.
The Olympic Delivery Authority’s total expenses were projected to run about $12 billion: $6 billion for the building of the Olympic Park, $4 billion for transportation upgrades, and the rest for
4 Excerpt from a speech by Sebastian Coe at the British Museum on March 11, 2008.
5 The IOC reported financial data in U.S. dollars. The LOCOG used the British pound. For consistency, we have converted the
LOCOG budget of £2 billion to $3 billion, based on an exchange rate of 1:1.5 in the spring of 2009.
6
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
smaller projects, contingencies, and taxes. Roughly 60% of these funds would come from national taxes, 15% would come from London city taxes, and 20% would come from the National Lottery.
Selling Tickets to the Games
Hired as Head of Ticketing in September 2007, Paul Williamson was no stranger to large sporting events. Previously, he had helped set ticketing guidelines for several FIFA World Cup Finals, the
2007 Rugby World Cup, the 2007 Cricket World Cup, and the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth
Games. Also, he had acted as a ticketing advisor to the IOC for the 2002 and 2006 Winter Olympics.
As such, he was well aware of the challenges the LOCOG faced:
Ticketing for the FIFA World Cup is a great experience, but it pales in comparison to the
Olympic Games. For a World Cup Final, you sell three million tickets to 64 matches played over 30 days in 10 or 12 major cities. The teams are all of very high caliber, the stadia are all well established, and football is the most popular sport in the world. With the Olympic Games, we are trying to sell almost eight million tickets to 26 different sports played over 17 days, with some sports wildly popular and others a complete mystery to the average person. In reality, we are running 26 world championships in a fortnight.
While many ticketing issues were still up in the air, some had already been decided. In particular, it was known that:
•
A total of 7.9 million tickets would be available for sale across all events (see Exhibit 6).
•
In late 2010, international and domestic sponsors, the 205 National Olympic Committees, the International Federations, and other IOC affiliates could place requests for tickets— specifying how many tickets at each price point they desired for each event. All would pay full price for any tickets ultimately received and, collectively, these groups would receive no more than 25% of available tickets.
•
In the spring of 2011, the general public could similarly place requests for tickets, via an online ballot, specifying the event, number of tickets, and price point they desired.
•
In the summer of 2011, ticket requests from both the IOC affiliates and the public would be processed and individuals would be informed as to whether they had obtained tickets.
•
Later in 2011 and into 2012, any remaining tickets would be offered for direct sale.
•
During the Games, tickets still not sold would be available for purchase at box offices throughout London.
Williamson noted that those applying for tickets were requesting entry to a particular event within a certain price tier. Not until tickets were matched to requests, in the summer of 2011, would customers find out where they actually sat in the stadium or arena. Williamson elaborated:
For virtually all of the events in the Games, there will be price tiers for tickets. If tickets for an event are, for example, $30, $60, and $100, you might request four tickets in the $60 price tier on a given day. In turn, the LOCOG promises that the $100 seats will be better than the $60
7
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
seats and the $60 seats will be better than the $30 seats. After all the requests are in, we begin to allocate tickets to those that have requested them and assign people to specific seats. If the requested day and price tier is undersubscribed, your request will be filled. If it is oversubscribed, a lottery-like process will decide who gets seats and who does not. In either case, we will let you know the outcome.
Managing Ticket Revenues
When it came to managing ticket revenues, Williamson and his team looked to the 2000 Sydney
Games for inspiration:
While the 2004 Athens Games and the 2008 Beijing Games were wonderful events, they do not provide a great ticketing benchmark for the London Games. Athens was hampered by the small size of the city and the limited capacity of the venues. And Beijing tried hard to make tickets affordable for its domestic population, resulting in ticket prices that were artificially low. But the Sydney Games were staged in large venues in the largest city of a wealthy, sportsloving country. People were willing to pay to attend events and the results reflected this fact.
The LOCOG also viewed sufficient ticket revenues as vital to the legacy of the 2012 Games.
As Chris Townsend noted:
With so much money involved in the Games, it is easy to view ticket sales as a drop in the bucket. What is $650 million when the Olympic Delivery Authority is spending $12 billion to build the Olympic Park and the Olympic Javelin? But let’s put things in perspective. Last year,
Manchester United generated about $150 million in ticket revenues over a nine-month season, while the New York Yankees sold $120 million in tickets over a six-month season. We’re looking to bring in four to five times those amounts, which will have a major impact on the financial legacy of these Games.
But Williamson knew that maximizing ticket revenue meant more than just charging high prices:
Peoples’ willingness-to-pay for a given event will depend on many factors. There’s an expectation about what a ticket should cost based on other sporting events in and around
London (see Exhibit 7). There’s the global appeal of a sport, with swimming and gymnastics being very popular around the world. There’s the local appeal of the sport, often driven by the host country’s past success in that sport (see Exhibit 8). There’s the event stage, with most people wanting to see those stages where the gold medals are awarded. And then there’s a particular team or athlete that makes the difference.
Williamson also reasoned that the pricing of tickets at past Games (see Exhibit 9) provided only limited guidance for the pricing of the London Games:
First, every host city possesses unique tastes, culture, and atmosphere. While beach volleyball may be big in Australia, table tennis is king in China. Second, the reach of the Games varies by location. Given the difficulties in getting into China, tickets to the Beijing Games were largely limited to the Chinese. Given the proximity of London to the rest of Europe, we anticipate a much more international crowd. Third, this will be the first Games where ticketing
8
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
will be done via the Internet, which may alter demand for some events.6 Finally, with the current global financial crisis, London 2012 is entering uncharted territories.
Managing Attendance
The LOCOG also wanted to fill the many venues during the games. As stated in the London bid document, “Great Games generate genuine enthusiasm. This will be demonstrated . . . by full stadia across a wide range of events . . .” Given that organizers expected close to five billion television viewers to watch some part of the 2012 Games, the last image the LOCOG wanted broadcast to the world was that of half-empty arenas.
Everyone at the LOCOG understood the potential fallout from attendance shortfalls. Pinned to a nearby bulletin board were several articles from recent games. In reference to the 2004 Athens Games, one New York Times headline read, “Summer 2004 Games: Seats May Be Empty, But Not the Beaches.”
And in regard to the 2008 Beijing Games, the Los Angeles Times proclaimed, “Empty Seats Are a
Mystery at Beijing Olympics.”
Williamson broke down the challenge of maximizing attendance into two parts. “First, you have to get people to buy the tickets. Second, you have to get those who purchased tickets to actually use them. Neither of these is a trivial task.”
When it came to getting people “to buy the tickets,” Williamson had no illusions:
You just can’t sell every ticket to every event. The Opening Ceremony? Sure. The final day of track and field? Sure. Michael Phelps in any of the swimming events? Sure. But what about a preliminary round of handball, table tennis, or archery? The demand is just lower for certain sports. The reality is, there are really three classes of events we must manage. First, there are the big four—swimming, artistic gymnastics, athletics, and the ceremonies—where demand historically far exceeds supply and which will likely sell out at almost any price. We would expect about 40% of ticket revenues to come from these four sports. Second, there is football, with almost two million tickets across 58 men’s and women’s matches. If there is any single sport with which we obsess, it is football. On the one hand, football is the most popular sport in Europe, which works in our favor. On the other hand, unlike the FIFA World Cup, the
Olympic teams are largely limited to players under 23 years of age, eliminating some of the biggest names in the sport.7 We hope to generate another 10% of ticket revenue from football.
Third, there are all the other sports, where supply historically exceeds demand and where we have to work hard to maximize sales.
Given all of this, a ticket manager has to be inept to sell less than 65% of his available seats, but selling 95% is not realistic either. If you end up selling 85% of your available tickets, then I think you have done a very, very good job.
6 The Beijing OCOG attempted to sell tickets online to the 2008 Games, but overwhelming demand caused the system to crash
on the first day of public sales. As a result, many of the tickets to the 2008 games were sold manually.
7 According to IOC rules, Olympic national teams are limited to players under 23 years of age, with three slots available for players 23 or older.
9
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
But the challenge did not end with merely selling the tickets. As the Beijing organizers discovered, getting people to use the tickets that they had purchased was equally tough. Commenting on one field hockey match in Beijing, the Los Angeles Times noted:
Tickets were in such short supply for Friday night’s field hockey match. . . . At the box office, clerks told disappointed ticket seekers that the game was “sold out.” . . . But inside the
17,000-seat Olympic Hockey Stadium, the stands were a sea of blue—the color of the rows and rows of empty plastic seats. When the game began, only a quarter of the seats were filled . . .
It’s one of the great mysteries of the Beijing Olympics: In what is reportedly the first sold-out
Games in Olympic history, many venues are far from full, with the expanses of empty seats giving events a somewhat forlorn appearance.8
The Los Angeles Times article went on to say that Beijing organizers attributed this lack of attendance to the large number of tickets purchased by sponsors, set aside for IOC VIPs, and provided to the media, many of which went unused. Others noted that spectators may have purchased tickets for a day-long event, such as tennis, but stayed for only one or two matches. And still others speculated that a large number of Chinese citizens may have purchased a ticket to an event, never intending to travel to the Games and use that ticket, but as a low-priced souvenir from the Games.
In a curious response to this lack of attendance, Chinese Olympic officials admitted to bussing in local volunteers in an attempt to fill empty seats and to improve the atmosphere at venues where attendance was sparse.9 As The New York Times reported, “There were entire sections of empty seats behind both goals at the field hockey stadium on Monday. Next to them were sections packed with fans dressed in identical shirts, pounding inflatable bats and being led in rehearsed cheers.”10
Commenting on this practice, one Australian spectator noted, “It’s better. Nobody likes an empty stadium. But you can tell they’ve just been brought in here to fill seats. They know nothing about hockey. They cheer at all the wrong times.”11
Managing Perceptions
A third concern for the LOCOG was the impression its ticketing policies would create among the very many groups that the Games affected. In particular, to help deliver on its goal of making these
“Everybody’s Games,” the LOCOG wanted to involve and engage the local citizens. At the same time, the laws of the European Union (EU) prevented the LOCOG from offering price discounts to the local community that it did not also offer to other EU citizens.
The LOCOG also was sensitive to the impressions its pricing policies made among the athletes, the National Olympic Committees, and the International Federations. While all could accept the fact that swimming was more popular than table tennis in the United Kingdom, the price differential between tickets to the various events was a delicate issue for those involved. As Williamson noted,
“We are dealing with 26 valid sports. This doesn’t mean we have to price them all the same, but we
8 Barbara Demick, “Empty Seats are a Mystery at Beijing Olympics,” the Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2008.
9 Peter Sharp, “Empty Seats: Beijing Goes Local,” SkyNews, August 13, 2008.
10 John Branch, “Well-Trained Fans Are at the Ready, if Seats Need to be Filled,” The New York Times, August 13, 2008.
11 Barbara Demick, “Empty Seats are a Mystery at Beijing Olympics,” the Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2008.
10
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
can’t price in such a way as to disrespect any particular sport.” But he wondered what this meant in practice. Third, given his many years in ticketing, Williamson was concerned with the secondary market for tickets to the 2012 Games. After all, while he felt that the LOCOG should not be held responsible for unscrupulous resellers, he knew that much of the public would disagree. As such, Williamson planned to publicize the LOCOG’s intent to prosecute those individuals and entities reselling either real or fraudulent tickets over the Internet.
Time to Decide
As Williamson considered the task before him, he wondered about the tradeoffs he might be forced to make. For instance, if he could choose between two outcomes—exceeding his ticket revenue targets by $50 million with 70% attendance or coming up short by $50 million with 90% attendance— which should he take? Would it make any difference if he were wearing an IOC hat as opposed to an
LOCOG hat? Would it make any difference if he were the head of the LOCOG as opposed to its Head of Ticketing? And would he feel differently during or after the Games than he would 18 months before the Games?
As he took a final look at the burgeoning Olympic Park, Williamson observed, “When the 2012
Games are over, we will not have gotten everything about ticketing right. We accept that. But, given that we know we are going to be wrong, what do we have to do to be ‘least wrong’?”
11
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
Exhibit 1
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Map of the Planned Sites for the 2012 London Olympics
Source: Map created by the Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University. Data Sources: ESRI Data and Maps 2008,
LAND INFO Worldwide Mapping, LLC.
12
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 2
Year
510-039
Olympic Host Cities and Participation
Host City
Nations
Sports
Events
Athletes
Male
Female
Total
1896
Athens, Greece
14
9
43
241
0
241
1900
Paris, France
24
17
95
975
22
997
1904
St. Louis, United States
13
14
91
645
6
651
1908
London, England
22
21
110
1971
37
2,008
1912
Stockholm, Sweden
28
13
102
2359
48
2,407
1916
Cancelled
―
―
―
―
―
1920
Antwerp, Belgium
29
21
154
2,561
65
2,626
1924
Paris, France
44
17
126
2,954
135
3,089
1928
Amsterdam, Holland
46
14
109
2,606
277
2,883
1932
Los Angeles, United States
37
14
117
1,206
126
1,332
1936
Berlin, Germany
49
19
129
3,632
331
3,963
1940
Cancelled
―
―
―
―
―
―
1944
Cancelled
―
―
―
―
―
―
1948
London, England
59
17
136
3,714
390
4,104
1952
Helsinki, Finland
69
17
149
4,436
519
4,955
1956
Melbourne, Australia
72
16
145
2,938
376
3,314
1960
Rome, Italy
83
17
150
4,727
611
5,338
1964
Tokyo, Japan
93
19
163
4,473
678
5,151
1968
Mexico City, Mexico
112
18
172
4,735
781
5,516
1972
Munich, Germany
121
21
195
6,075
1,059
7,134
1976
Montreal, Canada
92
21
198
4,824
1,260
6,084
1980a
Moscow, USSR
80
21
203
4,064
1,115
5,179
1984b
Los Angeles, United States
140
21
221
5,263
1,566
6,824
1988
Seoul, South Korea
159
23
237
6,197
2,194
8,391
1992
Barcelona, Spain
169
25
257
6,652
2,704
9,356
1996
Atlanta, United States
197
26
271
6,806
3,512
10,318
2000
Sydney, Australia
199
28
300
6,582
4,069
10,651
2004
Athens, Greece
201
28
301
6,262
4,306
10,568
2008
Beijing, China
204
28
302
6,450
4,746
11,196
2012
London, England (projected)
205
26
300
n/a
n/a
12,500
Source:
Adapted from the International Olympic Committee website.
―
a Reflects a boycott of the Olympics by the United States, West Germany, Japan, Canada, and 50+ other countries. b Reflects a boycott of the Olympics by the USSR, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, and 10 other countries.
13
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 3
Broadcast Revenues for the Olympic Games (1984–2008)
Olympic Games
1984 Los Angeles
Broadcast Revenue
(in millions)
$ 287
1988 Seoul
403
1992 Barcelona
636
1996 Atlanta
893
2000 Sydney
1,332
2004 Athens
1,494
2008 Beijing
1,737
Source:
Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
Exhibit 4
International Sponsors Revenue for the Olympic Games (1988–2008)
Olympic Games
Number of
Revenues
Int’l Sponsors
(in millions)
1988 Seoul
9
$ 67
1992 Barcelona
12
120
1996 Atlanta
10
195
2000 Sydney
11
405
2004 Athens
11
464
2008 Beijing
12
606
Source:
Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
Note:
Prior to 1988, international and domestic sponsorship were combined.
Exhibit 5
Ticket Sales for the Olympic Games (1984–2008)
Olympic Games
Tickets Available for Sale
Tickets Sold
Ticket Revenue
(in millions)
(in millions)
(in millions)
1984 Los Angeles
6.9
5.7
$156
1988 Seoul
4.4
3.3
36
1992 Barcelona
3.9
3.0
79
1996 Atlanta
11.0
8.3
425
2000 Sydney
7.6
6.7
551
2004 Athens
5.3
3.8
228
2008 Beijing
6.8
6.8
200 (est.)
Source:
Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
14
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 6
510-039
Tickets Available for Sale, by Sport, for the 2012 Gamesa
Sport
Gold Medal Events
Aquatics: Swimming
Water polo
Diving
Synchronized Swimming
Archery
Athletics (Track & Field)
Badminton
Basketball
Boxing
Canoe and Kayak
Cycling: Indoor Track
Outdoor Road
Mountain
BMX
Equestrian
Fencing
Field Hockey
Football (Soccer)
Gymnastics: Artistic
Rhythmic
Trampoline
Handball
Judo
Modern Pentathlon
Rowing
Sailing
Shooting
Table Tennis
Taekwondo
Tennis
Triathlon
Volleyball: Indoor
Beach
Weightlifting
Wrestling
Total Athletic Events
Opening and Closing Ceremonies
34
2
8
2
4
47
5
2
11
16
10
4
2
2
6
10
2
2
14
2
2
2
14
2
14
11
15
4
8
4
2
2
2
15
18
300
Other Eventsb
Grand Total
Source:
Tickets Available
185,000
125,000
210,000
90,000
70,000
756,000
95,000
400,000
182,000
215,000
28,000
4,000
8,000
10,000
235,000
120,000
520,000
1,975,000
185,000
25,000
25,000
205,000
110,000
7,000
224,000
1,000
25,000
85,000
36,000
237,000
18,000
500,000
350,000
95,000
130,000
7,476,000
120,000
365,000
7,961,000
London OCOG.
a The numbers reflect best estimates as of spring 2009. b Other events include cultural events and non-judged sporting exhibitions.
15
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 7
Price Ranges for a Ticket to Various Sporting Events in the United Kingdom and Europe
Event
Price Range (in $)a
English Premier League Football:b
Arsenal
50 – 135
Fulham
40 – 70
West Ham United
50 – 95
Wimbledon Tennis:
Outside Courts
30
Centre Court
England Football
60 – 150
Friendly:c
Adult Ticket
45 – 60
Children’s Ticket
England Under-21
Adult Ticket
15
Children’s Ticket
10
2008 European Cup
Source:
25
Football:d
Football:e
Group Matches
45 – 120
Finals
200 – 450
London OCOG estimates.
a All prices converted to U.S. dollars to aid in comparison. b The English Premier League consists of the best club teams in England (e.g., Arsenal, Manchester United, etc.). c An “England Football Friendly” is an exhibition match between the English national football team and another country’s
national team. d England Under-21 is a national team comprised of the best players under 21 years of age. e The European Cup (or Champions League) is an annual tournament to determine the best club team in Europe. It is widely
considered the most prestigious club trophy in the world.
16
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 8
510-039
Medal Success of the Host Country in the Three Preceding Gamesa
Host City/Country
2012 London (Great Britain)
Number of Medals Wonb
Indoor Track Cycling
Sailing
Athletics
Rowing
Swimming
Other
Total:
20
16
14
13
10
31
104
2008 Beijing (China)
Diving
Table Tennis
Shooting
Weightlifting
Badminton
Gymnastics
Other
Total:
24
22
22
19
17
17
51
172
2004 Athens (Greece)
Weightlifting
Athletics
Gymnastics
Other
Total:
11
6
3
3
23
Swimming
Indoor Track Cycling
Rowing
Canoe/Kayak
Athletics
Other
Total:
24
14
8
8
6
21
81
2000 Sydney (Australia)
Source:
Sport
Adapted from the International Olympic Committee website.
a Meaning the three Games immediately preceding the Olympic Games in the host country. b Includes gold, silver, and bronze medals.
17
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
Exhibit 9
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Historic Ticket Pricing for Select Olympic Events, in U.S. Dollarsa
Event/Sport
Event Stage
Opening Ceremony
Aquatics – Swimming
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finalsb
Athletics
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Finals
Cycling—Indoor Track
Gymnastics—Artistic
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Table Tennis
Preliminaries
Quarter Finals
& Semifinals
Finals
Wrestling
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Pricing Tier
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 1
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Sydney 2000
Athens 2004
$ 869
619
318
66
$ 597
472
220
63
88
50
22
286
142
60
53
41
22
104
79
41
286
179
60
41
66
88
53
223
179
25
44
28
19
126
63
31
16
9
6
57
44
25
189
94
47
35
35
41
22
126
75
6
35
9
47
19
35
22
53
35
16
9
38
25
Beijing 2008
$ 627
376
188
100
25
38
25
13
75
38
19
25
13
6
100
50
25
100
50
25
6
13
13
6
38
19
13
6
38
19
63
25
13
6
25
13
Source: London OCOG. a Prices have not been adjusted for inflation and reflect actual prices at the time of the games (converted to U.S. dollars). b Prelim/Finals reflect session in which both preliminary events and final events are being contested.
18
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
REV: FEBRUARY 4, 2011
JOHN T. GOURVILLE
MARCO BERTINI
The Lond don 2012 Olym mpic Gaames
Paaul Williamso on could not help h but be am mazed. As hee looked dow wn from the 233rd-floor offices of the Lo ondon Organ nizing Commiittee of the Ollympic Gamees (LOCOG), he h could see all a of East Lon ndon, one of the poorest areas in Greaater London. Historically
H
a working-claass neighborh hood and indu ustrial centerr, East Londo on had been bombed b heav vily during World
W
War II and had never fully recov vered. Yet, as a if rising fro om the ashes,, the Olympicc Park was beeginning to taake shape. In n three short years, y Londo on would pla ay host to th he 2012 Gamees and the Olympic Park would be itss crown jeweel (see
Exhib
bit 1 for a ma ap of London n and the locaation of the Olympic
O
Park
k). And if all went accordiing to plan, the sporting venues, houssing, transporrtation links, and a parks built to supportt the Games would w serve to revitalize the t East Lond don communiity. o 2009, howeever, William mson had mo ore pressing issues i to con nsider. As Heead of
In the spring of
Ticketting for the 2012 Games,, he and his team were responsible r f developin for ng the policiees for pricin ng and distrib buting the milllions of tickeets that would d go on sale starting s in latee 2010. In a perfect p world d, he knew, th heir decisions would satisfy y many criterria. First, giveen the importaance of ticketing to the Games’
G
bottom m line, they had h a strong incentive to maximize reevenues. Seco ond, given thaat the entiree world would be watchiing, they wan nted to maxiimize attendance—not just at the Opening
Cerem
mony and sw wimming finalls, which trad ditionally werre easy sells, but b also at ev vents like han ndball and table t tennis, which weree not. Third d, they wantted to fill seats s with th he right peo ople— know wledgeable fan ns who added d to the energ gy and atmossphere of the event. Finally y, tickets had d to be accesssible not only y to the world d’s elite but also a to averag ge Londonerss, many of whom w lived arround the co orner from thee Olympic Paark.
Ass Williamson considered th hese criteria, two commen nts stuck in hiis mind. The first f came fro om his boss, Chris Townssend, the Com mmercial Direector of the LO
OCOG. Town nsend had saiid, “Missing either our revenue r or our o attendancce target is simply unaccceptable.” The
T
second came c from Jo oanna Mann ning-Cooper, Head of Pu ublic Relation ns and Mediaa, who had said, “We arre billing theese as
‘Every
ybody’s Gam mes,’ which meeans the majo ority of ticketss have to be at a prices the public p can affo ord.” Th he good newss was that Wiilliamson and d his team haad time to develop their plans—tickets p were not sccheduled to go g on sale fo or another 18 months. Thee bad news was w that Olym mpic ticketing g had proveen tricky in th he past—with h some host cities c at a losss to explain unsold u ticketss, empty seatss, and frustrrated sports fans. As Town nsend noted, “Ticketing reepresents abo out 20% of an n Olympic Games’ reven nue, but 80% of o its public reelations headaches.”
______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professo
or John T. Gourvillle of Harvard Busiiness School and Professor Marco Bertini of London Bu usiness School prep pared this case. Some data have been simplified to aid in classroom discussion. HBS casess are developed so olely as the basis fo or class discussion. Cases are not inteended to urces of primary daata, or illustrations of effective or inefffective managemen nt. serve ass endorsements, sou ght © 2009, 2010, 20
011 President and Fellows
F
of Harvard d College. To order copies or request permission p to repro oduce materials, caall 1-800Copyrig
545-76855, write Harvard Bu usiness School Pub blishing, Boston, MA
M 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard w d.edu/educators. This publication maay not be digitized d, photocopied, or otherwise reprodu uced, posted, or tran nsmitted, without the t permission of Harvard
H
Business School.
S
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
The Olympic Games
The modern Olympic Games were first held in 1896 in Athens, Greece, where they featured 241 amateur male athletes from 14 countries competing across 10 days in nine sports. Staged every four years since, with exceptions for World Wars I and II, the Games had grown to include more than
10,000 male and female athletes from over 200 nations competing in as many as 28 sports over 17 days (see Exhibit 2 for a chronology of the Games).1
The governing body of the Games was the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a non-profit organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland. Headed by an elected president, governed by 115 voting members who represented their respective nations, and staffed by 150 full-time employees, the
IOC was the parent organization for the Olympic Games. In this capacity, it chose the Olympic host cities; provided contractual guidelines to those cities; managed the copyrights, trademarks, and other assets associated with the Games; and supported and coordinated efforts among all members of the
Olympic Movement.2
The management of the Games themselves was entrusted to the host city’s Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG), which typically was formed shortly after the IOC announced which city had won the rights to host the Games. The typical OCOG employed several hundred individuals over the four to seven years leading up to and including the Games.
Economics of the Games
By almost any measure, staging the Olympic Games was big business. For instance, the 2000
Sydney Games had generated over $2.8 billion in revenue (see Table A) from five principal sources:
•
Broadcast rights—the rights to broadcast the Games in countries around the world. In recent times, the rights for the United States accounted for about 50% and the rights for
Europe accounted for 25% of the total broadcast revenue. Exhibit 3 provides broadcast revenues for past Games.
•
International sponsorship—the rights for a company to proclaim itself an “Official
Sponsor of the Olympic Games” on a worldwide basis in the four years leading up to the
Games. Exhibit 4 shows revenue from international sponsorships for past Games.
•
Ticketing—the tickets to the individual Olympic events. Exhibit 5 provides ticket revenues for past Games.
•
Domestic sponsorship—the rights for a company to proclaim itself an official sponsor of the Olympics within the country hosting the Games.
•
Licensing rights—the rights to use the Olympic logos and trademarks on items ranging from stamps and coins to t-shirts and stuffed animals.
1 Beginning with the addition of the Winter Olympics in 1924, the Games were now often called the Summer Olympics. For simplicity, in this case study the phrases “the Olympics” and “the Games” refer to the Summer Olympics.
2 The Olympic Movement consisted of those entities that supported the running of the Games—including the IOC, the host city Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games, the 205 National Olympic Committees, and the International Federations that governed each Olympic sport.
2
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
Of these five sources of revenue, the IOC was responsible for negotiating and managing the broadcast rights and international sponsorships, while the host country OCOG was responsible for ticketing, domestic sponsorships, and domestic licensing.
Table A
Revenues for the 2000 Sydney Games
Source
Organization Responsible
Broadcast Rights
IOC
Amount (in millions)
International Sponsorship of Games
IOC
405
Ticketing to Games
Sydney OCOG
551
Domestic Sponsorship of Games
Sydney OCOG
492
Licensing Rights
Sydney OCOG
$ 1,332
52
Total
$ 2,832
Source: Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
In turn, these revenues were allocated to four organizations within the Olympic Movement. The major beneficiary was the host city OCOG, which used the funds to stage the Games. Historically,
50% to 65% of the revenue from broadcast rights and international sponsorships, plus 100% of the revenue from ticketing, domestic sponsorship, and licensing rights, went to the OCOG. Of the remaining revenue, the IOC kept a share to cover its administrative and operational costs, and allocated the rest to the 205 National Olympic Committees of the IOC’s member nations (to help support the training and development of each nation’s athletes) and to the International Federations of the sports of the Olympic Games (to help develop those sports on a worldwide basis). The allocation of the revenues from the 2000 Sydney Games is shown in Table B.
Allocation of Revenues from the 2000 Sydney Games
Table B
Source
Approximate Amount (in millions)
Sydney Organizing Committee of the Olympics Games
National Olympic Committees
International Federations
International Olympic Committee
Total
2,137
321
200
$ 174
$ 2,832
Source: Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
Preparing For and Managing the Games
Using its allocation of the Olympic revenues, the host city OCOG had to plan for, organize, and manage the 17 days of the Games, all within the contractual obligations set forth by the IOC. The major tasks included:
•
Staging the Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony, and sporting events
•
Arranging for the required stadia, arenas, training facilities, and equipment
•
Housing and feeding the athletes and officials
•
Anticipating and solving potential transportation problems
•
Meeting the needs of the media
•
Providing security to ensure a safe and peaceful Olympics
3
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Importantly, while the OCOG was responsible for “arranging” for the Games’ infrastructure, responsibility for actually providing that infrastructure rested with the host city and country. This included the stadia and arenas to stage the events, the Olympic Village to house the athletes, the national and international transportation systems to efficiently get people to and from the host city, and the local transportation systems to shuttle people to and from the events. If funds were needed to build this infrastructure, they typically were raised through taxation, lotteries, and private investment. Chris Townsend explained:
The costs of any Olympics can be broken down into “software” or people costs and
“hardware” or infrastructure costs. Software costs are the responsibility of the OCOG, and include the expenses associated with planning the Games, housing the athletes, and running the events. In contrast, hardware costs are the responsibility of the host city and depend greatly on the existing infrastructure. For instance, prior to hosting the 2000 Games, Sydney had good venues and a modern transportation system. But Beijing bid on the 2008 Games knowing it would need to build many new facilities and significantly upgrade its transportation system.
For the past three Games, these infrastructure costs ranged from $2 billion for Sydney, to $15 billion for Athens, to $40 billion for Beijing. In the case of Sydney, the need for new infrastructure was limited to several new venues. In contrast, China built a new terminal at the Beijing Airport, doubled the size of the Beijing subway system, and built a new 80-mile intercity railway system into Beijing. It also constructed 12 new sports venues and upgraded many others. Finally, it built the Athletes
Village—living, dining, and relaxation quarters for athletes and officials—which was to be turned into apartments and public housing after the Games.
The 2012 Games
Great Britain was no stranger to the Olympic Games. It was one of only four nations to compete in all 26 Olympic Games, holding third place in total number of medals won. It had successfully hosted the 1908 and 1948 London Games. And it had bid on the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Games.
Winning the rights to the 2012 Games was far from certain, however, with Paris, New York,
Moscow, and Madrid also in the final running. The process to select the host city consisted of a series of secret ballots, with each IOC member voting for the city of his or her choice. After each round of voting, if no city obtained a majority of the votes cast, the city with the lowest number of votes was eliminated, and the remaining cities advanced to a new round of voting.
By most accounts, Paris was the favorite to win the rights to the 2012 Games. However, many believed the London bid was aided by the addition of Sebastian Coe to the London Bid Committee in
2004. Coe was the 1980 and 1984 gold medalist in the 1,500-meter run, was widely considered one of the greatest middle-distance runners of all time, had served as a member of the British Parliament, and was widely respected both within and outside the Olympic community.
In the end, the IOC apparently was impressed by the proposal that the London Bid Committee submitted. As announced on July 6, 2005, to the joy of its many supporters,3 London had won the
3 Surveys in 2004/2005 showed that 70% of the people of the UK and 68% of Londoners supported the London bid.
4
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
rights to host the 2012 Games in a final, head-to-head ballot in which London received 54 votes to
Paris’s 50.
The Plans for the 2012 Games
The 2012 Games were scheduled to run from July 27 to August 12, with over 12,000 athletes from
205 countries expected to compete across 26 sports and 300 events.
With 7.9 million tickets up for sale, the LOCOG anticipated an average of 500,000 spectators per day to attend the Games, with up to 800,000 on the busiest days. It estimated that roughly 30% of all tickets would be purchased by Londoners, 25% by United Kingdom residents who lived outside of
London, 20% by people from the rest of Europe, and 25% by people from the rest of the world.
In addition, it expected 10,000 Olympic and political dignitaries to watch some or all of the
Games, 20,000 journalists and media personnel to cover the Games, 60,000 security personnel to ensure safety, and 100,000 paid and volunteer workers to help run the Games.
Location and Venues
A key selling point in the London bid was the plan to build the centerpiece of the Games—the Olympic Park—in East London. As stated in London’s bid document:
Great Games leave welcome legacies. Consistent with London’s long-term plan, the Games will stimulate vital economic and social regeneration in what is now a disadvantaged area.
Creation of the Olympic Park will involve restoring large tracts of land in East London, with new green spaces and revived wetlands. The Olympic Village will become a desirable and socially diverse new residential area, providing 3,600 new homes in a community transformed by the Games.
The intent was to develop 500 acres of existing industrial and waste land in East London into the
Olympic Park. By 2012, this would include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium—for Opening and Closing Ceremonies and athletics
The 17,500-seat Aquatics Center—for diving, swimming, and water polo
The 12,000-seat London Velopark—for indoor track cycling and outdoor BMX cycling
The 12,000-seat Basketball Arena
The 15,000-seat Olympic Field Hockey Center
The 17,000-bed Olympic Village
After the Games, the plan was to reduce the size of several of the larger venues to fit with the surrounding community, to relocate several of the smaller venues to other parts of the country where they could be better utilized, and to convert the Olympic Village into 3,600 units of affordable housing, with an additional 5,400 new homes to be built later.
The remaining sports would use existing venues located throughout London and the UK, including Earl’s Court (volleyball), ExCeL London (judo, weightlifting, wrestling), Hyde Park
(triathlon), the Millennium Dome (gymnastics), Wimbledon (tennis), and Wembley (football).
Transportation
A second critical element of the London bid was a plan to make the 2012
Games the first “public transport” Olympics, with close to 100% of ticketed spectators traveling to the
Olympic events by such means. To make this happen, existing transportation links to and from the
East London area were to be expanded and upgraded, turning it into one of the best-connected
5
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
communities in the city. The most talked-about of these efforts was a 12-car subway shuttle called the
“Olympic Javelin,” which would ferry passengers from King’s Cross Station, in the heart of London, to the Olympic Park in just 7 minutes.
These efforts were expected to support the transport of up to 240,000 passengers per hour into and out of the Olympic Park area. In turn, to encourage spectators to use public transportation, the
LOCOG had announced that the price of every ticket to an Olympic event would include the use of
London’s public transportation network on the day of that event.
Atmosphere
Finally, the LOCOG hoped to engage and excite the British public. While Sydney came to be called the “Laid-Back Games,” and Beijing had been unofficially dubbed the “No Fun
Games,” the LOCOG wanted the legacy of the 2012 Games to be one of inclusiveness. Toward this end, Sebastian Coe noted:
Whilst London will be the principal venue, it is the entire United Kingdom which will be the host. The London 2012 Games will be Everybody’s Games. . . . London 2012 will be the most accessible and participative Games ever . . . . Putting on Everybody’s Games, we are clear that our stakeholders are the 60 million people living in Britain.4
Manning-Cooper, Head of PR and Media, highlighted what this meant at a practical level:
To deliver on the promise of Everybody’s Games, we plan to have free open-air festivals in and around London every night of the Games, we will place large screen TVs throughout the
UK to encourage a community atmosphere, and we will bring football—the most popular sport in the country—to the public by having preliminary rounds in Glasgow, Cardiff,
Manchester, Birmingham, and Newcastle.
Yet, the reality is that the average person wants to talk about tickets. First, they ask about availability, worried that the vast majority of tickets will be snapped up by the IOC, corporate sponsors, and wealthy foreigners. Second, they ask about pricing, fearing that even if tickets are available, they won’t be affordable. Ultimately, the thing that will make these “Everyone’s
Games” will be fair and equitable access to the events themselves.
Delivering the 2012 Games
The two groups responsible for delivering the 2012 Games were the LOCOG, which would stage the Games, and a quasi-governmental organization called the Olympic Delivery Authority, which would build the infrastructure.
The LOCOG’s forecasted budget was $3 billion.5 Roughly $1.2 billion of this would come from its share of the broadcast revenues and international sponsorships, as determined by the IOC. The
LOCOG was responsible for the rest, with a planned $1 billion coming from about 60 domestic sponsors, $650 million from ticket sales, and $150 million from licensing fees.
The Olympic Delivery Authority’s total expenses were projected to run about $12 billion: $6 billion for the building of the Olympic Park, $4 billion for transportation upgrades, and the rest for
4 Excerpt from a speech by Sebastian Coe at the British Museum on March 11, 2008.
5 The IOC reported financial data in U.S. dollars. The LOCOG used the British pound. For consistency, we have converted the
LOCOG budget of £2 billion to $3 billion, based on an exchange rate of 1:1.5 in the spring of 2009.
6
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
smaller projects, contingencies, and taxes. Roughly 60% of these funds would come from national taxes, 15% would come from London city taxes, and 20% would come from the National Lottery.
Selling Tickets to the Games
Hired as Head of Ticketing in September 2007, Paul Williamson was no stranger to large sporting events. Previously, he had helped set ticketing guidelines for several FIFA World Cup Finals, the
2007 Rugby World Cup, the 2007 Cricket World Cup, and the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth
Games. Also, he had acted as a ticketing advisor to the IOC for the 2002 and 2006 Winter Olympics.
As such, he was well aware of the challenges the LOCOG faced:
Ticketing for the FIFA World Cup is a great experience, but it pales in comparison to the
Olympic Games. For a World Cup Final, you sell three million tickets to 64 matches played over 30 days in 10 or 12 major cities. The teams are all of very high caliber, the stadia are all well established, and football is the most popular sport in the world. With the Olympic Games, we are trying to sell almost eight million tickets to 26 different sports played over 17 days, with some sports wildly popular and others a complete mystery to the average person. In reality, we are running 26 world championships in a fortnight.
While many ticketing issues were still up in the air, some had already been decided. In particular, it was known that:
•
A total of 7.9 million tickets would be available for sale across all events (see Exhibit 6).
•
In late 2010, international and domestic sponsors, the 205 National Olympic Committees, the International Federations, and other IOC affiliates could place requests for tickets— specifying how many tickets at each price point they desired for each event. All would pay full price for any tickets ultimately received and, collectively, these groups would receive no more than 25% of available tickets.
•
In the spring of 2011, the general public could similarly place requests for tickets, via an online ballot, specifying the event, number of tickets, and price point they desired.
•
In the summer of 2011, ticket requests from both the IOC affiliates and the public would be processed and individuals would be informed as to whether they had obtained tickets.
•
Later in 2011 and into 2012, any remaining tickets would be offered for direct sale.
•
During the Games, tickets still not sold would be available for purchase at box offices throughout London.
Williamson noted that those applying for tickets were requesting entry to a particular event within a certain price tier. Not until tickets were matched to requests, in the summer of 2011, would customers find out where they actually sat in the stadium or arena. Williamson elaborated:
For virtually all of the events in the Games, there will be price tiers for tickets. If tickets for an event are, for example, $30, $60, and $100, you might request four tickets in the $60 price tier on a given day. In turn, the LOCOG promises that the $100 seats will be better than the $60
7
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
seats and the $60 seats will be better than the $30 seats. After all the requests are in, we begin to allocate tickets to those that have requested them and assign people to specific seats. If the requested day and price tier is undersubscribed, your request will be filled. If it is oversubscribed, a lottery-like process will decide who gets seats and who does not. In either case, we will let you know the outcome.
Managing Ticket Revenues
When it came to managing ticket revenues, Williamson and his team looked to the 2000 Sydney
Games for inspiration:
While the 2004 Athens Games and the 2008 Beijing Games were wonderful events, they do not provide a great ticketing benchmark for the London Games. Athens was hampered by the small size of the city and the limited capacity of the venues. And Beijing tried hard to make tickets affordable for its domestic population, resulting in ticket prices that were artificially low. But the Sydney Games were staged in large venues in the largest city of a wealthy, sportsloving country. People were willing to pay to attend events and the results reflected this fact.
The LOCOG also viewed sufficient ticket revenues as vital to the legacy of the 2012 Games.
As Chris Townsend noted:
With so much money involved in the Games, it is easy to view ticket sales as a drop in the bucket. What is $650 million when the Olympic Delivery Authority is spending $12 billion to build the Olympic Park and the Olympic Javelin? But let’s put things in perspective. Last year,
Manchester United generated about $150 million in ticket revenues over a nine-month season, while the New York Yankees sold $120 million in tickets over a six-month season. We’re looking to bring in four to five times those amounts, which will have a major impact on the financial legacy of these Games.
But Williamson knew that maximizing ticket revenue meant more than just charging high prices:
Peoples’ willingness-to-pay for a given event will depend on many factors. There’s an expectation about what a ticket should cost based on other sporting events in and around
London (see Exhibit 7). There’s the global appeal of a sport, with swimming and gymnastics being very popular around the world. There’s the local appeal of the sport, often driven by the host country’s past success in that sport (see Exhibit 8). There’s the event stage, with most people wanting to see those stages where the gold medals are awarded. And then there’s a particular team or athlete that makes the difference.
Williamson also reasoned that the pricing of tickets at past Games (see Exhibit 9) provided only limited guidance for the pricing of the London Games:
First, every host city possesses unique tastes, culture, and atmosphere. While beach volleyball may be big in Australia, table tennis is king in China. Second, the reach of the Games varies by location. Given the difficulties in getting into China, tickets to the Beijing Games were largely limited to the Chinese. Given the proximity of London to the rest of Europe, we anticipate a much more international crowd. Third, this will be the first Games where ticketing
8
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
will be done via the Internet, which may alter demand for some events.6 Finally, with the current global financial crisis, London 2012 is entering uncharted territories.
Managing Attendance
The LOCOG also wanted to fill the many venues during the games. As stated in the London bid document, “Great Games generate genuine enthusiasm. This will be demonstrated . . . by full stadia across a wide range of events . . .” Given that organizers expected close to five billion television viewers to watch some part of the 2012 Games, the last image the LOCOG wanted broadcast to the world was that of half-empty arenas.
Everyone at the LOCOG understood the potential fallout from attendance shortfalls. Pinned to a nearby bulletin board were several articles from recent games. In reference to the 2004 Athens Games, one New York Times headline read, “Summer 2004 Games: Seats May Be Empty, But Not the Beaches.”
And in regard to the 2008 Beijing Games, the Los Angeles Times proclaimed, “Empty Seats Are a
Mystery at Beijing Olympics.”
Williamson broke down the challenge of maximizing attendance into two parts. “First, you have to get people to buy the tickets. Second, you have to get those who purchased tickets to actually use them. Neither of these is a trivial task.”
When it came to getting people “to buy the tickets,” Williamson had no illusions:
You just can’t sell every ticket to every event. The Opening Ceremony? Sure. The final day of track and field? Sure. Michael Phelps in any of the swimming events? Sure. But what about a preliminary round of handball, table tennis, or archery? The demand is just lower for certain sports. The reality is, there are really three classes of events we must manage. First, there are the big four—swimming, artistic gymnastics, athletics, and the ceremonies—where demand historically far exceeds supply and which will likely sell out at almost any price. We would expect about 40% of ticket revenues to come from these four sports. Second, there is football, with almost two million tickets across 58 men’s and women’s matches. If there is any single sport with which we obsess, it is football. On the one hand, football is the most popular sport in Europe, which works in our favor. On the other hand, unlike the FIFA World Cup, the
Olympic teams are largely limited to players under 23 years of age, eliminating some of the biggest names in the sport.7 We hope to generate another 10% of ticket revenue from football.
Third, there are all the other sports, where supply historically exceeds demand and where we have to work hard to maximize sales.
Given all of this, a ticket manager has to be inept to sell less than 65% of his available seats, but selling 95% is not realistic either. If you end up selling 85% of your available tickets, then I think you have done a very, very good job.
6 The Beijing OCOG attempted to sell tickets online to the 2008 Games, but overwhelming demand caused the system to crash
on the first day of public sales. As a result, many of the tickets to the 2008 games were sold manually.
7 According to IOC rules, Olympic national teams are limited to players under 23 years of age, with three slots available for players 23 or older.
9
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
But the challenge did not end with merely selling the tickets. As the Beijing organizers discovered, getting people to use the tickets that they had purchased was equally tough. Commenting on one field hockey match in Beijing, the Los Angeles Times noted:
Tickets were in such short supply for Friday night’s field hockey match. . . . At the box office, clerks told disappointed ticket seekers that the game was “sold out.” . . . But inside the
17,000-seat Olympic Hockey Stadium, the stands were a sea of blue—the color of the rows and rows of empty plastic seats. When the game began, only a quarter of the seats were filled . . .
It’s one of the great mysteries of the Beijing Olympics: In what is reportedly the first sold-out
Games in Olympic history, many venues are far from full, with the expanses of empty seats giving events a somewhat forlorn appearance.8
The Los Angeles Times article went on to say that Beijing organizers attributed this lack of attendance to the large number of tickets purchased by sponsors, set aside for IOC VIPs, and provided to the media, many of which went unused. Others noted that spectators may have purchased tickets for a day-long event, such as tennis, but stayed for only one or two matches. And still others speculated that a large number of Chinese citizens may have purchased a ticket to an event, never intending to travel to the Games and use that ticket, but as a low-priced souvenir from the Games.
In a curious response to this lack of attendance, Chinese Olympic officials admitted to bussing in local volunteers in an attempt to fill empty seats and to improve the atmosphere at venues where attendance was sparse.9 As The New York Times reported, “There were entire sections of empty seats behind both goals at the field hockey stadium on Monday. Next to them were sections packed with fans dressed in identical shirts, pounding inflatable bats and being led in rehearsed cheers.”10
Commenting on this practice, one Australian spectator noted, “It’s better. Nobody likes an empty stadium. But you can tell they’ve just been brought in here to fill seats. They know nothing about hockey. They cheer at all the wrong times.”11
Managing Perceptions
A third concern for the LOCOG was the impression its ticketing policies would create among the very many groups that the Games affected. In particular, to help deliver on its goal of making these
“Everybody’s Games,” the LOCOG wanted to involve and engage the local citizens. At the same time, the laws of the European Union (EU) prevented the LOCOG from offering price discounts to the local community that it did not also offer to other EU citizens.
The LOCOG also was sensitive to the impressions its pricing policies made among the athletes, the National Olympic Committees, and the International Federations. While all could accept the fact that swimming was more popular than table tennis in the United Kingdom, the price differential between tickets to the various events was a delicate issue for those involved. As Williamson noted,
“We are dealing with 26 valid sports. This doesn’t mean we have to price them all the same, but we
8 Barbara Demick, “Empty Seats are a Mystery at Beijing Olympics,” the Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2008.
9 Peter Sharp, “Empty Seats: Beijing Goes Local,” SkyNews, August 13, 2008.
10 John Branch, “Well-Trained Fans Are at the Ready, if Seats Need to be Filled,” The New York Times, August 13, 2008.
11 Barbara Demick, “Empty Seats are a Mystery at Beijing Olympics,” the Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2008.
10
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
510-039
can’t price in such a way as to disrespect any particular sport.” But he wondered what this meant in practice. Third, given his many years in ticketing, Williamson was concerned with the secondary market for tickets to the 2012 Games. After all, while he felt that the LOCOG should not be held responsible for unscrupulous resellers, he knew that much of the public would disagree. As such, Williamson planned to publicize the LOCOG’s intent to prosecute those individuals and entities reselling either real or fraudulent tickets over the Internet.
Time to Decide
As Williamson considered the task before him, he wondered about the tradeoffs he might be forced to make. For instance, if he could choose between two outcomes—exceeding his ticket revenue targets by $50 million with 70% attendance or coming up short by $50 million with 90% attendance— which should he take? Would it make any difference if he were wearing an IOC hat as opposed to an
LOCOG hat? Would it make any difference if he were the head of the LOCOG as opposed to its Head of Ticketing? And would he feel differently during or after the Games than he would 18 months before the Games?
As he took a final look at the burgeoning Olympic Park, Williamson observed, “When the 2012
Games are over, we will not have gotten everything about ticketing right. We accept that. But, given that we know we are going to be wrong, what do we have to do to be ‘least wrong’?”
11
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
Exhibit 1
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Map of the Planned Sites for the 2012 London Olympics
Source: Map created by the Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University. Data Sources: ESRI Data and Maps 2008,
LAND INFO Worldwide Mapping, LLC.
12
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 2
Year
510-039
Olympic Host Cities and Participation
Host City
Nations
Sports
Events
Athletes
Male
Female
Total
1896
Athens, Greece
14
9
43
241
0
241
1900
Paris, France
24
17
95
975
22
997
1904
St. Louis, United States
13
14
91
645
6
651
1908
London, England
22
21
110
1971
37
2,008
1912
Stockholm, Sweden
28
13
102
2359
48
2,407
1916
Cancelled
―
―
―
―
―
1920
Antwerp, Belgium
29
21
154
2,561
65
2,626
1924
Paris, France
44
17
126
2,954
135
3,089
1928
Amsterdam, Holland
46
14
109
2,606
277
2,883
1932
Los Angeles, United States
37
14
117
1,206
126
1,332
1936
Berlin, Germany
49
19
129
3,632
331
3,963
1940
Cancelled
―
―
―
―
―
―
1944
Cancelled
―
―
―
―
―
―
1948
London, England
59
17
136
3,714
390
4,104
1952
Helsinki, Finland
69
17
149
4,436
519
4,955
1956
Melbourne, Australia
72
16
145
2,938
376
3,314
1960
Rome, Italy
83
17
150
4,727
611
5,338
1964
Tokyo, Japan
93
19
163
4,473
678
5,151
1968
Mexico City, Mexico
112
18
172
4,735
781
5,516
1972
Munich, Germany
121
21
195
6,075
1,059
7,134
1976
Montreal, Canada
92
21
198
4,824
1,260
6,084
1980a
Moscow, USSR
80
21
203
4,064
1,115
5,179
1984b
Los Angeles, United States
140
21
221
5,263
1,566
6,824
1988
Seoul, South Korea
159
23
237
6,197
2,194
8,391
1992
Barcelona, Spain
169
25
257
6,652
2,704
9,356
1996
Atlanta, United States
197
26
271
6,806
3,512
10,318
2000
Sydney, Australia
199
28
300
6,582
4,069
10,651
2004
Athens, Greece
201
28
301
6,262
4,306
10,568
2008
Beijing, China
204
28
302
6,450
4,746
11,196
2012
London, England (projected)
205
26
300
n/a
n/a
12,500
Source:
Adapted from the International Olympic Committee website.
―
a Reflects a boycott of the Olympics by the United States, West Germany, Japan, Canada, and 50+ other countries. b Reflects a boycott of the Olympics by the USSR, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, and 10 other countries.
13
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 3
Broadcast Revenues for the Olympic Games (1984–2008)
Olympic Games
1984 Los Angeles
Broadcast Revenue
(in millions)
$ 287
1988 Seoul
403
1992 Barcelona
636
1996 Atlanta
893
2000 Sydney
1,332
2004 Athens
1,494
2008 Beijing
1,737
Source:
Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
Exhibit 4
International Sponsors Revenue for the Olympic Games (1988–2008)
Olympic Games
Number of
Revenues
Int’l Sponsors
(in millions)
1988 Seoul
9
$ 67
1992 Barcelona
12
120
1996 Atlanta
10
195
2000 Sydney
11
405
2004 Athens
11
464
2008 Beijing
12
606
Source:
Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
Note:
Prior to 1988, international and domestic sponsorship were combined.
Exhibit 5
Ticket Sales for the Olympic Games (1984–2008)
Olympic Games
Tickets Available for Sale
Tickets Sold
Ticket Revenue
(in millions)
(in millions)
(in millions)
1984 Los Angeles
6.9
5.7
$156
1988 Seoul
4.4
3.3
36
1992 Barcelona
3.9
3.0
79
1996 Atlanta
11.0
8.3
425
2000 Sydney
7.6
6.7
551
2004 Athens
5.3
3.8
228
2008 Beijing
6.8
6.8
200 (est.)
Source:
Adapted from the IOC “Olympic Marketing Fact File—2008 Edition.”
14
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 6
510-039
Tickets Available for Sale, by Sport, for the 2012 Gamesa
Sport
Gold Medal Events
Aquatics: Swimming
Water polo
Diving
Synchronized Swimming
Archery
Athletics (Track & Field)
Badminton
Basketball
Boxing
Canoe and Kayak
Cycling: Indoor Track
Outdoor Road
Mountain
BMX
Equestrian
Fencing
Field Hockey
Football (Soccer)
Gymnastics: Artistic
Rhythmic
Trampoline
Handball
Judo
Modern Pentathlon
Rowing
Sailing
Shooting
Table Tennis
Taekwondo
Tennis
Triathlon
Volleyball: Indoor
Beach
Weightlifting
Wrestling
Total Athletic Events
Opening and Closing Ceremonies
34
2
8
2
4
47
5
2
11
16
10
4
2
2
6
10
2
2
14
2
2
2
14
2
14
11
15
4
8
4
2
2
2
15
18
300
Other Eventsb
Grand Total
Source:
Tickets Available
185,000
125,000
210,000
90,000
70,000
756,000
95,000
400,000
182,000
215,000
28,000
4,000
8,000
10,000
235,000
120,000
520,000
1,975,000
185,000
25,000
25,000
205,000
110,000
7,000
224,000
1,000
25,000
85,000
36,000
237,000
18,000
500,000
350,000
95,000
130,000
7,476,000
120,000
365,000
7,961,000
London OCOG.
a The numbers reflect best estimates as of spring 2009. b Other events include cultural events and non-judged sporting exhibitions.
15
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 7
Price Ranges for a Ticket to Various Sporting Events in the United Kingdom and Europe
Event
Price Range (in $)a
English Premier League Football:b
Arsenal
50 – 135
Fulham
40 – 70
West Ham United
50 – 95
Wimbledon Tennis:
Outside Courts
30
Centre Court
England Football
60 – 150
Friendly:c
Adult Ticket
45 – 60
Children’s Ticket
England Under-21
Adult Ticket
15
Children’s Ticket
10
2008 European Cup
Source:
25
Football:d
Football:e
Group Matches
45 – 120
Finals
200 – 450
London OCOG estimates.
a All prices converted to U.S. dollars to aid in comparison. b The English Premier League consists of the best club teams in England (e.g., Arsenal, Manchester United, etc.). c An “England Football Friendly” is an exhibition match between the English national football team and another country’s
national team. d England Under-21 is a national team comprised of the best players under 21 years of age. e The European Cup (or Champions League) is an annual tournament to determine the best club team in Europe. It is widely
considered the most prestigious club trophy in the world.
16
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Exhibit 8
510-039
Medal Success of the Host Country in the Three Preceding Gamesa
Host City/Country
2012 London (Great Britain)
Number of Medals Wonb
Indoor Track Cycling
Sailing
Athletics
Rowing
Swimming
Other
Total:
20
16
14
13
10
31
104
2008 Beijing (China)
Diving
Table Tennis
Shooting
Weightlifting
Badminton
Gymnastics
Other
Total:
24
22
22
19
17
17
51
172
2004 Athens (Greece)
Weightlifting
Athletics
Gymnastics
Other
Total:
11
6
3
3
23
Swimming
Indoor Track Cycling
Rowing
Canoe/Kayak
Athletics
Other
Total:
24
14
8
8
6
21
81
2000 Sydney (Australia)
Source:
Sport
Adapted from the International Olympic Committee website.
a Meaning the three Games immediately preceding the Olympic Games in the host country. b Includes gold, silver, and bronze medals.
17
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
510-039
Exhibit 9
The London 2012 Olympic Games
Historic Ticket Pricing for Select Olympic Events, in U.S. Dollarsa
Event/Sport
Event Stage
Opening Ceremony
Aquatics – Swimming
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finalsb
Athletics
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Finals
Cycling—Indoor Track
Gymnastics—Artistic
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Table Tennis
Preliminaries
Quarter Finals
& Semifinals
Finals
Wrestling
Preliminaries
Prelim/Finals
Pricing Tier
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 1
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 1
Tier 2
Sydney 2000
Athens 2004
$ 869
619
318
66
$ 597
472
220
63
88
50
22
286
142
60
53
41
22
104
79
41
286
179
60
41
66
88
53
223
179
25
44
28
19
126
63
31
16
9
6
57
44
25
189
94
47
35
35
41
22
126
75
6
35
9
47
19
35
22
53
35
16
9
38
25
Beijing 2008
$ 627
376
188
100
25
38
25
13
75
38
19
25
13
6
100
50
25
100
50
25
6
13
13
6
38
19
13
6
38
19
63
25
13
6
25
13
Source: London OCOG. a Prices have not been adjusted for inflation and reflect actual prices at the time of the games (converted to U.S. dollars). b Prelim/Finals reflect session in which both preliminary events and final events are being contested.
18
Downloaded by Vivian Paniz on 1/07/2015. Nova Southeastern University, Bay O'Leary, Winter 2015
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Part A - Research the Salt Lake City Olympics scandal and address specific issues that link to Bigtown's situation.…
- 328 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Sport England has invested a lot of money into London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.…
- 950 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In Frank Romero's, "Going to the Olympics" painting has a lot of cool and interesting stuff in it. There are cars with hearts above them, palm trees, a blimp with "Goodyear" spelling across it and symbols of the Olympics. I see iron, two men fighting, a horse and a stamp. All of these are most likely related to the Olympics. The cars probably mean that L.A has a lot of cars, especially since it was painted on a freeway and there is a bunch of traffic on them. Especially on the 405 at nights, which makes me think that the cars mean a bunch of traffic in L.A.…
- 939 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The technology right now allows people from different countries to communicate with each other, by airplane, cellphone, email. However in 1892, such technology did not exist, but people unite in different way – Olympic. It is an athletic game originally held in Greece city states every four years in honor of Zeus, their god. Shaped by many factors; ever since the first modern Olympic start in Athens in 1896 this competition became international celebrated. Such as the countries ‘pride of associate with Olympic, the impact of conflict political view affects the team, the economic opportunities created by the events, and influence of society views on gender role of female.…
- 707 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
• The “jury is still out” on the 2012 Olympics. Although some people have lost…
- 2599 Words
- 11 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The Olympic games were brought back by a man named Pierre de Coubertin when he made a speech to the Athletic Society of France in 1892 (Doc 1). Since the games came back they have shaped the economies, national pride and the social changes in multiple countries.…
- 602 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The Olympics were revived in 1896 thanks to Pierre de Coubertin. Since its reemergence in 1896, the modern Olympic movement has been shaped and influenced politically through the tensions between countries, economically through financial gain opportunity, and socially by promoting women’s rights. Another document I would like to have seen would be one containing a record of third world countries that have attended the Olympics. This document would have shown how wealth effects and shapes the modern Olympics.…
- 874 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
“Discuss the likely impacts of London 2012 upon UK sport and society critically considering its likely legacy for all levels of British society.”…
- 3186 Words
- 13 Pages
Best Essays -
The Canada Press, (2009, January 7). Recession not all bad for staging of 2010 Olympic games. Google News. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i0S7I00qS-jtJC7UMbK5wXuSAuOg…
- 1821 Words
- 8 Pages
Best Essays -
n the mural "Going to the Olympics" by artist Frank Romero, he captivates the attention of his viewers in Los Angeles. His painting includes symbols, drawings, and of course meaning. It is composed of colorful cars, a blimp, wrestling horse, iron, hearts, stamps and palm trees. These symbols can be for various reasons for example the wrestling could have to do with the olympics at the time. The hearts can symbolize the love we should share as a community. Also realize that they are in between the cars signifying love amongst all. The crowded cars symbolize the traffic and a community brought together. The vivid color choices of Romero signify that this is a positive vibe he want to show in his art work.…
- 996 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
the East-end of London will be the main focus of the Olympic Zone, Stratford being host to a brand new 80,000-seater Olympic Stadium.…
- 327 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
In the image "Going to the Olympics," by Frank Romero, he used specific images to symbolize the city of Los Angeles. In the top of the painting we can observe a couple of men fighting and a horse. The two men fighting might represent the effort that the city has made to get where they are at this point, while the horse might represent the power that the people have when they're together. It also shows five cars, each with a heart above, which might mean all the missions in California and how lovely the people of California is.…
- 499 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The first Olympics are thought to have been traced all the way back to 776 BC. In origin, The Olympic games were a tribute to the gods like Zuce. These games took place on the Plains of Olympia. Back then there was only one game, the Stadion. This was a foot race that resembles the modern 200M races. The games were clearly much smaller in contras to our current 25+ events for just summer Olympics alone. Now the Olympics are hosted in country’s all around the world, changing the location every time the games are held.…
- 658 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Public Funding: The Great Impact On the Community Supersized digital displays, retractable roofs, luxurious suits and seats, brand new state of the art technology, all things that are publicly financed by taxpayers and host cities of professional sports teams for their stadiums. Public subsidization is a policy that needs to stay around. Public funding of sports stadiums will boost the economy of not only the city, but the region around the city as well. When cities are willing to bring in and subsidize major sports teams stadiums, they are creating jobs, creating economic opportunity in the region, and attracting other tourists into the city. When a new sports stadium is being brought into a city, it brings more than just the attraction…
- 1188 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The Olympic Games are a significant event not only in today's society but also in the lives of the ancient Greeks, with its origins stretching way back to the classical time. The Ancient Olympic Games were primarily a part of a religious festival that honoured Zeus, the father of the Greek gods and goddesses. They were an athletic event that was held every 4 years and began in the early 700 BC. The Ancient Olympic Games were held at Olympia, which is in the south-west of Greece, and involved a series of athletic competitions among representatives of the 10 city-states. The Olympics are said to have mythological origins, with many different myths claiming to be the cause of the games.…
- 1567 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays