Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Click here Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 92

									            Report to the
         Secretary of State
    (Physical Activity and Sport)
                 On
Hosting International Sport Events in
             Canada –
A proposal for a strategic framework




            September 2003
September 2003


The Honourable Paul DeVillers
Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport)
Government of Canada


Dear Secretary of State,

        On behalf of my colleagues on the Strategic Hosting Work Group, I am pleased to
provide you with our final report, a proposed strategic framework on hosting
international sport events in Canada.

        This past April, you presented us with a difficult, but interesting challenge. As
you know, the hosting of sport events in Canada provides a number of sport, cultural,
social, and economic benefits to Canadians. However, in recent years, the
federal-provincial/territorial governments have faced various pressures and challenges in
supporting the hosting of sport events in Canada, in maximizing their benefits while
remaining fiscally responsible.

        I had the privilege of chairing a diverse, dynamic, and dedicated group of
individuals with vast experience and perspectives. They represented all regions of the
country. Their knowledge was drawn from work with key organizations within the sport
community and as event organizers, as well as in positions within the federal and
provincial governments, and the tourism sector. Those varied perspectives lead to
considerable analysis and rich discussion, and ultimately to a broad consensus around a
set of recommendations.

        In arriving at their recommendations, the Work Group and its support team has
analyzed recent trends in hosting in Canada, researched the approaches taken with
hosting sport events in other jurisdictions, and consulted with a cross-section of
stakeholders. The Work Group has been mindful of the precedent set by the Canadian
Sport Policy and the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Priorities for Collaborative Action,
2002-2005 with respect to the need for a collaborative, sport development-driven
framework for hosting. Ultimately, the group has put forward a proposed framework that
sets out a coordinated process among the Canadian sport community, all levels of
government and other stakeholders. It will ensure we have a strategic and coherent
approach to funding international events and to maximizing the benefits that Canada, and
the sport system, derives from them.
        The Work Group and the staff team accomplished this work within a remarkably
short time frame. Five meetings were held over five months; we also conducted two
cross-Canada consultations. We even had to manage a power blackout at a critical time.

        We recognize that our proposal is the initial step in a process that will require
further discussion within and amongst the sport community, provincial and territorial
governments, and other stakeholders. I feel confident, however, that the concepts and
principles included in this report will provide sufficient guidance to governments to
complete the process, and ensure a workable collaborative framework to hosting
international sport events.

        On behalf of the Work Group, I would like to thank the staff team from Canadian
Heritage that provided support, both administrative and analytical, to the Work Group, as
well as members of Sport Canada branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and in
particular the Hosting and Major Games Unit and Bid Secretariat, for their input and
expertise into this process. A special word of thanks must go, as well, to Judy Sutcliffe of
The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated, for the considerable commitment and expertise that
she brought to bear on this project.

      Thank you too, to the Work Group for their time, responsiveness, and the spirit of
openness and collaboration that they demonstrated throughout the process.

       I have appreciated the opportunity to chair this group of enthusiastic supporters of
the Canadian sport system.


                                                      Sincerely,




                                                      Jean-Pierre Blais
                                                      Chair
      MEMBERS OF THE HOSTING STRATEGY WORK GROUP

Chair:
Jean Pierre Blais
Assistant Deputy Minister
International and Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Canadian Heritage
Government of Canada

Graham McKay                                         Louie Di Palma
Manager of Sport & Physical Activity                 Manager - Recreation Unit
Development Section                                  Sport & Recreation Branch
British Columbia Ministry of Community,              Ontario Ministry of Tourism and
Aboriginal & Women’s Services                        Recreation

Ron Wight                                            Guy Thibault
Office of the Deputy Minister                        Conseiller recherche
Saskatchewan Department of Culture,                  Direction du sport et de l'activité physique
Youth and Recreation                                 Secrétariat au Loisir et au Sport, Québec

Rick Traer                                           Paul Hardy
Chief Executive Officer                              FIFA Marketing Consultant
Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance                      Directeur des Compétitions
                                                     Les 3es Championnats du monde
                                                     d’athlétisme jeunesse de l’IAAF
                                                     Sherbrooke, Québec

Éric Savard                                          Mr. Fred MacGillivray
Directeur général                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
Les 3es Championnats du monde                        Trade Centre Limited
d’athlétisme jeunesse de l’IAAF                      Halifax, Nova Scotia
Sherbrooke, Québec

Brian MacPherson                                     Mark Lowry
Director General                                     Executive Director, Sport
Canadian Paralympic Committee                        Canadian Olympic Committee

Peter Montopoli                                      Stacey Allaster
Chief Marketing Officer                              Vice President and Tournament Director
Skate Canada                                         Tennis Canada

NOTE: The members of the work group were acting in their personal capacities, not necessarily as
representatives of the organizations or governments for which they work
STAFF TEAM:

Mike McWhinney (Lead)                         Elaine Harvey
Senior Policy Advisor                         Manager
Assistant Deputy Minister’s Office            Hosting and Major Games
Department of Canadian Heritage               Sport Canada
                                              Department of Canadian Heritage

Judy Sutcliffe                                Jennifer Brenning
Principal                                     Program Officer
The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated              Sport Canada
Social Research Consultants                   Department of Canadian Heritage

Carole Romain-Saumier
Secretariat Coordination
Sport Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage


OBSERVERS:

Stephanie Ashton
Executive Assistant
Canadian Heritage
Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport)

Jean Gandubert
Special Advisor
Canadian Heritage
Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport)
             GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS


AWG        Arctic Winter Games
CBET       Competency-Based Education and Training
CONCACAF   Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean
           Association Football
CSP        Canadian Sport Policy
CSTA       Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance
FIFA       Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FINA       Fédération Internationale de Natation
FIS        Fédération Internationale de Ski
F-P/T      Federal – Provincial/Territorial
FPTSC      Federal – Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee
IAAF       International Amateur Athletic Federation
IF         International Federation
ISECG      International Sport Event Coordination Group
ISRC       Inter-provincial Sport and Recreation Council
ISSHP      International Single Sport Hosting Program
MSO        Multi-Sport Organization
NAIG       North American Indigenous Games
NSO        National Sport Organization
P/T        Provincial/Territorial
P/TSO      Provincial/Territorial Sport Organization
PCH        Department of Canadian Heritage
STEAM      Sport Tourism Economic Assessment Model
                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1
1.1       Issues                                                                                                            1
1.2       Research Findings                                                                                                 3
1.3       Strategic Hosting Framework                                                                                       3
1.4       Key Recommendations                                                                                               4
1.5       Conclusion                                                                                                        7

2.0     INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 8
2.1       Policy Context                                                                                                   8
2.2       Hosting Strategy Work Group                                                                                     11
2.3       Structure of the Report                                                                                         12
2.4       Approval Process and Announcements                                                                              13

3.0     BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 14
3.1       Issues: Need for a Strategy                                                                                     14

4.0     RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 16
4.1       History of Canadian Heritage Funding of International Sport Events in Canada                                    16
4.2       History of Other Federal Government Funding of International Sport Events                                       23
4.3       Economic Impact of Hosting International Sport Events                                                           24
4.4       Canadian Municipal & Provincial Hosting Strategies                                                              28
4.5       Other Countries Are Acting                                                                                      29
4.6       Bid Guidelines from International Federations                                                                   31

5.0     NEXT STEPS......................................................................................................... 33

6.0     PROPOSED STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK: ......................................... 35
6.1       Purpose of Hosting                                                                                              35
6.2       Principles                                                                                                      37
6.3       Scope - Categorization of Events                                                                                38
6.4       Conditions                                                                                                      42
6.5       Ideal Strategic Framework                                                                                       43
6.6       Objectives of a Strategic Hosting Framework                                                                     43
6.7       Determining International Sport Events Canada Should Seek To Host                                               43
6.7.1     Major Multi-Sport Events                                                                                        44
6.7.2     Single Sport Events                                                                                             45
6.7.3     Small International Sport Events                                                                                46
6.7.4     Large International Single Sport Events                                                                         48
6.8       Tools to Assist Bidders                                                                                         58
6.9       Coordinating the Bid Process – the International Sport Events Coordination
          Group (ISECG) and the Roster of Experts                                                                         59
6.10      Process for Domestic Bids Operated By NSOs / MSOs                                                               61
6.11      Timing for Review Process                                                                                       62
7.0   CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 64


APPENDICES                                                                                                            65

APPENDIX A: List of Recommendations .................................................................... 66
APPENDIX B: Communications Canada Program Requirements ............................ 70
APPENDIX C: Municipal and Provincial Hosting Strategies ..................................... 71
APPENDIX D: Other Jurisdictions’ Hosting Strategies ............................................. 75
APPENDIX E: International Federation Bid Requirements ....................................... 82
         REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPORT EVENT
                   HOSTING STRATEGY WORK GROUP


1.0    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hosting international sport events can bring direct and significant sport benefits. They
can also assist in achieving other federal objectives such as economic and social
development. The Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events (1996) noted
that hosting international sport events can also provide a forum for the celebration of
athletic, artistic and cultural excellence and provide Canadians with the opportunity to
contribute to the expression of Canadian identity.

The Canadian Sport Policy (2002) (CSP) echoed the benefits to sport of hosting
international sport events, but noted that Canada's fragmented approach had created
pressure on public and private funding sources, prevented coordination, and resulted in
regional disparities. The Federal –Provincial / Territorial Priorities for Collaborative
Action, 2002 – 2005 setting out the joint actions that all governments would take to begin
the implementation of the Canadian Sport Policy, identified one of the priorities of the
Enhanced Capacity Goal as the development of a sport event hosting strategy. The
actions were to create a working group with stakeholder representation, to assess
feasibility, and then to consult, to maximize the substantial economic benefit associated
with sport tourism.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group was appointed in April 2003 by the Secretary of State
(Physical Activity and Sport) with a mandate to identify why and when Canada should
host international sport events, if a collaborative framework to hosting was needed and if
it was feasible to develop such a framework among governments to guide hosting, then to
do so. The Work Group began work by identifying the issues currently surrounding the
hosting of international sport events.


1.1    Issues

Requests for funding support for international sport events have put increasing fiscal
pressure on governments at all levels. Discussions between the federal and
provincial/territorial governments about the size of their contributions sometimes take
place after an event has been awarded. Careful planning and consideration of such
issues as legacy—fiscal, sport programming and facility-based—may not be possible
given the pressure to release the funds and begin preparing for the event. In such
situations the sport community tends not to be involved in these governmental
discussions and the contribution they could make to legacy planning is sometimes
missed.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 1
In part due to this unplanned approach, the distribution of events across Canada has
not been sufficiently balanced. Much of this has been mainly driven by enthusiastic
communities who often have no prior experience bidding for or hosting international
sport events, and have led the drive to attract these events to their communities primarily
for economic or tourism reasons. The sport community is not involved, or involved at
the level they should be, in these discussions to ensure the best interests of sport are
being considered. As well, the National Sport Organization (NSO) /Multi-Sport
Organization (MSO) may only learn about the bid at the point that it is being brought
forward for decision by the International Federation (IF) as the IF requirement is such
that the bid must be submitted by the respective NSO/MSO. The event may not fit into
the NSO / MSO’s long range plans for the development of their sport.

Although the most effective argument to account for the expenditure of public funds
often is return on investment, to this point, measures of economic impact have not been
consistent nor has data been consistently collected on every event that has been funded.

The following needs identified by the Hosting Strategy Work Group were consistent with
those set out in the CSP’s Priorities for Collaborative Action. To establish priorities; to
strengthen planning resulting in fiscally responsible decisions; to balance the benefits of
hosting across the country; to involve the sport community; to engage the
federal/provincial/territorial governments in a partnership; to harness positively the
enthusiasm of community leaders and to develop a consistent approach to measuring
economic impact.

In setting out its proposed framework, the Work Group adopted the definitions used by
the Federal Hosting Policy and included the following international sport events: (1)
major multi-sport games; (2) large single sport championships; and (3) small single sport
championships. In all cases, participants must qualify to enter, or have entry that is
restricted. Canada Games, North American Indigenous Games and the Arctic Winter
Games were excluded from the Work Group’s purview because they are covered by
Federal-Provincial/Territorial (F-P/T) agreements1. National sport events were excluded
as they are covered by the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework of Sport
Canada2. Strategic focus events, such as les Jeux de la Francophonie that have an
important cultural component and achieve broader government purposes, were not
considered by the Work Group as they are determined by government objectives. A
focus on events that are primarily developmental or high performance sport also excluded
festivals or open invitational events that have not been identified in the NSOs
development plans.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group examined historical funding patterns both within the
Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and from other federal government
departments. It examined the economic impact of hosting and undertook cross-
jurisdictional research to determine if other countries faced the same issues and how such

1
    The Arctic Winter Games agreement is between the federal government and the territories.
2
    The SFAF is a management tool used by the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) to ensure that funds allocated to
    NSOs contribute to the federal sport objectives and priorities.



          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                   2
issues had been addressed. A consultation was conducted on the feasibility of developing
a collaborative framework, with stakeholders at the municipal, provincial/territorial and
national levels. It was confirmed not only that a framework was feasible but required.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group developed a Strategic Hosting Framework that would
not only result in a more orderly way to contribute to sport development and capacity
building, but would address the needs set out above.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group developed a mechanism for Federal-Provincial/
Territorial governments to respond to funding requests, as well as a strategy for Canada
to host a number of major multi-sport games and large single sport championships over
the next 25 – 30 years.


1.2    Research Findings

The history of the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) funding for
international sport events over the past 10 years shows a benefit of legacies (fiscal, sport
programming and infrastructure) that are derived from hosting major international sport
events. These benefits are primarily in the provinces where the events were held. These
major sport events have been hosted disproportionately across the country resulting in
regional imbalance in terms of legacies and building sport capacity.

Significant funding support can come to an Event Organizing Committee from
government departments other than Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and from other
departments / ministries within provincial / territorial governments. However, many
organizers are unaware of these various programs.

The data on the economic impact of hosting international sport events is shown in a
variety of tables in the report. There is however, no consistent method being used to
assess economic impact.

An examination of practices in other countries showed that other governments are taking
the lead in developing approaches to international sport event hosting. The reasons
varied from sport excellence to tourism, economic and community benefit. A number of
Canadian municipalities as well as some provincial governments are also developing
their own strategies around international sport event hosting, re-emphasizing the need for
coordination and collaboration.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group adopted features of other jurisdictions’ strategies in
developing its own proposed Strategic Hosting Framework.


1.3    Strategic Hosting Framework

The proposed Strategic Hosting Framework is a process of government decision-making.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group reiterated that the rationale for governmental support


      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                     3
to hosting international sport events in Canada be the following: building capacity in the
sport system (including enhancing excellence, participation, coaching and other human
resource development, and sport infrastructure); maximizing economic benefits and
maximizing community benefits (including an increased emphasis on physical activity
and healthy communities), as stipulated in the Canadian Sport Policy; and promoting
Canadian culture and values.


1.4        Key Recommendations

The Work Group recommends that the principles underlying the Strategic Hosting
Framework be: strengthened planning resulting in fiscally responsible decisions; regional
balance to distribute capacity building across the country; a sport development focus with
community leadership; and coordination and collaboration among municipalities, both
orders of government and the sport community.

The Work Group determined that Canada should clearly be involved in the hosting of
major international sport events and should seek to host the major multi-sport events, as
well as a specified number of single sport events.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group divided international single sport events into two
categories based on the size of the event operating budget and / or request for government
funding: large single sport events would have operating budgets of greater than $1
million and / or funding request to either order of government of greater than $250,000,
and small single sport events would have operating budgets of less than $1 million and /
or a funding request to either order of government of less than $250,000.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that the list of single sport international
events Canada should seek to host derive from the NSO’s excellence and sport
development plans. This list is to be shared with provinces, municipalities and event
promoters. Communities and event promoters wishing to host an event not identified by a
NSO must seek the endorsement of the NSO prior to moving forward.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group set the following objectives for a Strategic Hosting
Framework:

      •    To host two major multi-sport international sport events every ten (10) years (e.g.
           Olympic/Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games);
      •    To host one large international single sport event every two (2) years in Canada
           (e.g. FINA World Championships);
      •    To support financially thirty (30) or more small international single sport events
           every year in Canada (e.g. World single sport championships, World Cups); and
      •    To continue bidding for some events several times before a bid is successful,
           particularly for the more desirable events that other countries also want to host
           such as the Olympic / Paralympic Games.



          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               4
This time frame of two major events every decade is consistent with the pattern that
Canada has developed over the past 15 years.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that governments in Canada plan to host
the major international multi-sport events over the next 25 – 30 years, as shown in Table
1, in an effort to achieve the significant sport capacity building outcomes, economic and
community benefits and promotion of Canadian culture and values that hosting these
events afford.

                       Table 1: Major multi-sport events Canada should host

            Major Multi-Sport Event                      Canada should bid   Hosting Decision
                                                              to host in      made by IF in
       Olympic/Paralympic Summer                         2016/2020/2024        2009/2013/2017
       Games
       Olympic/Paralympic Winter                          2030
       Games                                                                   2023
       Commonwealth Games                                20143/20264           2007/2019
       Pan American Games                                2019                  2012
       Summer World University                           2015                  2010
       Games (FISU)
       Winter World University Games                     2015                  2010
       (FISU)
       Special Olympics World                            2017/2021             2012/2016
       Summer Games
       Special Olympics World Winter                     2019/2023             2014/2018
       Games

It may be necessary to bid for more than two major international multi-sport events every
10 years to ensure that the objective of hosting two major multi-sport events each decade
is achieved. The strategy recognizes that more bids may be won than planned over a
period of time. In such an eventuality, it is recommended that governments support
fewer bids for major international sport events over the next 10-year period to mitigate
the fiscal impact.

The timing of the bids to host these major multi-sport international events, and the
Canadian candidate city, is a matter to be discussed between the respective MSOs and
governments.

To achieve a better regional balance of sport infrastructure and legacy, the Hosting
Strategy Work Group recommends that support be provided to Atlantic Canada to enable
that part of the country to bid for and host a major international multi-sport or large single
sport event within the next decade.

3
    If Hamilton does not win the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid.
4
    If Hamilton wins the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid.



         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   5
As well, the Work Group recommended that a fixed percentage of both orders of
governments’ contribution to the operating expenses for major multi-sport and large
single international sport events be set aside for legacy.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that Event Organizing Committees be
apprised of and encouraged to access other Federal/Provincial/Municipal programs.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that the Sport Tourism Economic
Assessment Model (STEAM) developed by the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, form a
mandatory element of the assessment in advance of a bid for a major multi- or large
single international sport event and also a requirement for on-site completion while a
major or large international sport event is being hosted.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends two approaches to government decision-
making, based on the size of the event. For small international sport events, the
impetus for hosting would come from interested NSOs / bid communities / event
promoters. They would obtain government approval for bids prior to making contact
with an International Federation. F-P/T governments would review their submissions and
would be assisted in this review by a roster of experts with backgrounds in sport event
bidding and hosting, business, law, municipalities, sport tourism, and with International
Sport Federations.

For large international single sport events, governments and sport organizations would
work together to determine what events Canada should host to best accomplish the
purpose of building sport system capacity, economic and community development and
promoting Canadian culture and values.

This process would involve assessing international sport events to see if they meet the
purposes for hosting; estimating, with the assistance of the NSO/MSO, the likelihood of a
successful bid; identifying interested bid cities; informing F-P/T Ministers of the regional
distribution of bids; and if required, using a sport-run domestic bid process to identify the
Canadian candidate city prior to confirming the extent of government financial support
and submitting the bid to the International Federation. NSOs/MSOs undertaking a
domestic bid process would be asked to have regard for governments’ purposes in
hosting and the principles underlying the Strategic Hosting Framework.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that an International Sport Events
Coordination Group be created to undertake and coordinate the tasks connected with the
implementation of the Strategic Hosting Framework. The Coordination Group would
perform this coordination function in collaboration with F-P/T officials.. The
Coordination Group would also provide a report, on an information basis, to the annual
F-P/T Ministers' Conference. The Work Group proposes that the Coordination Group
could: work with industry, municipalities, sport organizations and both orders of
government to coordinate the development of analytical templates and materials to be
used in the bidding process; monitor and facilitate the bid process for both small and



      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 6
large international sport events; collect and maintain research materials on bids and
hosting; and ensure that a website is maintained that could form a focal point for
information exchange and update.


1.5    Conclusion

In conclusion, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted the complexity of the public
policy problems faced by governments in addressing the issue of hosting international
sport events. Hopefully, the proposed Strategic Hosting Framework begins to put order
in the process of bidding for and hosting international sport events in Canada. Further
work is needed by governments to refine this process. A challenge is also presented that
all governments ensure the final process, once approved, is adhered to and respected.

The recent history of all 14 F-P/T governments working together to develop and endorse
the Canadian Sport Policy laid the groundwork for continued cooperative efforts.
Finalizing and approving a Strategic Hosting Framework will need to follow that lead.
To address the issues of consistency and adherence, the Work Group recommends that
governments formally endorse this framework. The members of the Hosting Strategy
Work Group are pleased to have had the opportunity to make this contribution to the
development of sport in Canada.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 7
2.0         INTRODUCTION


2.1         Policy Context

Hosting large international multi-sport events has made an important contribution to
Canada in terms of economic impact, sport and cultural development, social cohesion,
civic / national pride, international recognition and post-games tourism5.

Recognizing the direct and significant sport benefits and opportunity to achieve other
federal objectives such as economic and social development that hosting international
sport events can bring, the Government of Canada in 1996 approved the Federal Policy
for Hosting International Sport Events (the Hosting Policy)6. Hosting international sport
events also provides a forum for the celebration of athletic, artistic and cultural
excellence and provides Canadians with the opportunity to contribute to the expression of
Canadian identity.

The Hosting Policy was needed because of the increasing number of requests for funding
support to the federal government each year, the rising overall cost of each event and the
associated escalation in the size of funding requests. The Hosting Policy was a decision-
making framework for the federal government to determine the level of its involvement
in hosting international sport events. It clarified the federal government’s role in hosting
major international sport events (e.g. Olympics, Pan-American Games), strategic focus
events (e.g. North American Indigenous Games) and single-sport hosting (e.g. world
championships, world cups). The Hosting Policy did not apply to the Canada Games that
are governed by a federal-provincial/territorial agreement.

Since 1996, the Hosting Policy’s requirement that federal support be obtained prior to a
bid being made to an international franchise holder has in practice sometimes been by-
passed. As well, the requirement that economic impact assessments be conducted was
sometimes not implemented due to the cost of conducting such assessments.
Consequently, the available documentation on the economic impact of these international
sport events is limited, and not consistent. Although the Hosting Policy provided for
matching public sector funds, as a federal document, the Hosting Policy was not binding
on provincial / territorial governments. On occasion, the arrangement of both federal and
provincial financing for an international sport event became caught up with other federal
– provincial discussions, unrelated to sport.

In 2002 the endorsement of the Canadian Sport Policy (CSP) by all 14 federal-provincial
/ territorial governments set a precedent. By endorsing a joint vision, as well as a joint
action plan, the Federal –Provincial/Territorial Priorities for Collaborative Action, 2002


5
    Mills Report (1998) “Sport – Leadership, Partnership and Accountability”
6
    The Federal Hosting Policy originated in 1989 and was revised in 1996 and 2000



          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                             8
– 2005, both orders of government committed to work cooperatively to accomplish the
vision and a number of actions.

The Canadian Sport Policy concurred with earlier documents that hosting international
sport events provides significant benefits for sport. However, after noting the problem
that “Canada's fragmented approach to hosting sport events … created tremendous
pressure on public and private funding sources, prevented the coordination of public
funding for such events, and resulted in regional disparities in terms of the significant
benefits hosting brings to a community” the CSP called for “a coordinated approach to
maximize the benefits of hosting events.”

The Canadian Sport Policy set a 10 year vision for sport in Canada and proposed to
accomplish this through four policy goals: Enhanced Participation, Enhanced
Excellence, Enhanced Capacity and Enhanced Interaction. The Enhanced Capacity goal
confirmed that efforts to address capacity building should focus on “identifying and
strengthening the weak links in the system, at the national, provincial/ territorial, and
community levels” to maximize the effectiveness of the sport system. One of the actions
that governments agreed to take was to develop a long-term strategic process for the
hosting of major national and international sport events to maximize their contribution to
sport and community objectives.

The F-P/T Priorities for Collaborative Action, 2002 – 2005, set out 13 priorities and 22
actions that governments agreed to undertake in the first three years after the Policy was
approved, to begin implementation. Ten workgroups were formed comprising
government and stakeholder representatives, to focus on the priorities requiring joint
federal – provincial/territorial action.

As might be expected, given the comprehensive nature of the Canadian Sport Policy and
the coordination required to implement it, some of the collaborative actions would have
an impact on others. That is, some of the 10 workgroups would be affected by or would
have an effect upon the development of a framework for hosting international sport
events. These are:

1.     Sport Excellence: Athlete development to podium level performance can be
       enhanced by Canada hosting an international sport event that gives Canadian
       athletes a chance to perform at home, as well as an inspirational target. In the
       context of a plan to achieve excellence, it is essential that National Sport
       Organizations have strategic hosting plans that target Canada hosting international
       sport events in their sports. Ideally, the design of a Strategic Hosting Framework
       should take into account these strategic hosting plans of NSOs, but currently,
       these plans have yet to be drawn up.

2.     Sport System Development: Similar to sport excellence, hosting an international
       sport event provides incentives / motivation for NSOs to develop international
       calibre coaches, technical officials, sport science and sport medicine practitioners
       as well as volunteers in sport organizations at all levels of the system. The



      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   9
                 development of coaches through Competency Based Education and Training
                 (CBET) and the numbers of coaches in those sports to be developed to the highest
                 levels, should be tied to NSOs’ hosting plans as well as a Strategic Hosting
                 Framework. Again, however, this comprehensive sport system development is in
                 its early stages, and thus a Strategic Hosting Framework will need to ensure a fit
                 with the objectives of a comprehensive approach to sport system development.

     3.          Infrastructure Development: The need for new or refurbished infrastructure has
                 been identified by every province and territory. Hosting large and sometimes
                 smaller international sport events can lead to the building of new or improvement
                 of existing infrastructure. The Canadian Sport Policy noted that “the availability
                 and accessibility of sport facilities … is a difficult challenge given Canada’s
                 geography”. Identifying innovative funding sources, currently the focus of the
                 Canadian Sport Policy Work Group on Facilities will be helpful in addressing
                 these challenges. Given the link between hosting major and large international
                 sport events and the possibility of developing new infrastructure, work being done
                 by the Facilities Work Group could help in this context. Because timing is
                 delayed, the findings with regard to innovative funding sources or new
                 approaches to facilities development will not be able to contribute to a Strategic
                 Hosting Framework.

4.            Participation Development: Participation in sport can be enhanced when a large
              event in those sports is hosted in Canada, or when Canadian athletes attain podium
              level performances. More people join a sport after seeing it displayed. This benefit
              has been shown to arise only, however, if there is a mechanism or plan devised by
              both the national and provincial / territorial sport organizations to receive new
              recruits to the sport at the community level.7 The NSO sport development plan
              should take this into account. Ideally, such a development plan should mesh with
              the Strategic Hosting Framework.

     5.          Enhance Collaboration between Sport Organizations: National and provincial /
                 territorial sport organizations (P/TSOs) can enhance coordination and
                 collaboration around a specific project such as hosting an international event in
                 their sport. Part of an NSO’s strategic hosting plan should be integration planning
                 with their P/TSOs around the hosting of a sport event. The work being done to
                 integrate and enhance collaboration among different levels within a sport is not
                 moving forward on the same time schedule as this Strategic Hosting Framework.
                 The contribution that could be made to a comprehensive Strategic Hosting
                 Framework by linking to NSOs’ strategic hosting plans, is not yet ready.

     In the F-P/T Priorities for Collaborative Action, one of the priorities of the Enhanced
     Capacity Goal was to develop a sport event hosting strategy. There were two actions
     associated with this priority. The first was to create a working group with stakeholder
     representation, to assess feasibility. The second was to consult, through provincial and


     7
         Van Bottenberg, M. Sport for All and Elite sport: do they benefit one another? 2002, World Sport for All Congress



             REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                            10
territorial governments, municipalities and universities and other key stakeholders, to
maximize the substantial economic benefit associated with sport tourism.

In April 2003, the Secretary of State (Physical Activity and Sport) appointed the authors
of this report, the Hosting Strategy Work Group to develop a strategic framework for
hosting large sport events in Canada. At the time, the Secretary of State confirmed the
benefits of hosting international sport events by noting that hosting major events in
Canada benefits athletes, the Canadian sport system and communities, leaves a lasting
legacy, from new or upgraded facilities to improved sports programming for youth and
others, and from coaching development to a broad base of skilled and qualified officials
and volunteers. A strategic framework for hosting major sport events, as part of building
capacity, will ensure that all regions of Canada benefit from hosting major international
sport events.


2.2        Hosting Strategy Work Group

A Hosting Strategy Work Group was composed of individuals from four provincial
governments, two National Sport Organizations (NSOs), two Multi-Sport Organizations
(MSOs), and four industry representatives, chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister
International and Intergovernmental Affairs, in Canadian Heritage. A complete list of
members is provided at the beginning of this Report.

The Work Group was charged with the task of determining if there was a basis for
establishing a collaborative framework for hosting international sport events. If that was
the case, the Work Group was to develop such a framework for deciding when and why
governments should support the hosting of international sport events. The framework
would include objectives, principles, conditions for supporting hosting events, and
outline mechanisms for ongoing communication, consultation and collaboration. The
framework would also include planning and evaluation mechanisms that would ensure
the sharing of learnings, resources, and expertise with key partners. The Work Group
was asked to document the perceived benefits of hosting international sport events and
establish the relative importance of the various benefits. The Work Group was finally
asked to determine if a separate body was needed to implement a collaborative
government framework.

In their first meeting, the Work Group adopted the definitions used by the Federal Policy
on Hosting International Sport Events. Canada Games, North American Indigenous
Games and the Arctic Winter Games were excluded from the Work Group’s purview
because they are specifically covered by Federal-Provincial/Territorial (F-P/T)
agreements8. National sport events were excluded as they are covered by the Sport
Funding and Accountability Framework of Sport Canada.



8
    The Arctic Winter Games agreement is between the federal government and the territories. The funding framework for NAIG was
    approved at the 2003 FPT Ministers' Conference.



        REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                11
The Work Group met five times between April and August, 2003. In that time they
developed a strategy for the Federal and Provincial / Territorial (F-P/T) governments to
respond to requests for funding support from cities and sport federations that were
seeking the rights to host an international sport event and needed government funding
support prior to approaching the International Federation (IF).

Perhaps more importantly, the Hosting Strategy Work Group also developed a strategy
for Canada to seek to host a number of major multi-sport and large single international
sport events, from which both Canada and its sport system could derive significant
benefit over the next 30 years.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group sought the views of a number of representatives of
both sport and tourism at the municipal, provincial and national levels. The response was
generally very positive to the proposed “responsive model” to attract smaller
international sport events to Canada.

Similarly, a “strategic model” or more formal strategy to attract large international sport
events was tested on representatives from all provinces / territories and a select group of
respondents and the reaction was generally positive, with the details needing to be
resolved.


2.3     Structure of the Report

Chapter 3.0 provides an overview of fundamental issues concerning hosting international
sport events. Chapter 4.0 describes the research undertaken by the Work Group, to
confirm the validity of the issues and, by learning how the issues developed, to determine
how they might be addressed. The history of funding sport events in Canada is
examined, as is the economic impact of this investment. The issues faced at the
community level with regard to hosting and the approach taken by municipalities and
also provincial governments to address the issues are examined. Finally, the approaches
taken by other countries are reviewed to establish if they faced the same issues and to
identify what could be learned from their experience.

Chapter 5.0 outlines the consultation the Work Group conducted on a coordinated
approach they had developed for governments to respond to funding requests. During
this consultation and also from the cross-jurisdictional research the Work Group learned
that for Canada to obtain the most benefit from hosting international sport events, a more
planned, systematic, proactive approach was required. Chapter 6.0 describes the
Strategic Hosting Framework that the Hosting Strategy Work Group developed, that
would not only result in the international sport events being attracted to Canada
contributing in a more orderly way to sport development and capacity building, but
would address the issues that caused the need for the framework at the outset.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 12
2.4     Approval Process and Announcements

This report of the Hosting Strategy Work Group is presented to the Secretary of State
(Physical Activity and Sport). However, the Work Group recognizes the importance of
all governments in Canada being cooperatively engaged in a strategic approach to hosting
international sport events and believes that an effective Strategic Hosting Framework will
only work with agreement from both orders of governments to the recommendations
contained herein. The Hosting Strategy Work Group is hopeful that once agreement has
been obtained from all governments, the Strategy on Hosting International Sport Events
can be formally announced.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                             13
3.0     BACKGROUND


3.1     Issues: Need for a Strategy

In addition to the specific direction from the F-P/T Priorities for Collaborative Action to
develop a hosting strategy, a number of issues have converged to support the need for a
comprehensive strategy to hosting international sport events in Canada.

Requests for funding support for international sport events has put increasing fiscal
pressure on governments at all levels. The reaction of governments to these requests
varies across the country, depending on whether or not a given jurisdiction has a specific
policy or existing funded program to handle the request. Often the request for funding
comes to governments with little time to implement the provisions of a policy and the
decisions are made under less than ideal circumstances.

Support for major multi-sport events has mainly gone to three of the four western
provinces, while large and small-sized single sport events have been supported in central
Canada. Few international sport events have been held in Atlantic Canada. The
significant benefits and legacies that can result from hosting international sport events
have focused primarily on the provinces where the events have been hosted.

The unplanned approach has been mainly driven by enthusiastic communities who have
recognized the benefits of hosting international sport events and have led the drive to
attract these events to their communities mainly for economic as opposed to sport
development, social or cultural development reasons. Most community groups have
not had prior experience bidding for or hosting international sport events, and the
industry – led mechanism to share this information across the country, the Canadian
Sport Tourism Alliance, (CSTA) is still growing and developing. The sport community
is not involved, or involved at the level they should be, in these discussions to ensure
the best interests of sport are being considered. As well, the National Sport
Organization (NSO) /Multi-Sport Organization (MSO) may only learn about the bid at
the point that it is being brought forward for decision by the International Federation (IF)
as the IF requirement is such that the bid must be submitted by the respective NSO/MSO.
The event may not fit into the NSO / MSO’s long range plans for the development of
their sport.

International Federations (IFs) are increasing their expectations of what expenses
the host country will cover. IFs are requesting that international delegate travel and
athlete accommodation be covered, while retaining the rights for marketing and
broadcasting the event. Host communities are then limited in what they can market to
fundraise and so have turned to governments to request larger and larger portions of the
budget be covered by the government contribution.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               14
The most effective argument to justify the expenditure of public funds on international
sport events is the return on investment, through job creation, often in the small and
medium-sized business sector, regional development, increased tourism, increased
exports, enhanced infrastructure and increased tax revenue. To this point, measures of
economic impact have not been consistent, thus weakening the strength of this
argument, nor has data been collected on every event that has been funded.

The detailed discussions that take place between the federal and provincial/territorial
governments about the size of their respective contributions to an event have sometimes
taken place after an event has been awarded. Careful planning and consideration of
such issues as legacy—fiscal, sport programming and facility-based—is sometimes
not possible given the pressure to release the funds and begin preparing for the event.
In such situations, the sport community tends not to be involved in these governmental
discussions and the contribution they could make to legacy planning is sometimes
missed.




    REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                  15
4.0     RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Hosting Strategy Work Group began by considering federal government
(Department of Canadian Heritage) funding of international sport events over the past
decade to determine if any patterns emerged that would suggest future direction. It then
moved on to look at funding sources outside those provided by the Department of
Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada); and gathered as much information as possible about
the return on this investment in hosting international sport events, that is, the economic
impact.

The Work Group reviewed strategies and models developed by Canadian municipalities
and provincial governments to hosting international sport events then looked abroad and
considered approaches that had been taken by other countries to address issues similar to
those that Canada was facing. Finally, the Work Group examined trends that were
emerging from International Federations.


4.1     History of Canadian Heritage Funding of International Sport
        Events in Canada

The Hosting Strategy Work Group examined the Government of Canada’s financial
contributions to international sport events from 1993 to 2003 through the Department of
Canadian Heritage’s International Single Sport Hosting Program. It found that the
number of events being hosted in Canada has increased from an average of 6-10 events a
year (with a total PCH contribution of approximately $300,000) to an average of 30
events a year with a PCH budget of just over $1 million.

Interestingly, although the International Single Sport Hosting Program’s budget has
increased, so has the number of events supported by the program thus resulting in a
relatively stable level of PCH funding, on average, per event. Each event received
between $35-40,000 PCH funding contribution. See Figure 1.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               16
                                                                                PCH Funding Across Time
                                                                                       1993-2003




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              $1,330 ,000
      $1 ,400, 000




                                                                                                                                                                                                          $992,000
      $1 ,200, 000




                                                                                                                                                                                   $880,000
      $1 ,000, 000



        $800, 000
                     $545,000




  $
        $600, 000




                                                                                                                                                           $335, 000
                                          $316,000




                                                                                                         $300,000




                                                                                                                                   $250, 000
                                                                                    $215,000
                                                               $185,000
        $400, 000



        $200, 000
               $ 38,9 29             $35,1 11             $30, 833             $35, 833             $42, 857                 $31 ,250                $30 ,455                $32 ,593               $3 9,680           $40,3 03

               $0
                     14                     9                    6                    6                    7                         8                     11                      27                     25                      33




                                                                                                                               9
               4




                                     5




                                                          6




                                                                               7




                                                                                                    8




                                                                                                                                                       0




                                                                                                                                                                               1




                                                                                                                                                                                                      2




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3
               -9




                                     -9




                                                          -9




                                                                               -9




                                                                                                    -9




                                                                                                                            -9




                                                                                                                                                    -0




                                                                                                                                                                            -0




                                                                                                                                                                                                   -0




                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -0
            93




                                 94




                                                      95




                                                                           96




                                                                                                97




                                                                                                                       98




                                                                                                                                                                                               01




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       02
                                                                                                                                                99




                                                                                                                                                                        00
                                                                                               19




                                                                                                                     19
          19




                                19




                                                     19




                                                                          19




                                                                                                                                               19




                                                                                                                                                                       20




                                                                                                                                                                                              20




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      20
                                                                                                                    Y ear

                                                                               P CH Fun ding SS H                    # o f Ev ent s             E ve nt A verag e




                       Figure 1: PCH Funding International Single Sport Hosting Program
                                                  1993-2003

           Source: Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada)


The pattern of hosting over the past ten years demonstrates that the large international
events have been in Western Canada (1994 Victoria Commonwealth Games, 1999
Winnipeg Pan American Games, 2001 Edmonton World Athletics Championships). (See
Figure 2)




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                                                                                                           17
                       AB: $40,765,000




                                                                                             AB - 19.7 % (pop. 9.9%)
   NT, NU & YT: $350,000
                                                                                             BC - 38.3 % (pop. 13% )
             SK: $70,000                                                   BC: $79,156,000

            QC: $8,398,000                                                                   MB - 28.2 % (pop. 3.7%)

                   PE: $0                                                                    NB - 0.01% (pop. 2.4% )

                                                                                             NL - 0.05 % (pop. 1.7%)

           ON: $19,389,000                                                                   NS - 0.05 % (pop. 3%)

                                                                                             ON - 9.4 % (pop. 38%)

              NS: $105,000                                                                   PE - 0 % (pop. 0.4%)
              NL: $105,000                                                                   QC - 4.1 % (pop. 24.1%)
               NB: $25,000
                                                                                             SK - 0.03% (pop. 3.3%)

                                                                                             NT, NU & YT - 0.2% (pop.
                                                                                             0.3%)
                                         MB: $58,360,000




                  Figure 2: PCH funding distribution by province, 1993 – 2003
                                         All events.

Source: Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) NOTE: Above chart includes International Single Sport
Hosting Program; large event hosting, strategic focus events. Legend shows % of total PCH funding received against %
population.


In contrast to this, the distribution of small international sport events in Canada reflects a
predominance of hosting opportunities in Ontario and Québec, while overall being more
proportionate to the distribution of the population in Canada. (See Figure 3)




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                            18
                                           NB: $25,000         NL: $105,000
                                        MB: $110,000               NS: $105,000
                                                                                                            AB - 14.9 % (pop. 9.9% )


                         BC: $906,000                                                                       BC - 17.6 % (pop. 13%)


                                                                                                            MB - 2.1 % (pop. 3.7%)


                                                                                           ON: $1,665,000   NB - 0.5 % (pop. 2.4%)

                                                                                                            NL - 2.0 % (pop. 1.7%)

                                                                                                            NS - 2.0 % (pop. 3%)

                                                                                                            ON - 32.3% (pop. 38%)
                AB: $765,000
                                                                                                            PE - 0 % (pop. 0.4%)

                                                                                                            QC - 27.2 % (pop. 24.1%)
                                                                                       PE: $0
                 NT, NU & YT: $0
                                                                                                            SK - 1.4 % (pop. 3.3%)
                      SK: $70,000

                                                                                                            NT, NU & YT - 0 % (pop. 0.3%)

                                                         QC: $1,398,000




                               Figure 3: PCH funding distribution by Province -
                                 International Single Sport Hosting Program
                                                 1993 – 2003
Source: Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada)


The Hosting Strategy Work Group examined the impact of the greatest financial
investment for international sport events being in Western Canada (excluding
Saskatchewan). It found that this has resulted in the Western region having international
calibre infrastructure, as well as the financial resources through legacy endowed funds for
sport development. The Eastern part of Canada (Ontario to the Atlantic Provinces) has
relatively limited international calibre infrastructure and no endowed funds for sport
development arising from hosting international multi-sport events. This is particularly
true in the Atlantic Provinces.

The Work Group concluded that hosting major international sport events provide the
greatest impact in terms of capacity building. It is these major international events9, such
as the Olympic/Paralympic, Commonwealth and Pan American Games that build
infrastructure and create endowed legacy funds to support sport development and grass
roots participation.



9
    The major international sport events (primarily multi-sport) are defined by their size and scope (# of countries and participants, # of
     events, length of event etc.), ability to capture the attention of a world wide audience, and overall operating budget. A more detailed
     description is provided in section 6.3.




         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                           19
The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       1. Governments’ support for bids to host major multi-sport international
          events be awarded to the community best positioned to be successful while
          being mindful of developing capacity across the country. To achieve a better
          regional balance of sport infrastructure and legacy, support be provided to
          Atlantic Canada to enable that part of the country to bid for and host an
          international multi-sport or large single sport event within the next decade.

Even though it was outside the 10-year timeframe, the Hosting Strategy Work Group
could not ignore the impact that the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympic Games had on sport
development in Canada. The Calgary Olympics produced close to $120 million10 in
financial support for sport development and operating international standard facilities for
winter sports to the benefit of high performance sport and community participation.

Similarly, the 1994 Commonwealth Games created a $16 million legacy11 fund for the
Canadian Sport Centre – Greater Victoria and the continued operation of the
Commonwealth Aquatic Centre for use by the community and high performance athletes.
The 1999 Pan American Games left a $4.25 million financial legacy fund for the
Canadian Sport Centre – Winnipeg, in addition to many sport infrastructure
improvements. The 2001 World Athletics Championship left Edmonton with $8 million
in a financial legacy for programming in addition to infrastructure upgrades. The
approximate percentage that the legacy forms of the original federal government
contribution has ranged between five and fifteen percent over the past ten years.

The infrastructure legacies left by these major events have equipped these cities and
provinces to continue to host World Cups/Championships and other international sport
events long after the hosting of the major event. The financial legacy has allowed for the
maintenance of the facilities as well as attracting coaches wanting to use high
performance facilities, athletes who are drawn by the coaches, and so on. Although these
legacies are theoretically available to athletes, coaches and officials from across the
country, in practical terms geographic proximity is very relevant, especially for young
athletes.

In contrast, the legacies from hosting international single sport events fall mostly in the
area of human resource development at the time of the event (athlete, coach,
administration and volunteer capacity building) and in some cases financial guarantees
and/or surplus revenues to the National Sport Organization. There are some legacy
provisions in the large single sport events such as the 2003 World Road Cycling in
Hamilton, Ontario where the surplus of the event will be placed in two legacy endowed
funds. Likewise, the 2003 World Youth Athletics in Sherbrooke, Quebec will contribute
$300,000 toward an endowed legacy fund for a high performance athletics training centre
in Sherbrooke.


10
     Includes the $60 million guarantee to the COC for sport programming
11
     Legacy for 1994 Commonwealth Games represented 15% of PCH Funding; 13% for 2001 World Athletics Championship



         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                       20
The Hosting Strategy Work Group observed that legacy plans vary from event to event
due to the priority of the host community. Local Event Organizing Committees’ first
priority is to deliver a successful, well-organized event. Other priorities tend to be
focused on enhancing participation in the sport generally and community development
broadly. In contrast, the NSO’s priority tends to be focused on high performance athlete
and coach development.

In either case, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that legacy planning appears to be
an afterthought to bidding for and hosting the event, unless reinforced by governments
through the multi-party agreement. A multi-party agreement is negotiated among the
Event Organizing Committee, the National/Multi-Sport Organization and the funding
partners, the Government of Canada and / or the provincial / territorial governments.
This agreement provides for the flow of operational and capital expenditures according to
requirements set out in the agreement.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group believes that legacy planning should be initiated as a
partnership among the local organizing committee, governments and the sport
organizations provincially and nationally as part of the strategy on bidding. The Work
Group also noted the importance of domestic support for the Canadian team’s preparation
for competition. It observed that the NSO should develop a plan to prepare Canadian
athletes for competition as part of their strategic hosting plan. As well, event organizing
committees should be encouraged to provide on site support to Canadian athletes such as
accommodation and meals.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

   2. Every effort be made to sensitize Event Organizing Committees to the
      importance of building a permanent, significant fiscal, sport programming or
      sport facility legacy from the events they host. These efforts should include
      “how-to” manuals on bidding for international sport events that emphasize
      the importance of legacy. Legacy should continue to form an integral part of
      the multi-party or contribution agreements.

In light of these factors, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted the recent award of the
2010 Winter Olympic / Paralympic Games to Vancouver, as well as the bid by Hamilton
for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. The legacy for the 2010 Winter Olympics has
already started with the “LegaciesNow” program developed by the 2010 Vancouver Bid
Corporation. The plan is for 18% of the PCH contribution to hosting the Vancouver
Games be set aside for legacy, that will result in significant sport programming and
facilities legacies. A similar scenario will result if Hamilton is successful in November
2003 in its bid to host the 2010 Commonwealth Games.

The Work Group noted that legacies from hosting international sport events might be
characterized as both intangible and tangible. The intangible legacies comprise the
community and cultural development benefits that arise from hosting, involving such
factors as volunteer development, opportunities for youth to experience new job



     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               21
opportunities and the promotion of Canadian culture and values through linguistic and
cultural aspects, arts and heritage activities and the exposure of international visitors to
Canadian culture. Although these legacies are intangible they are nevertheless very
valuable for achieving public policy objectives.

Tangible legacies are of two types: facility upgrades and retrofits or the construction of
new facilities; and sport programming including athlete, coach and technical official
development opportunities, as well as the opportunity to compete in future international
sport events hosted at that site. Up to this point, Event Organizing Committees with the
support of governments have generally been sensitive to the need for new facilities to
have sufficient funds endowed for the ongoing operation of the facility after the event.
However, the Work Group noted the need for ongoing vigilance in this regard.

The Work Group noted that funding is required to support the tangible legacies from
hosting international sport events and recommends that:

   3. Each major international multi- or large single sport event that is hosted
      should create a legacy fund. The objectives of the legacy are to build sport
      capacity consistent with the Canadian Sport Policy with resources to come
      from two sources. (A) Consistent with past practices, between five and ten
      percent each of provincial and federal governments’ contributions to the
      operational budget for hosting major multi and large single international
      sport events. (B) Any event surplus should be added to this legacy fund. The
      benefits from the legacy fund should be distributed consistent with the
      principle of equitable development and support for the national, provincial
      and regional / local levels of the sport system.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group is mindful of the fact that most provincial / territorial
governments do not have a program fund for hosting international sport events, in
contrast to the International Single Sport Hosting Program administered by the
Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada), currently funded at $1.0 million
annually. As with major international multi- and large single sport events at the federal
government level, funding requests provincially and territorially to support most
international sport events are “off-budget” and require in-year submissions to the
respective government’s Treasury Board and Cabinet. This can apply also to
governments’ support for bidding for major international multi-sport and large single
sport events.

In view of the significant sport benefits identified as accruing to the sport system from
hosting international sport events, as well as the economic, community and cultural
development benefits accruing to communities in general, the Hosting Strategy Work
Group recommends that:




     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                      22
      4. Funding for hosting international sport events be increased at the federal
         government level and in provinces where programs now exist; and in
         provincial/ territorial governments, where no funding is ear-marked for
         hosting international sport events, that funded programs be created so that
         the benefits from hosting can be realized in a more consistent, planned
         manner. There should also be funding at both federal and
         provincial/territorial government levels for bidding for major multi-sport
         and large single international sport events.


4.2      History of Other Federal Government Funding of International
         Sport Events

The requirements of International Federations make it necessary for federal departments,
other than the Department of Canadian Heritage, to be involved in hosting international
sport events in Canada. For example International Federations require guarantees from
the host for free access to the country for the participants, and so the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration is involved.

In addition, other federal departments provide support to hosting the event, either as part
of the multi-party / contribution agreement or through other programs whose objectives
are met by the delivery of the international sport event. These additional departments
include: the Department of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) for
security; and the Department of Transportation for facilitating traffic at airports. The
Department of Canadian Heritage through the Sport Canada branch, establishes
interdepartmental Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to coordinate and pay for these
services on behalf of the Event Organizing Committee. Canadian Heritage is “charged
back” for these services by the other federal government departments, and the cost of
these charge backs are included in the overall financial contribution provided by the
Government of Canada to the Event Organizing Committees.

In addition to these essential service provisions, there are opportunities for Event
Organizing Committees to request funding from other departments and agencies of both
the federal and the provincial / territorial governments, whose own programming
objectives will be met by the international sport event. This type of support is usually
provided outside the programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage within the
Government of Canada. For example, Human Resources Development Canada provides
funding for youth employment programs; Industry Canada provides support to research
and business development; the Canadian Tourism Commission provides support for
tourism promotion; and Canada Post can provide funding for the development of
specialty stamps. Likewise, at the provincial / territorial level, Departments / Ministries
of Tourism, Economic Development and Francophone Affairs are likely to have
programs that might provide support for hosting an international sport event.

Within the federal government, Communications Canada receives the most requests from
Event Organizing Committees outside of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada).


       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                              23
Communications Canada’s program budget for which sport events are eligible is
currently $40 million annually. In 2002-2003, six of the sport events sponsored by
Communications Canada (contributions totalling $525,000) were also supported under
the International Single Sport Hosting Program of Sport Canada (contributions totalling
$365,000). See Appendix B for more program details. The direction of this program in
2003-2004 is focused on community events and less on promoting the word mark of the
Canadian Government, as was the case in previous years.

Noting the significant contributions that other federal government departments and
provincial/territorial departments and ministries other than sport, can make to supporting
an international sport event, the Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

      5. Event Organizing Committees be given contact information regarding other
         federal and provincial / territorial departments’ program opportunities and
         that these Organizing Committees be encouraged to seek relevant and
         applicable additional support outside the PCH multi-party or contribution
         agreement.


4.3      Economic Impact of Hosting International Sport Events

There is a general understanding that hosting sport events results in a positive economic
impact. There is also an extensive body of literature from other jurisdictions supporting
this understanding. However, the pattern of impact of PCH funded major international
sport events on the economy of the host city / region / province is less than clear, mainly
due to lack of consistent data.

In addition, the tourism survey data collected in Canada provides limited and dated
information regarding visits to amateur events. International sport events attract athletes,
coaches, officials, volunteers and spectators into a province and in some case the country,
spending their money on items such as accommodation, food and beverage, and
attractions.

According to Statistic Canada, many travel agendas include participation in recreation
and competitive sports. In some cases, sport may be the overriding purpose for travel.
The 1996 Canadian Travel Survey shows that nearly 8.6 million person trips taken by
Canadian travelers included attendance at a spectator sporting event. 26% of all person-
trips taken by Canadians include a sporting activity. With an $8.9 billion contribution to
the GDP (direct and indirect), sport has an economic weight greater than aircraft, wood,
logging and forestry industries.

The British have developed sophisticated levels of analysis detailing the scale of an
event, its duration, additional expenditures due to the event, and the additional local
income generated. This is the level of analysis, as shown in Table 2 below, the Work
Group considers is required to begin to assess Canadian events.




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               24
      Table 2: Economic Impacts Associated with Staging Large Sporting Events
                           in the U.K. (pounds Sterling)


                                                                       Additional      Additional
       Event                        Scale                Duration     Expenditure    Local Income
                                                                     Due to Event      Generated
                                                                          (£s)              (£s)
World Badminton           68 nations                     Two         2.2 million    445,000 or
Championships             603 officials                  weeks                      equivalent of 36
Glasgow, 1997             812 competitors                                           full- time job
                          217 media reps                                            years

European                  36 nation                      9 days      0.5 million    100,000 or
Junior Boxing             226 competitors                                           eight full-time
Championships             83 mgrs/coaches                                           job years
Birmingham, 1997          58 administrators
                          1,233 spectator visits
First Cornhill            Between England                4 days      4.1 million    1 million or 82
Test Match                and Australia                                             full-time job
Birmingham, 1997          72,693 spectators                                         years
IAAF Grand Prix 1         16,025 spectators              4-5 hours   177,000        35,387 or 3 full-
Sheffield, 1997                                                      million        time job years
European                  39 nations                     4 days      298,000        60,000 or 5 full-
Junior Swimming           479 competitors                                           time job years
Championships             243 officials
Glasgow, 1997
Weetabix                  50,000 visiting                4 days      2.1 million    214,000 or 17
Women’s British           spectators                                                full-time job
Open Golf                 144 players                                               years
Championship
 Source: UK Sport Council: Large Events: The Economics, 1998.

 In the limited time available to complete this review, the Hosting Strategy Work Group
 was able to gather some data on the economic impact of hosting sport events in Canada
 generally. It will be noted that the data are shown in different formats in the two tables
 below (Tables 3 and 4), underlining the fact that studies completed are done so using
 different methodologies.




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                      25
              Table 3: Economic Impact of Selected Sport Events in Canada
                                                 (in $ millions)

                     Event                              Total       Total and %       Total Economic
                                                     Expenditures   Government        Impact/Activity
                                                                    Contribution
Canada Games
1999 Corner Brook, Nfld.                                   $20.6    $ 5.63 (27%)           $59.9
2001 London, Ont.                                          $31.0    $10.83 (35%)           $96.0
2001 World Athletics
Edmonton, Alta.                                            $114.7   $84.4 (73%)          $183.4
1999 Pan American Games (Released prior to event.)
Winnipeg, Man.                                            $131.7    $109 (82%)           $424.
2001 Jeux de la Francophonie
Ottawa/Hull, Ont./Que.                                     $35.7     $25.8 (72%)    (Estimated) $70.
No report commissioned.
2002 NAIG
Winnipeg, Man.                                               $9.2    $5.75 (62%)           $26.
2003 World Road Cycling
Hamilton, Ont.                                            $15-16    $14.0 (90%)     (Estimated) $57

             Table 4: Economic Activity of Selected Sport Events in Canada

       Event                Location        Capital     Operating   Visitor       Jobs     Economic
                                                                                            Activity
1988 Winter               Calgary, AB                                         27,400      $1.2 B
Olympics                                                                      person
                                                                              years
1994                      Victoria, BC                                                    $500 M
Commonwealth
Games
2001 World                Vancouver,       n/a          $8.1 m      $22.8 m   842         $82 M
Figure Skating            BC
2001 Canada               London, ON       $13.1 m      $13.6 m     $9.57 m   834         $96 M
Summer Games
2002 North                Winnipeg, MB     n/a          $7.3 m      $4.6 m    220         $26M
American
Indigenous
Games (NAIG)
2002 Skate                Quebec City,     n/a          $1.06 m     $4.14 m   98          $6.3 M
Canada                    QC
International
2003 Canada               Bathurst –       $21 m        $18.0 m     $5.4 m    1,018       $70 M
Winter Games              Campbellton,
                          NB




          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                     26
The economic impact of hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver is
projected to be $3.3 billion. The economic impact of a successful bid for the 2010
Commonwealth Games in Hamilton is projected to be $636 million, as shown in Table 5.


       Table 5: Projected Economic Impacts of 2010 Events hosted in Canada

                                                                                                           Net
          Games                           Capital       Operating          Visitors        Jobs       Injection
 2010 Commonwealth -                     $451           $263               250,000        10,703      $636
 Hamilton                                million        million                                       million
 2010 Olympics                           $620           $1.3 billion       3.6            77,000      $3.3
 Vancouver/Whistler                      million                           million                    billion
 Source: Economic Impact Analysis of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Hamilton, Ontario STEAM (2003); The Economic
 Impact 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games - InterVistas Consulting Inc. (Update 2002)


Under the Federal Hosting Policy, an economic impact assessment is required in order to
estimate the total economic impact associated with the event. This assessment is made as
a part of conducting a cost / benefit analysis in order to measure the full set of tangible
and intangible economic benefits accruing from the event. Various models are used to
complete this analysis, depending on the group who was conducting the work, as there
was no consistent accepted model.

The Work Group observed that under the proposed Strategic Hosting Framework, a full
economic cost / benefit analysis would not be required, as many of the intangible benefits
that governments wish to measure such as sport development, infrastructure, community
development and promotion of Canadian culture and values will be already covered in
other aspects of the analysis..

Consequently, the Work Group proposes that the name of this measure be changed from
“economic benefit” to “economic impact” with the following definition:

   “Economic impact is the increase in economic activity that is generated by the
   spending to host the event and by visitor spending related to the event. Economic
   impact accrues through the increased sales, employment, income, and company
   revenue for third parties (e.g. local residents) in the host region. The size of the
   impact depends on how many times the initial spending is re-spent in the economy.”

In addition to clarifying what is being measured, the Hosting Strategy Work Group
identified a need to develop an economic impact model at the national level that will
provide a consistent, objective assessment of the resources, rewards and risk associated
with any particular event.




     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                          27
The Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that the recent introduction of the Sport
Tourism Economic Assessment Model (STEAM)12 by the Canadian Sport Tourism
Alliance has resulted in information on economic impact becoming standardized, and
recommends that:

        6. STEAM be the standardized model used for economic impact studies, and
           that these studies be a mandatory element of the assessment of a major
           multi- or large single international sport event seeking funds from
           governments, as a predictor of economic impact; and that completion of
           STEAM on-site be a mandatory requirement through the multi-party
           agreement for major multi- or large single international sport events, while
           the event is being hosted.


4.4          Canadian Municipal & Provincial Hosting Strategies

Through interviews and document analysis, the Hosting Strategy Work Group obtained
further evidence in communities of the issues that are spurring the need for a coordinated,
planned, fiscally prudent strategy to hosting international sport events. It learned that key
community figures are often the impetus behind a bid to host an international sport event.
Their drive and enthusiasm, however, sometimes exceeds their understanding of the
requirements and expectations of governments and the national and international sport
communities.

Until recently, and even now with some smaller International Federations, it has not been
a requirement of the IF that the National Sport Organization “sign off” on a bid to host an
international sport event. A community or an event promoter could submit a bid to host
an international sport event without the NSO being aware, or even without the federal or
provincial/territorial governments knowing about the bid. This has resulted in
international sport events being hosted in Canada that might not have been selected by
the NSO, if the NSO had developed a strategic hosting plan with events staged to
contribute to their sport development objectives.

The Work Group found that communities, fully intending to stage the event with funds
raised through corporate donations and marketing rights, learn after the bid has been
awarded that marketing rights are restricted by the IF or that corporate donations are not
being generated at the rate originally predicted. It is at this point that a request for
financial support from government is made, usually first to the federal government who
enquire about the involvement of the provincial government, and then to the
provincial/territorial government. Each order of government is interested to know the


12
     The Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance (CSTA) in partnership with the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and the
     Canadian Tourism Commission, plus a number of provincial and municipal sport and tourism organizations and selected NSOs
     developed STEAM. STEAM’s results are based on a standardized set of multipliers that are prepared on a consistent basis across
     Canada. In addition, the model uses a standardized set of spending profiles for estimating the potential economic impact associated
     with visitors to the host region.




          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                      28
extent of the commitment of the other, and each may have different requirements and
expectations of the bid community.

The Work Group learned from examining economic impact that hosting a major or large
international sport event is not likely successful in Canada without government support in
the neighbourhood of 70 – 75%. Funding requests of this magnitude, coming to
governments after the event has been awarded, are very difficult to manage, causing off-
budget in-year submissions to be developed. Both federal and provincial governments
then are in the position where they are reacting to fiscal pressures, although both are very
interested in ensuring that the event is a success and that the community and their
jurisdictions are well reflected to the international sport community.

Some municipalities are responding to these types of initiatives of key community
leaders, by developing sport tourism or sport hosting strategies or even event hosting
units usually within their municipal economic development departments. The objectives
of hosting international sport events at the community level tend primarily to be
economic / tourism based. The Hosting Strategy Work Group also noted that there are
entrepreneurs who have established themselves as “event promoters” on behalf of
communities. These event promoters, in the main, also have economic/tourism
objectives. A number of municipal approaches were reviewed by the Hosting Strategy
Work Group and these are included in Appendix C.

As more municipalities become aware of the benefits of hosting international sport
events, and are submitting bids and approaching provincial/ territorial governments for
unplanned financial contributions, provincial / territorial governments are also being
required to respond in a planned fashion. Consequently, the Work Group learned, at least
two provinces have already developed strategies and a number of others are considering
the development of either hosting policies or strategies. Again, as with the municipalities,
the provincial objectives vary, some focusing purely on economic/ tourism outcomes
with others including sport development, community development and cultural
promotion as part of the mix. An example of a provincial strategy is provided in
Appendix C.

Given that bidding for and hosting international sport events and developing coordinating
strategies to manage these bids, are increasing trends at both the municipal and
provincial/ territorial levels, the need for a national coordinated approach among all
stakeholders becomes even more important.


4.5         Other Countries Are Acting

The Hosting Strategy Work Group’s international research found that other countries
differ on the extent to which, and reasons why, they support sport event hosting. The
United Kingdom13 has identified sport event hosting as a primary means of developing

13
     UK Sport Council: “Large Events: A UK Policy” (1999)



         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                            29
their sport system to achieve excellence. In contrast, Australia14, Ireland15 and South
Africa16 have emphasized hosting sport events as beneficial to the economy, through
encouraging tourism, community development and promoting and enhancing their
cultural identity. South Africa has identified hosting sport events as a means to build
national unity and address national issues. (The details of these countries’ strategies are
shown in Appendix D.)

Action taken by these other national governments has been in response to the lack of
coordinated government policies. This situation is changing as governments at all levels,
sport partners, and the sport event hosting industry have come together in these countries
to develop aggressive strategies for sport event hosting. In all cases, the benefits of the
central government taking a proactive leadership role in implementing either sport
development or sport tourism strategies are being demonstrated.

The United States does not have a federal government led hosting strategy and has not
tended to host as many small and large single international sport events as might be
expected given its population, its prosperity and its importance in the sporting world.
Some more detail on the structure of the Regional Sport Commissions that coordinate
hosting in the U.S.A., is included in Appendix D.

In examining these other jurisdictions, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted a number
of advantages arising from these countries’ governments taking a leadership role. These
include:

             A coordinated national approach to hosting allowed for the capacity of the sport
             system to be shaped and maximized. Such an approach provided a focus that
             some sports lacked, resulting in gaining hosting opportunities that were being lost.

             Provision of a vehicle to encourage the achievement of sport excellence
             among athletes, coaches and technical officials, resulting in more podium level
             performances by athletes.

             Reducing risk to government expenditures: through development of a
             consistent economic impact methodology, and ensuring an independent analysis.
             Ireland, for example, uses the Sport Tourism Evaluation Model (STEM)
             developed specifically to measure the impact of hosting events, including the
             economic impact. The Hosting Strategy Work Group observed that hosting sport
             events, whether for sport tourism or sport development purposes is a growth
             industry in Canada and is also becoming increasingly competitive nationally and
             internationally; therefore, risk management by a senior level of government is
             critical and at the national and international levels requires the perspective of a
             national government to ensure the appropriate level of coordination.

14
     Australia Commonwealth Government, "Large Events Commonwealth Coordination Group" (2002)
15
     Sport Ireland - "International Sports Tourism Initiative 2000-2005" (January 2000)
16
     South Africa - "Initial Draft of a National Strategy for Bidding and Hosting Large International & Recreation Events" (March
     2003)




         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                       30
           Providing an opportunity for a common look (brand) for bids for international
           sport events, including enhancing national and international profiles for sports and
           cities.
           Providing a focus for growth, identifying opportunities, facilitating outcomes and
           removing obstacles.
           Stimulating entrepreneurialism and investment in sport event hosting as a means
           to building capacity in the sport system.
           Maximizing investment to enhance effective use of resources in the bid process
           and management of events.
The government leadership in other countries shows a model that Canada can emulate.
In the other countries examined, the Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that a central
coordinating function exists to ensure coordination of the approach to bids and to hosting.
In Australia, this group is the Major Events Commonwealth Coordination Group; in the
UK, the Major Events Steering Group; in Ireland, the Irish Tourist Board, and in South
Africa, the mechanism is under development.

To coordinate the bidding and hosting for international sport events in Canada, the
Hosting Strategy Work Group identified a need for a central focus for efforts of this type,
similar to that found in other countries. The Hosting Strategy Work Group therefore
recommends that:

      7.     An International Sport Event Coordination Group (ISECG) be created to
             undertake and coordinate the tasks connected with the implementation of
             the Strategic Hosting Framework described in this report. Tasks to be
             completed by the International Sport Event Coordination Group are
             outlined in the report (Section 6.9). The Coordination Group would
             perform this coordination function in collaboration with F-P/T officials.


4.6        Bid Guidelines from International Federations

In reviewing the requirements of the International Federations for bidding and hosting,
there are a range of expectations depending on the worldwide profile and marketability of
the sport event (see Table 8 - International Federation Requirements in Appendix E).

As a result of more countries developing hosting strategies, the competition to host
international events has allowed the International Federations to increase their
requirements of and guarantees expected from bidding countries, thus increasing IF
revenues.

For example, International Federations are placing restrictions on the use of marketing
rights for events, thus limiting Event Organizing Committees to corporate support as the
primary means of private sector funding. The result has placed an even heavier reliance


       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 31
on public funds to run a successful event. These marketing rights’ restrictions by IFs also
limit the visibility plans that can be offered to potential sponsors, whether public or
private sector.

Bid communities / event promoters may not be fully aware of all the expectations that the
IF will place on the host community, and as a consequence, hosting budgets and business
plans may not be fully reflective of the cost of these expectations. In the past,
governments have had to step in and help out bid communities as they struggle to meet
the financial commitments demanded by the International Federations..

The Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that these trends in IF requirements
reinforced the importance of a planned, well designed approach to hosting international
sport events. If governments and the NSOs are aware in advance of a community’s
interest to host, then they can assist a community in understanding the IF’s requirements,
in developing a realistic business plan that will take account of IF revenue expectations
and in negotiating with the IF. Without coordination and planning, the success of this
type of approach would be limited.




     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               32
5.0        NEXT STEPS

Consultations were held in April / May 2003 with key sport stakeholders across Canada
on an approach to deciding which international sport events Canada should seek to host.

Representatives from both sport and tourism departments at the municipal level,
municipal sport tourism departments, both sport and tourism at the provincial government
level, as well as all the members of the Inter-provincial Sport & Recreation Council
(ISRC), representing Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity Directors in each province
and territory, games associations, provincial sport organizations, national and multi-sport
organizations, the event hosting industry, a bid corporation, academia and the
government of Canada (Sport Canada) were interviewed by telephone, using a structured
questionnaire. In all, 49 key stakeholders from all provinces and territories who had been
identified by the Hosting Strategy Work Group were interviewed.

The views of the key stakeholders were sought on the principles and conditions under
which a Strategic Hosting Framework should be developed, the scope of events that
should be captured in the strategy, and a framework that governments could use to
respond to requests for funding support for hosting international sport events. The
findings from this first round of interviews were instructive in helping the Hosting
Strategy Work Group develop a strategic hosting framework that the F-P/T governments
could use over the next 25 – 30 years.

This Strategic Hosting Framework was reviewed with representatives from each of the
provincial / territorial governments in a second round of interviews in June / July 2003
and their feedback has been incorporated into this report. Additionally, a group of 20 of
the earlier interviewees were also provided with a copy of the draft strategic framework
and were asked to comment in writing. Their comments have also been taken into
account.

Finally two focus group discussions were held with representatives from Sport Canada
who have been involved in the hosting of international sport events over the past 15
years, to get their perspective on what was being proposed.

Although there was consultation, as outlined above, in the development of this proposed
strategic framework, the Work Group did not have the time to involve a broad range of
stakeholders.

Therefore, the Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

      8.    This report be shared for feedback with stakeholders throughout the sport
            system, including, but not limited to, National and Multi-Sport
            Organizations, Provincial/Territorial Sport Organizations, municipalities
            and organizations with an interest in international sport event hosting or
            sport tourism, and event promoters, and that the feedback be incorporated


       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                             33
            into the Strategic Framework prior to endorsement by the F-P/T
            governments.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that to maximize the benefits of hosting
successful sport events requires both orders of government to agree on purposes,
objectives, targets, timelines, and mechanisms for assessment of a Strategic Hosting
Framework and consequently recommends that:

       9.       The Strategic Hosting Framework including the recommendations in
                this report be formally endorsed as a joint initiative of the federal and
                provincial/territorial governments.

This report and the proposed Strategic Hosting Framework include changes to some
elements of the current Federal Hosting Policy. In view of these changes, the Hosting
Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       10.      The Federal Policy on Hosting International Sport Events be reviewed
                and revised, where appropriate, when the recommendations from this
                report have been finalized.

The development of the work under the CSP’s F-P/T Priorities for Collaborative Action
by each of the work groups referenced in the Introduction, while underway, is on a
different time line from that to develop a Strategic Hosting Framework for Canada. In
approximately two years’ time, when the other initiatives have achieved fruition and have
been through the F-P/T approval process, the Strategic Hosting Framework proposed
herein should be reviewed to realign it with those outcomes.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       11.      The proposed Strategic Hosting Framework be reviewed in two years
                in the context of the work of the other Canadian Sport Policy, Federal-
                Provincial / Territorial Priorities for Collaborative Action
                implementation working groups, to ensure that there is congruence
                among the processes proposed by each working group.




    REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                34
6.0          PROPOSED STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK:

The research findings and consultations led the Hosting Strategy Work Group to arrive at
the proposed framework contained in this chapter.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group has come to understand the need for a proactive or
strategic approach to hosting international sport events. Internationally, other countries
are organizing to attract the most desirable sport events and Canada needs to position
itself strategically to compete to win. Domestically, bids promoted by influential
community members are inevitable. Unless a coordinated, collaborative approach by
both orders of government along with the sport community is taken, the current
unplanned approach will continue, and there will be no assurance that the events attracted
will be the ones meeting sport development, community development and economic
development objectives. Along with that, continued risk of exposure to unplanned
government expenditures and the lack of balance across the country will be the
inescapable consequences.

The proposed Strategic Hosting Framework is intended to bring order to the haphazard
approach that has characterized the hosting of international sport events in recent years,
through a collaborative process involving all stakeholders interested in bidding for and
hosting international sport events. The collaborative process provides the optimum
environment to meet all of the objectives of hosting: capacity building within the sport
system, community and economic development and the opportunity to promote Canadian
culture and values.


6.1          Purpose of Hosting

The Canadian Sport Policy (CSP) noted that:

             The policy goals of enhanced participation and enhanced excellence can be
             achieved by enhancing the capacity of the individuals, communities, and
             institutions, as well as the financial and material resources that comprise Canada’s
             sport system… In pursuit of [this goal], the federal-provincial/territorial
             governments, in keeping with their level of responsibility, will…develop a long-
             term strategic approach to the hosting of large national17 and international sport
             events to maximize their contribution to sport and community objectives.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group confirmed during the consultations what should be the
governments’ reasons or purposes for a Strategic Hosting Framework. There was overall
agreement that capacity building to support sport development18 was an important reason

17
     The Secretary of State’s Hosting Strategy Work Group has been asked to focus on international sport events.
18
     Sport development is understood to mean the development of the human resources in the sport system, athletes, coaches, officials
     and volunteers, and organizational and sport infrastructure development.



         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                      35
for Canada to host international sport events. There were a number of respondents that
noted that economic development was an equally important purpose for hosting.

Community development and promoting Canadian culture and values were also viewed
as reasons for hosting. However, the Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that the
two primary reasons for hosting international sport events were supporting excellence
and sport development and, equally important, economic development.

Although sport infrastructure development was included as part of capacity building, and
was recognized as needed in the country, the Hosting Strategy Work Group heard two
perspectives from the consultations on how sport facilities should be developed. One
perspective was that high performance sport infrastructure should be developed
strategically with a view to hosting high performance sport events. The other perspective
coming mainly from communities and provinces held that the development of sport
facilities should be community-driven in response to community needs. The latter
perspective did not support the notion of a “strategic infrastructure plan” for Canada.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group did not reach any conclusion on this issue.

Two additional suggestions came from the consultations as to purposes for hosting
international sport events. One was regional development – providing an opportunity to
use hosting international sport events as a means to develop parts of Canada that might
not have been developed either economically or from a sport development standpoint.
The other was an opportunity to develop a legacy for sport – either fiscal (for sport
programming) or for facilities.

Staging a sport event can result in more attention being paid to sport development and
participation in sport at the community level, which can generate interest in physical
activity. When more community members are involved in community activities through
volunteering, a key to sport delivery, these are the building blocks of “healthy
communities”.

Based on these findings, the Hosting Strategy Work Group developed the following
rationale for hosting international sport events (the “purposes”). Hosting sport events
supports:

   1. Building capacity of the sport system, thus contributing to enhanced athlete
      excellence, enhanced participation, and the development of sport infrastructure
      (new or upgraded / renovated) to be used after the event both for high
      performance development and community use. Hosting an international sport
      event can also contribute to the development of the sport system (including
      developing coaches, officials, volunteers and sport science / sport medicine), and
      sport organizations at all levels (e.g. marketability, profile, hosting capacity,
      revenue generation etc.).

   2. Maximizing the economic benefits for the community in which the event is
      hosted and for the province and country.



     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 36
      3. Maximizing the community benefits including enhanced voluntarism, e.g.:
         recruitment, selection, training; unique work experiences including training and
         youth involvement, e.g. planning / staging the event; and increased emphasis on
         physical activity and healthy communities. Also included as community
         benefits are opportunities to promote: gender equity in all areas related to the
         event; employment equity e.g. policies related to the hiring of visible minorities,
         people with disabilities and Aboriginal people; and persons with disabilities e.g.
         access and the degree to which athletes with a disability will play a fully
         integrated role in the event.

      4. The opportunity to promote Canadian culture and values including the cultural
         diversity of all provinces and territories and the country as a whole via a forum
         for celebrating artistic and cultural excellence. Hosting a sport event can also
         support Canadian cultural development providing an opportunity to celebrate and
         display Canada’s cultural diversity and values.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

         12.     The purposes of the Strategic Hosting Framework be accepted as:
                 building capacity, by contributing to excellence, participation,
                 development of the sport system and sport infrastructure, maximizing
                 economic and community benefits including increased emphasis on
                 physical activity and healthy communities, and promoting Canadian
                 culture and values.


6.2      Principles

The Hosting Strategy Work Group considered what principles should underlie the
Strategic Hosting Framework and looked to the issues that the Work Group confirmed
during its research and the consultation process.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

         13.     Strengthened planning resulting in fiscally responsible decisions,
                 regional balance to distribute capacity building across the country, a
                 sport development focus with community leadership, and
                 coordination and collaboration among municipalities, both orders of
                 government and the sport community be accepted as the principles
                 underpinning the Strategic Hosting Framework.




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                37
6.3          Scope - Categorization of Events

The Hosting Strategy Work Group used the Federal Hosting Policy as a guide to
identifying international sport events that should be included under this Strategic
Framework. The Work Group further differentiated events that should be eligible for
funding support from the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) by noting that
participants in the event should have to qualify through athletic competition to gain
admittance or that there be a limited number of spaces for entrants. Events where
participants did not need to qualify or “open events”, would be referred to other funding
sources within the federal and provincial / territorial governments. The structure of this
decision tree is shown in Figure 5, and the description is provided below.

In the course of their work, the Hosting Strategy Work Group requested a list from NSOs
of their “pinnacle events”-- that is, the event that provides the greatest opportunity for
excellence to be achieved in that sport. NSOs were asked to identify one pinnacle event
each for women, for men and for athletes with a disability. The 22 NSOs who replied,
generated a list of over 100 events, about 90% of which the NSO identified would have
operating budgets of less than $1 million and if required could apply for financial
assistance under the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) – International
Single Sport Hosting Program.

The scope of sport events considered by this Hosting Strategy includes:

         1. Major International Multi-Sport Events (“Major” Events): These are:
            Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Commonwealth
            Games, the Pan American Games, the Summer and Winter World University
            Games (FISU), and the Special Olympics Summer and Winter World Games.

         2. International Single Sport Events: These include World Championships,
             Olympic and Paralympic qualification events, World Cups or large international
             hemispheric competitions, allocated to countries by an international, continental
             or hemispheric sport federation through a formal bid process.

             International single sport events can be further divided into two categories based
             on the size and scope of the event and operating budget as well as facility needs.
             Those international single sport events with an operating budget of greater than $1
             million or requiring funding support from either order of government greater than
             $250,000 are categorized as large international single sport events19. Large
             international single sport events cannot be accommodated in the International
             Single Sport Hosting Program (ISSHP) budget of the Department of Canadian
             Heritage (Sport Canada). Examples of large single sport events include, World
             Aquatic Championships (FINA); World Road Cycling Championships, World Ski
             Championships (FIS), and the World Athletic Championships (IAAF).
19
     The Work Group noted that if the funding for the ISSHP is modified, then this definition of $1million budget/ $250K request to
     governments, separating large from small international sport events, may need to be revised accordingly.



          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                        38
  The Hosting Strategy Work Group noted the size, scope, operational budget and
  facility requirements of the FIFA Men’s World Cup, and considered whether it
  should be included in the list of major events that Canada should seek to host over
  the next 25 – 30 years. The location of the World Cup is rotated among the six
  football confederations that comprise FIFA, roughly Europe, Africa, South
  America, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, and North/Central America
  (CONCACAF). Hosting the FIFA Men’s World Cup would require funding
  support in the order of an Olympic / Paralympic Games, and it could not be
  argued that it would benefit the sport system broadly as would hosting a major
  international multi-sport event. Consequently, the Work Group concluded that it
  should not appear on the list of major international sport events Canada should
  seek to host in the near term, but should be noted for future consideration.




REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                              39
             START
                                        All International Events –
                                              sport, tourism,
                                        professional, cultural, etc.


          Participants
        must qualify to
                                  No                            Other funding sources
                                                                  within federal &
             enter /                                                  provincial
        restricted entry                                            governments


                 Yes
                                QUALIFIED INTERNATIONAL
                                     SPORT EVENTS




   Major Multi – Sport                                                    Single Sport




                              Large single sport --                         Small single sport --
                            operating budget greater                      operating budget less than
                           than $1 M &/or request to                      $1M &/or request to each
                           each order of government                       order of government less
                             greater than $250,000                              than $250,000



                                Figure 4: Categorization of International Events
                                             and Funding Sources



The Hosting Strategy Work Group discussed whether events with purely a tourism or
economic impact purpose should be included in the Strategic Hosting Framework. A
very strong argument was made from a sport tourism standpoint that events with purely
economic or tourism purposes should be included in this strategy.




    REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                     40
The Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that events that support all four purposes
(building sport capacity, maximizing economic benefits, maximizing community
benefits, and promoting Canadian culture and values) should be eligible for the
Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) financial support. Events that only
support one or two of these purposes (such as an event with a purpose of participation
and/or economic development) would not be eligible for funding by the Department of
Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and would be directed to other potential federal or
provincial / territorial funding programs. The Work Group did note, however, that the
sport hosting expertise of the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) staff
should be made available to advise on the extent of investment by other federal
government departments in events with a sport element, but an other-than-primarily-sport
purpose.

Consequently, events that are not included in this Strategic Hosting Framework for
international sport events are: festivals; and events such as the Subaru Eco-Challenge,
Goodwill Games, World Masters Games, World Transplant Games and the Police &
Firefighters Games.

As part of the Excellence Strategy (see reference in section 6.5 below), it is essential that
National Sport Organizations develop strategic hosting plans that outline in what years
they plan to host international events in their sport. Hosting those events will contribute
to the achievement of their excellence and sport development goals through provision of
opportunities to develop high performance athletes, high calibre coaches and officials,
managers, trainers, volunteers and other “human resource” aspects of the sport system. It
will also provide an opportunity to build the strength of the sport organization through
developing its marketability, profile, hosting capacity and expanding its revenue sources.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group observed that the network of Canadian Sport Centres
in nine cities across Canada would of course, play a role in assisting NSOs to achieve the
objectives of their excellence plans.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       14.     National Sport Organizations develop hosting plans for international
               sport events as part of their sport excellence and sport development
               strategies.

       15.     International sport events eligible for funding consideration by both
               orders of government under the Strategic Hosting Framework, which
               are identified as part of the NSO’s hosting plan, be limited to events
               where participants must qualify to compete or where entries are
               restricted.

The current practice in the implementation of the Sport Canada International Single Sport
Hosting Program is that annual events are not generally considered for funding support.
Given the limited budget of the Hosting Program and of the provincial/territorial
governments, it was further noted that funding a series of annual sport events could



     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 41
rapidly deplete the funding available from governments to the detriment of building
greater capacity throughout the Canadian sport system.

The Work Group agreed that both one-time and annual events should be included in the
strategy and that annual events could be funded on a declining basis, over three to four
years, depending on the market in which they are held. That is, initially an event would
be funded to a certain level, but in the following three years, the amount of funding it
received from the governmental sources would decline by a fixed percentage each year.

Hosting annual international sport events would provide an advantage for Canadian
athletes to perform on “home turf”. It would also build up a base of volunteer
involvement and contribution, strengthen coaching, officiating and organizing in that
sport and develop a network of relations with the corporate sector in that area of the
country, thus maximizing the opportunity for future non-government support of that
event. The Work Group noted that annual events that would be eligible for this type of
funding would be new international sport events that were not already being hosted in
Canada.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

          16.        Annual international sport events identified as part of the NSO’s
                     hosting plan be included for funding under the Strategic Hosting
                     Framework on a declining basis20 over a period of three or four years.

North American Indigenous Games and the Arctic Winter Games were not included in
the proposed Strategic Framework because they are covered by Federal-
Provincial/Territorial (F-P/T) agreements21. Strategic focus events, such as les Jeux de la
Francophonie which has an important cultural component and achieve broader
government objectives, were not considered by the Work Group as part of this proposed
framework.


6.4       Conditions

The conditions that apply to a request for funding under the Federal Policy for Hosting
International Sport Events are: (1) that bids must have proactive non-government
partnerships, (2) must provide for legacies, and (3) must share costs. These conditions
were supported by respondents and reinforced by the Hosting Strategy Work Group. The
sharing of costs is critical as to stage an international sport event in Canada has been
shown to range from 70 – 90% historically (see Table 4 above).




20
   Declining funding over four years might resemble the following: in the first year, funding would be X%, in the second year, it
   would be X minus 30%; in the third year, X minus 60%, and in the fourth year, X minus 90%. In the fifth year, there would be no
   senior level of governments’ funding for the event, under the proposed framework.
21
   The Arctic Winter Games agreement is between the federal government and the territories.



       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                     42
6.5     Ideal Strategic Framework

As with other countries’ models, a strategic framework for international sport event
hosting should ideally be driven by National Sport Organizations and Multi-Sport
Organizations identifying the events that best fit with their athlete participation and
excellence models and also their plans to develop coaches, officials and sport volunteers.
It should also fit with any plans established to support infrastructure development, and
enhance collaboration between NSOs and P/TSOs.


6.6     Objectives of a Strategic Hosting Framework

Given the significant impact that hosting can have on achieving the goal of the Canadian
Sport Policy to build sport system capacity, the Hosting Strategy Work Group
recommends that:

        17.    Governments plan:
               To host two major international multi-sport events every ten (10)
               years;
               To host one large international single sport event every two (2) years
               in Canada;
               To support financially thirty (30) or more small international single
               sport events every year in Canada; and
               To continue bidding for some events several times before a bid is
               successful, particularly the more desirable events that other countries
               also want to host such as the Olympic/Paralympic Games.

The Work Group recognized that Canada may be required to bid for more international
sport events to meet this objective as the decision to award rests with the International
Federations. Due to the bid process and hosting decisions, Canada may have more events
in any given year therefore the calendar should be viewed over a longer period of time
(25 to 30 years).


6.7     Determining International Sport Events Canada Should Seek To
        Host
The remainder of this document describes a process of government decision-making.
The need for more considered planning and review on the part of governments and the
sport system prior to a decision to bid for an international sport event has been well
demonstrated. The extent to which both orders of government as well as P/TSOs and
NSOs are sometimes caught off guard by the enthusiasm and determination of a
community-led bid has been described.

The proposed process does not intend to detract from the leadership role of the
community in developing and driving a bid. It merely allows for governments to make


      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               43
decisions with foresight and planning against agreed-to purposes, before indications are
given to International Federations that Canada is interested in hosting a certain event.


6.7.1 Major Multi-Sport Events

The Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that Canada should seek to host the events
that satisfy all four purposes: building sport system capacity, providing economic and
community benefits and providing opportunities to promote Canadian culture and values.
At present the Summer / Winter Olympic / Paralympic Games clearly meet all elements
of all four purposes.22 Other multi-sport events “drive the system” to a lesser degree.
These include: the Commonwealth, Pan Am, Summer World University Games and the
Special Olympics World Games.23

As with other major international multi-sport events, the global interest in hosting the
Special Olympics Summer and Winter World Games has seen a tremendous increase. At
one time, these two major multi-sport events were primarily hosted in the United States.
In 2003, the Special Olympics Summer World Games, were hosted outside of the United
States for the first time in Dublin, Ireland. Canada hosted the 1997 Special Olympics
Winter World Games in Toronto / Collingwood, Ontario. Future sites already awarded
are the 2005 Special Olympics Winter World Games in Nagano, Japan and the 2007
Special Olympics Summer World Games in Shanghai, China. As a result of this
increased interest, the International Federation, Special Olympics Inc., is currently
developing comprehensive systems for bidding for and hosting these events.

It was noted that governments should work in collaboration with the franchise holders,
Multi-Sport Organizations (MSOs), to determine when Canada should seek to host these
major multi-sport events. The timing of these events would be included in a long term
bid and host calendar developed and shared with governments and event promoters.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

             18.        Governments and Multi-Sport Organizations (the franchise holders of
                        the major multi-sport events) work in collaboration to plan to host all
                        major international multi-sport events over the next 25 – 30 years as
                        shown in Table 6, in an effort to achieve the significant sport capacity
                        building outcomes, economic and community benefits and promotion
                        of Canadian culture and values that hosting these events affords.




22
     This assertion has been made by the F-P/TSC Hosting Strategy Work Group #5 on Excellence.
23
     The Hosting Strategy Work Group notes that some respondents felt there is a variety of factors that “drive” sport development in
     Canada, and that hosting international sport events is one of those, but not the only one.



         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                       44
            Table 624: Major International Multi-Sport Events Canada should host

              Major International                             Canada should bid   Hosting Decision
               Multi-Sport Event                                   to host in      made by IF in
        Olympic/Paralympic Summer                             2016/2020/2024        2009/2013/2017
        Games
        Olympic/Paralympic Winter                              2030                 2023
        Games
        Commonwealth Games                                    201425/202626         2007/2019
        Pan American Games                                    2019                  2012
        Summer World University                               2015                  2010
        Games (FISU)
        Winter World University Games                         2015                  2010
        (FISU)
        Special Olympics World                                2017/2021             2012/2016
        Summer Games
        Special Olympics World Winter                         2019/2023             2014/2018
        Games

The Hosting Strategy Work Group observed that it may be necessary to bid for more than
two major international multi-sport events every 10 years to ensure that the objective of
hosting two major multi-sport events each decade is achieved and recommends that:

             19.        In the event that more bids might be won for major international
                        multi-sport events than planned over a period of time, it is
                        recommended that governments support fewer bids for major
                        international sport events over the next 10-year period to mitigate the
                        fiscal pressure.


6.7.2 Single Sport Events

To determine what international single sport events Canada should seek to host, the
Hosting Strategy Work Group developed a process to identify the extent to which these
events would meet Canada’s purposes in hosting international sport events and whether
Canada would be successful. Summarized, this process could be described as follows:

Sports/communities/promoters identify international sport events they would like to host.
Two processes are followed, one for small and one for large international sport events.
Using an analytical process, the large single sport international events are assessed to see
if they meet the purposes of hosting. Then an estimate is made of the likelihood of
Canada’s success in winning a bid for this event. The most likely to win events are

24
     Table 6 is a reproduction of Table 1 in the Executive Summary
25
     If Hamilton does not win the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid.
26
     If Hamilton wins the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid.



         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                        45
identified. Canadian cities that are interested in bidding for the international sport events
are identified, and if there is more than one city for one event, the NSO is asked to
conduct a domestic bid process. The Canadian city through the NSO submits a package
of information to both orders of government for determination of level of support.
Finally the NSO/MSO submits the bid to the International Federation.

This process is described in more detail in Steps # 1 – 25 below, and is shown in Figure
5, with the bracketed numbers (1) in the figure matching the numbered steps in the text.

    (1) Each NSO would be asked to identify international sport events that would assist
        them in achieving their excellence and sport development objectives.

    (2) In the event that there is an international sport event not identified by the NSO
        and an event promoter or community is interested in bidding for this event, the
        event promoter/community group would submit their interest to bid to the
        appropriate NSO to obtain NSO endorsement.

    (3) The NSO would review this event against their sport excellence and development
        objectives prior to going forward.


6.7.3 Small International Sport Events

    (4) Once the Hosting Plans of NSOs have been received by the Department of
        Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) as part of their funding application, NSOs that
        proposed to host sport events would advise the International Sport Events
        Coordination Group of their intentions.

    (5) The International Sport Events Coordination Group would post this information
        on a website where interested cities could obtain up to date information about
        events that could be hosted in Canada fitting with the sports’ development plans.
        As well, Provincial / Territorial governments would share this information with
        cities in their jurisdictions that have indicated an interest in hosting international
        sport events. Cities with an interest in bidding would come forward, supported
        by a municipal resolution, and obtain provincial/territorial agreement to their bid
        through the Pre-Screen (described below in Step 6). They could then forward
        their indication of interest to the ISECG, knowing that they had the confirmed
        support of the P/T government, even though the exact amount of the
        government’s commitment may not be known at that time. The bid requirements
        would be posted as well, so that cities could know if they had the necessary
        infrastructure or capacity (volunteer leadership, community sport organizations,
        fund-raising capacity) to host an event.

    (6) If a city or event promoter was interested, it would prepare a bid submission for
        review at the Pre-Screening stage. This would be completed prior to any contact
        with the International Federation. The proposed events would be Pre-Screened


     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   46
        (as illustrated in Figure 5). Documentation to show that the following criteria had
        been met should be submitted for Pre-Screening:

             A budget for bidding and a budget for hosting the event.
             A resolution of the Municipal Council when a sport event is already identified
             for a certain community, indicating the Council’s intent to provide financial
             and/or organizational support
             Support for the bid from the Provincial / Territorial Sport Organization
             Support for the bid from the National Sport Organization
             A draft multi-party or contribution agreement, a business plan, a proposed
             organizational structure for hosting the event and a funding request for a
             specific amount from each order of government to support the bid and to
             support hosting would need to be included

The Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that the pre-screening of these materials
should be done by government officials, and not a group outside of government. To
ensure that there would be coordination between the two orders of government, the pre-
screen should be done by one representative of the government of the province / territory
in which it is proposed that the event be held and one representative from the federal
government (Sport Canada).

It was agreed by the Hosting Strategy Work Group that if either order of government did
not have the necessary technical expertise to assess the submission, then they should be
able to access it from a “roster” of experts. This roster would be available to be used by
any F-P/T government to provide advice on the merits of a bid proposal or to verify
certain materials, e.g. the business plan or budget.

For small international sport events the Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       20.      The process of interested NSOs / bid communities / event promoters
                obtaining government approval for bids to host small international
                sport events include:
                a. Identification of interest
                b. Evidence of support from P/TSO and NSO and the municipality
                   (via council resolution)
                c. Completion and submission of documentation for review by both
                   provincial/territorial and federal governments, and
                d. Approval to proceed to the next step for review of a more
                   comprehensive information package.




     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                47
And further recommends that:

       21.     A roster of individuals with expertise in sport event bidding and
               hosting, business, law, sport tourism, and with International
               Federations be drawn up and maintained by the International Sport
               Events Coordination Group; and that this roster be made available to
               both orders of government to assist in reviewing submissions
               requesting funding.

After the pre-screen process it would be made clear to the NSO or bid community /
promoter that submission does not reflect a commitment to funding. The subsequent
steps in the process would be similar to those followed for a large single sport event, as
shown in Figure 5 and as described below in section 6.7.4.

Judgement would need to be exercised by governments in reviewing requests for funding
small international sport events, in the extent to which governments require
comprehensive business plans and other documentation. That is, it would not be fair to
request a business plan and other documentation that might cost up to $30,000 in
consultants’ fees, to secure a $50,000 grant. This issue could be alleviated by the
development of certain templates, resources and best practices and the maintenance of
these by the International Sport Events Coordination Group. The availability of these
materials would set out government accountability expectations and also make the task
easier for a community group or event promoter to complete without the necessity of
securing the services of expensive consultants.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       22.     The expectations of governments for submission materials for small
               international sport events be tempered by the size of the request for
               funding, bearing in mind their obligation to ensure appropriate
               accountability requirements are met.


6.7.4 Large International Single Sport Events

The Hosting Strategy Work Group devised a more comprehensive process to determine
whether a large international single sport event should be hosted in Canada and the level
of support governments should offer.

    (7) A list of events with a budget of greater than $1 million or a request for
        government contribution of greater than $250,000 would be generated by the
        International Sport Events Coordination Group on an annual basis or more
        frequently if circumstances dictated. This would comprise events that the NSO
        had identified as meeting their sport development and excellence objectives, as
        well as events put forward by communities or event promoters that the NSO
        endorsed as meeting their sport development and excellence objectives.


     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                    48
(8) Each event would be rated against the purposes for hosting (see Section 6.1) in a
    process termed by the Hosting Strategy Work Group, an “Analytical
    Assessment”. The Hosting Strategy Work Group assessed factors the proposed
    events should be considered against, and developed a series of criteria that
    closely match the purposes for hosting as well as the weighting or importance
    that should be attached to each criterion. These criteria are:

   a) Excellence (15% weighting) – Olympic/Paralympic Sports only will score
      on this criteria -
      The sport is an Olympic/Paralympic sport. The sport’s current ranking at
      the international level should be considered. The current world ranking is due
      to a planned system to develop athletes and coaches and will maintain
      success at the international level.

   b) Sport Development (15% weighting) - The NSO through collaboration with
      their P/TSOs has a plan for the development of their sport. This event is
      included in their development plan. The sport organizations along with
      community support have the capacity to bid for and host this event
      successfully. The NSO along with their P/TSOs have a system to develop
      athletes, coaches and officials in preparation to staging this event. The NSO
      along with the P/TSO will use this event to showcase these individuals as
      there is a high probability that they will have medal performances. The NSO
      has demonstrated that this event will be used to develop future athletes,
      coaches and officials by designing legacy programs during and post event.

   c) Promotion of Participation and Physical Activity (10% weighting) - The
      event will contribute to an existing sport participation plan that has been
      developed by the NSO in collaboration with the P/TSO and local clubs. Grass
      roots programs (part of the sport’s participation plan) will be promoted and
      tracked with this event. The plan includes promotion of persons with a
      disability, girls and women and aboriginal peoples. The local community can
      use this event to promote active living and physical activity in their
      community, and sport and physical activity within the school setting and to
      create theme activities within the school system.

   d) Economic Impact (35% weighting) – Would be assessed using the definition
      set out in section 4.3. The Hosting Strategy Work Group proposes that events
      be ranked according to the size of the economic impact that they generate.
      Economic impact should be assessed using STEAM, and points would be
      awarded based on the overall level of economic activity supported by hosting
      the event.

   e) Community Development (15 % weighting) - hosting the event will result
      in recruiting, training and retaining volunteers in the sport and in the
      community at large. Sport organizational development will result –



REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               49
           strengthening the NSO/P/TSO and local community club organizations.
           Administrative abilities, event management skills, technical skill
           development, marketing abilities and sport organizations’ visibility will all be
           enhanced. Enhanced collaboration among NSO, P/TSO and local sport
           organizations will be created by hosting the event. Sport development for
           aboriginal peoples and for visibility minorities is enhanced by hosting this
           event.

       f) Enhances chances to win a bid for another desirable event (5%
          weighting) - Hosting this event will demonstrate to the International
          Federation and other competing countries that Canada has the capacity to host
          the desirable event e.g. hosting a world Junior event to bid for and host a
          world Senior event.

       g) Promotion of Canadian Culture and Values (5% weighting) – The event
          will feature a cultural component that is integral to the event and will involve
          the promotion and advertising of Canada’s cultural diversity and cultural
          expression.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group envisaged that these criteria would be used to develop
an Analytical Assessment grid against which all proposed large international single sport
events with an operating budget greater than $1M or government’s funding contribution
of greater than $250,000 be assessed. All large international sport events identified by
NSOs as meeting their excellence and sport development objectives (whether generated
by the NSO, a community or an event promoter) would be measured against this
Analytical Assessment grid using a point system. The events with the highest point total
would be the most desirable events to host.

    (9) Following the Analytical Assessment, the Hosting Strategy Work Group
        concluded that a second assessment should be conducted, to assess the likelihood
        of a successful bid from Canada, given a number of international factors. The
        perspective of such an analysis is “from outside Canada looking in”. The Work
        Group acknowledged that factors affecting the outcome of this success
        assessment may be highly subjective, and also noted that the NSO should be
        asked to contribute to the completion of this analysis.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group developed a series of factors to consider from the
international perspective but did not attach weightings. These factors are:

           a) Cost of Bidding and Hosting: International Federations require a series
              of guarantees and marketing rights including TV rights, potential visibility
              for IF sponsors, financial guarantees and guarantees on profit from the
              event required to be paid to the IF. International Federations may also
              expect bonuses made available through travel subsidies or free
              accommodation for visiting IF members. The bidding city will need to
              assess whether they can meet these expectations and obligations.



    REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 50
           b) Technical Capacity – The bid city’s sport facilities to be used for the
              event will be rated against international calibre facilities. The sport
              technical and organizational ability of the country to host will be assessed.
              As well, the quality of the hotels to accommodate the members of the
              International Federation who will attend the event, and the international
              congresses, workshops or IF annual meetings to be held in conjunction
              with the world event will need to be assessed.

           c) Geographic Rotation – Whether Canada has hosted that event or another
              recently is a factor considered by IFs, including what other events are
              being hosted in Canada that year, what events Canada is bidding for and
              what events Canada has recently won or lost.

           d) Assessing the competition – The potential for international success is
              affected by the other countries competing to host the event. This includes
              not only the countries that are bidding for the same event, but the bid itself
              (strengths/weaknesses, specific features / offers), the number of other
              countries bidding (fewer countries can host winter sports, whereas many
              can host summer sport events), and what other perceived more desirable
              events will come available for hosting in the near future. These factors
              can result in more resources being needed to bolster a bid in the face of
              competition and can thus affect the cost of the bid. Bid cities need to
              determine if they can meet these expectations.

           e) Security – is not an issue for Canada when bidding, as Canada is
              considered one of the safest countries in the world. However, a
              consideration might be the other countries that are bidding for the same
              event. If security is an issue in any of those other countries, the Canadian
              bid would be favourably viewed in contrast.

           f) Canada’s world ranking in the sport – how Canada has performed thus
              far at the international level is considered by the International Federation
              when a decision on hosting is made.

           g) Previous bids – International Federations may look more favourably on a
              bid from a community that has bid previously and lost. It demonstrates to
              the IF that community’s desire to host the sport event. This also speaks to
              the importance of the same community going forward on a subsequent
              occasion to win the same event. Subsequent bids can build on the
              relationships that have been established with the IF, thus increasing the
              likelihood of success.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group sees these criteria being used to develop a Potential
for International Success Assessment grid. All proposed large international single sport
events, with an operating budget greater than $1M or a request for a contribution from



     REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                51
either order of government of greater than $250,000, would be assessed against this grid.
All large international sport events identified by NSOs as meeting their excellence and
sport development objectives whether generated by the NSO, a community or an event
promoter, would be measured against this Potential for International Success Assessment
grid. The advice of the NSO would be sought to complete this grid, and the events would
be ranked using a point system. The events with the highest point total would be the
most desirable events to host.

 (10) After the complete list of large international single sport events has been assessed
      using the Analytical and the Potential for International Success Assessments, a list
      of events, with rankings would result.

 (11) The International Sport Events Coordination Group would attach the requirements
      for hosting set out by the International Federations and would share the list with
      P/T governments, who could in turn make this information known to cities / event
      promoters in their jurisdictions.

 (12) Interested cities / promoters could compare their facilities / services /
      accommodation against the IFs’ requirements, and would review the results of the
      two Assessments and then would indicate their interest in hosting a certain event
      to their P/T government. The P/Ts would confirm if they were interested in
      supporting this proposal to bid, and could forward the information to the
      International Sport Events Coordination Group.

(13)     This list of events (and cities) could be updated and presented as a matter of
         information for review by F-P/T Ministers of Sport, Fitness and Recreation at
         their annual Conference. The list would include both the list of small and large
         international single sport events and major multi-sport events that cities had
         indicated an interest in hosting. As the list would be presented for information
         only, it would not affect timing of submission of any particular bid.

(14)     This 25 -30 year plan for hosting to be reviewed by Ministers, would be re-visited
         at each annual Ministers' Conference as the results of bids submitted were known,
         the factors affecting the potential for successful bids changed, and new events
         were added to the list.

(15)     Individual participant governments may need to obtain Cabinet review and
         approval of their proposed bids, to ensure that the appropriate resources adequate
         to support the bid were available in the appropriate fiscal year.

As one of the principles of the Strategic Hosting Framework identified was that of
regional balance to distribute hosting more equitably across the country, the Hosting
Strategy Work Group considered how this issue could be analyzed.

(16)     The Hosting Strategy Work Group agreed that the issue of regional distribution
         was of primary importance to the federal government, but that the provincial /



       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 52
       territorial governments may also be interested. A report on the extent to which
       the planned bids are distributed across the country would be prepared for
       presentation to the Ministers' Conference annually. The Hosting Strategy Work
       Group developed a list of the types of information to be included in a Regional
       Distribution Report. These types of information are:

      a. Overview of Bidding and Hosting
           NSO/MSO list of calendar of events
           Hosting and bidding report re: location, cities, provinces
           Demonstration by region where events have been and will be held over a
           25-30 year rolling calendar
           Report on future opportunities

      b. Financial Report
            Government Funding – Federal, Provincial/Territorial, Municipal
            breakdown of funding by province/territory
            Corporate/private sector involvement /marketability
            Financial legacies’ report by region
            Report on investment of financial legacies (what are the legacies and how
            are they managed)

      c. Infrastructure
             Infrastructure legacies from previous/present hosting
             Infrastructure required for future bids/hosting
             Assessment of the capacity to manage infrastructure legacies
             (municipal/private)

      d. Human Resource Assessment
           Athletes – performance of Canadian athletes at the events hosted in
           Canada / where did they come from for past, present, future events in
           comparison to where event is hosted
           Coaches – level of coaching, gender breakdown, number of coaches
           Volunteers – number involved, gender/age breakdown
           Technical officials – # and level of officials, gender/age breakdown

      e. Organizational Analysis
            Assessment of impact on collaboration between NSO/P/TSO
            Assessment of technical knowledge gained or opportunity to develop
            knowledge

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

      23.    Government officials use the proposed types of information to develop
             a Regional Distribution Report and that the Regional Distribution
             Report be updated and presented for information purposes to F-P/T
             Ministers at their annual Ministers' Conference.



    REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                             53
As the Work Group has recommended, Canada should bid for all of the major multi-sport
international events shown in Table 6 above. The timing of the bids to host the major
international multi-sport events, and the Canadian candidate city, is a matter to be
discussed between the respective MSOs and governments. Regardless, once timing has
been agreed upon, the location of the event and the review of a request for funding would
become part of this Strategic Hosting Framework process from this point forward.

(17) The Hosting Strategy Work Group considered the situation where more than one
     P/T or more than one city within a province or territory indicated an interest in
     hosting a major multi–sport or large international single sport event. The Work
     Group determined in these situations that it is most appropriate for decisions about
     the location of a Canadian candidate city to be decided by the National Sport
     Organization or Multi-Sport Organization.

(18) In this case, the NSO /MSO could be asked to conduct a domestic bid process to
     determine the best city to host the event. Further detail about the domestic bid
     process is provided in section 6.10 below.

(19) If no P/T government was interested in hosting a major multi-or large single
     international sport event that has been identified as desirable for Canada to host and
     also has a high potential for success, then that would be the end of the process,
     even if a city / event promoter had indicated an interest. Any bid process that had
     been mounted to that stage would proceed no further as with no provincial /
     territorial interest it would not be possible for the federal government to provide
     funding (according to the Federal Policy on Hosting International Sport Events).
     As well, data gathered on funding large international sport events over the past 10
     years indicated that most sport events staged without at least modest government
     funding tend not to be successful.

(20) After both P/T and federal governments had identified their interest in hosting an
     event the bid city / bidding NSO/MSO would need to complete a submission for
     government funding (to both orders of government) that included27:

                   sport development assessment (athlete preparation, officials and volunteer
                   preparation, pre-event test events, legacy—facility access, coach education &
                   employment, sport medicine / sport science)
                   economic impact assessment (using STEAM as recommended earlier)
                   community and social benefits assessment (youth involvement, gender equity,
                   identify and citizenship, voluntarism, official languages, employment equity,
                   girls and women in sport, multiculturalism, aboriginal peoples, persons with a
                   disability, physical activity, public support, environmental assessment)
                   cultural benefits (linguistic and cultural aspects, arts & heritage activities,
                   exposure of Canadian culture)

27
     This material is essentially similar to that currently required by Sport Canada under the Federal Policy on Hosting International
     Sport Events.



          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                           54
               fit with the strategic hosting plan of the NSO/MSO (fit with athlete and sport
               development --coaches, technical officials, volunteer administrators)
               assessment of likely media coverage and therefore enhancement of the sport’s
               visibility / exposure and that of the host region of Canada (tourism potential)
               Business Plan including event execution, promotion / marketing,
               communications, fundraising/ revenue generation and staffing plans, an
               organizational chart and a critical path, and
               a detailed budget showing both anticipated revenues and expenditures.

(21)     This material would be reviewed by officials in the federal and relevant
         provincial / territorial governments, drawing on the roster of experts as necessary.
         The recommendation from this review would go to each government (federal and
         provincial) for the funding decision.

(22)     With major multi- or large international single sport events if the provincial
         government was unable / unwilling to provide financial support, then the process
         of pursuing that bid would end.

(23)     However, if the provincial/territorial government was unable to match federal
         government funding for a small event, then the federal government would have
         the opportunity to provide assistance unmatched, from the International Single
         Sport Hosting Program.

(24)     After the F-P/T governments had decided on and committed amounts, then the
         bid would be reviewed one last time by the NSO / MSO to ensure that it was
         strong and likely to succeed at the international level.

(25)     It would then be submitted to the International Federation by the National Sport
         Organization or Multi-Sport Organization.

It was noted that the amount of time to complete this process could be significant, given
current decision-making practices. It will be important to ensure that the critical paths
developed for certain events’ decision making are adhered to.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

         24.      The process for determining what major multi-sport and large single
                  international sport events be hosted in Canada, be confirmed as:
                      Assess events against purposes (Analytical Assessment);
                      Estimate likelihood of successful bids with assistance of NSO/MSO
                      (Success Assessment);
                      Determine interested bid cities;
                      Inform Ministers of regional distribution of bids, and
                      Identify Canadian candidate cities through NSO/MSO domestic
                      bid process and determine government support.




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 55
 Figure 5: Diagram of Government Process for Review and Approval of
                      International Sport Event Bids
           (Next page—the numbers in brackets correspond to the
                  bracketed paragraph numbers in the text)




REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                  56
                  Promoters / communities              Events less than $1M operating budget
                  identify events (2)               Submission from cities / NSOs Pre-Screened by
                                                    1PT, 1 Sport CDA staff, reviews & recommends
                                    (3)               support or not to respective governments (6)
                   (1) NSO/MSO identify                                                     P/Ts / cities identify interest in
START               International Events;          Events greater than $1M                  hosting based on requirements
                  assess events proposed by       International Sport Events              provided by rights holders / NSOs /
                   communities against sp.      Coordination Group completes               MSOs. P/TSOs consulted (11,12)
                   development objectives      Analytical Assessment & Potential
                                               for Success Assessment, w/ advice
                                                from appropriate experts (7,8,9)
                                                                                                         International Sport Events
                                                                                                            Coordination Group
                                                                                                         coordinates all materials for
                                                   Comprehensive                                        comprehensive list of events /
                                                  assessment (20) &                                     proposed cities to go to F-P/T
                                                recommendation to F-                                      Ministers' Conference (13)
              > 1 P/T or >1                     P/T governments (21)
              City in a P/T
               interested?                                                                       STRATEGIC HOSTING
No P/T             (17)           Only 1 P/T                                                        FRAMEWORK
Interested, for                   interested                                                          PROCESS
events greater                                  P/T financial
than $1M?
                                                                       No--for small                         AUGUST 19, 2003
                                                  support?
—> Exit (19)       More than 1                                         events only
                                                    (22)
                   P/T / City
                   interested

                                                        Yes                      Federal
              NSO / MSO                                                        Government
             Conducts (18)                                                    decides how to                   Decision not to
        Domestic Bid Process,                                                  proceed (23)                    support Exit
                                                   F-P/T
           having regard for                       decide
          Hosting Framework                       Amounts
                                                                                               Decision to
        principles and purposes                     (24)                                                               Annual Status Report presented
                                                                                               support
                                                                                                                       by ISECG to F-P/T Ministers'
                                                                                                                           Conference, includes–
                                                                            Bid goes to IF through                     Regional balance anal. (14, 16)
                                                                               (25) NSO/MSO

                                                    REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                     57
6.8    Tools to Assist Bidders

The Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that the process of preparing the documentation to
obtain government financial support may look onerous, especially for smaller events. It
noted, however, that due diligence and increasing expectations of accountability for the use
of public funds, required that these types of materials be prepared and sent forward for
review.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group observed that the community leadership of a bid may
not have familiarity with public accountability expectations. To facilitate the review
process, the Work Group believes that a number of templates, resources, and best practices
should be developed that could be used by community groups seeking government support
for their bid proposal. There was general agreement that templates should be developed for
the following elements:

       business plan including event execution, promotion / marketing, communications,
       fundraising/ revenue generation, merchandising, volunteer development and
       staffing plans
       multi-party or contribution agreement
       organizational chart
       budgets for bidding and for hosting – showing both revenue sources and expenses.

Additional suggestions that came from the consultation included templates for: critical
path, sponsorship agreements, best practices, legacy format—sport development, and
knowledge management. A checklist approach was suggested as well. The development
of these templates and materials can be achieved through collaboration with various
partners and those that have the expertise.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       25.     A number of resources, reference documents, templates and best
               practices to assist in the development of a submission be designed and
               made available to any community or group that wishes to access them,
               via a website. Further, that the assumptions and design of templates be
               revisited regularly to ensure that they are kept up to date, reflecting the
               latest research and practices.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group considered who would be best positioned to coordinate
the development and maintenance of the resources and materials described above. It
concluded that educational materials and training workshops would best be developed
outside of government by communities or organizations that have had the experience on the
ground.

One such organization is the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance. Seen as an education and
marketing organization by its members, it has already developed a sport event database,
sport industry intelligence, an economic impact assessment tool (STEAM), relationship

REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   58
marketing programs to foster business-to-business interaction between sport organizations
and tourism businesses and partnership marketing opportunities, and has held three national
conferences on sport tourism.

The Work Group considered that while education and training materials and workshops
were best handled outside government either by CSTA or others, determined through a
tendering process, the responsibility for gathering existing resources, ensuring that the
development and availability of materials was comprehensive, satisfied both governmental
and sport community needs and was completed in both official languages, and coordinating
the process described in section 6.7, was best handled by government. This role, described
more fully below, would be performed best by the International Sport Events Coordination
Group.


6.9    Coordinating the Bid Process – the International Sport Events
       Coordination Group (ISECG) and the Roster of Experts

A recommendation has been made earlier that a coordinating role be played by an
International Sport Events Coordination Group. The Hosting Strategy Work Group
considered how the proposed Strategic Hosting Framework process could be coordinated
and concluded that a Coordination Group could be created with staff assigned from either
Sport Canada or the P/T governments to keep track of the processes at their various stages.

Tasks that could be coordinated by the staff of the International Sport Events Coordination
Group could include:

        Ensuring the development of bilingual education materials and resources; such as:
        • templates on business plans including event execution, promotion / marketing,
           communications, fundraising/ revenue generation, merchandising, volunteer
           development and staffing plans; organizational charts; bid and hosting budgets
           showing both revenue sources and expenses; multi-party or contribution
           agreements; critical paths; sponsorship agreements; legacy formats for sport
           development; and knowledge management (transfer “lessons learned” from one
           event to the next);
        • manuals on bidding and hosting (“Bidding 101” and “Hosting 101”);
        • a website where these materials could be accessed and made available to
           bidding / hosting cities / committees as required, and information concerning
           events could be accessed on a membership-only basis;
        • best practices.
        Ensuring that materials, once developed, are comprehensive, up-to-date and satisfy
        municipal, governmental, sport tourism industry and sport community needs;
        Arranging for the development of the Analytical Assessment Grid, the Potential for
        Success Assessment Grid, and the Regional Balance Report;
        Coordinating the sport-to-government, community-to-government and
        government-to-government exchange of information as set out in the Strategic
        Hosting Framework described in section 6.7, including:


      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               59
        •   Maintaining contact with the NSOs / MSOs through the Sport Canada program
            officers to identify events the NSOs /MSOs feel that Canada could bid for;
        • Providing information to bid communities / event promoters on other
            government programs that could be accessed outside the multi-party or
            contribution agreement;
        • Applying the Analytical Assessment Grid and the Potential for Success
            Assessment Grid to the major multi- and large single international sport events
            identified by the NSOs / MSOs with the assistance of experts/NSOs/MSOs as
            required;
        • Circulating the list of potential events to P/T government contacts to get an
            indication of what new events cities would be interested in hosting, and also to
            ensure that the previous indications of interest had not changed;
        • Preparing materials to be reviewed by F-P/T Ministers for information through
            the normal F-P/T mechanisms for appropriate review by all governments prior
            to going to the Ministers' Conference;
        • Maintaining connections with NSOs and MSOs concerning their interest to bid
            for international sport events and as appropriate, work with NSOs / MSOs to
            coordinate their domestic bid processes, and coordinate input from
            governments.
         Working with the Research Unit in Sport Canada to maintain data on events bid
         for, bid success rates, economic impact data, return on government investment
         (tax revenue), and hosting success so as to identify success criteria and prepare
         material for a summative evaluation.

Extensive work has already been undertaken on these resources by the Canadian Sport
Tourism Alliance. For example, some of the materials described here have been identified
in the plans of governments such as the Ontario Sport Tourism Action Plan, the
development of which is being coordinated by the CSTA. The ISECG should coordinate
with the CSTA to take advantage of CSTA’s wealth of knowledge, and work already
underway.

The development of these templates, materials and resources will of course require funds.
The Hosting Strategy Work Group felt it would be appropriate for governments to
contribute to the development of these, along with municipalities, the sport community and
event promoters / industry organizations. The development of STEAM was a joint
initiative of the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, Sport Canada, the Canadian Tourism
Commission and a number of provincial and municipal sport and tourism organizations
plus selected NSOs. That partnership of governments, municipalities, and the sport
community to develop STEAM can form a best practice to show the way for the
development of some of the materials and resources itemized above.

The reporting relationship of the International Sport Events Coordination Group will need
to be decided when this report is reviewed by F-P/T governments. If the coordination role
of ISECG was the responsibility of a group of F-P/T officials supporting the F-P/T process
such as the Federal – Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee (FPTSC) or its equivalent,
there could be a sense by provincial / territorial governments that the process of bidding
and hosting was being coordinated and administered with the interests of all governments

      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                60
in mind. On the other hand, administrative efficiencies and other types of coordination
could be achieved if the ISECG were within the existing structures of Sport Canada. The
Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that the Coordination Group should perform this
coordination function in collaboration with the F-P/T officials.

A roster of experts with backgrounds in sport event bidding and hosting, business, law,
municipalities, sport tourism, and with International Sport Federations, could provide a
great deal of support to the bidding process. Any real or perceived conflict of interest of
these experts could be managed with the application of mature governance and risk
management principles. Other countries (United Kingdom, Australia) have groups of
experts on a formalized Council that play a role in guiding those countries’ decisions to bid
for various international sport events.

Regional representation should be taken into account as far as possible in the roster of
experts, but the most important aspect of their membership should be their qualifications
and knowledge of international sport events. The experts’ role would be to:
       Contribute to the completion of the Analytical Assessment and Potential for
       Success Assessments for major multi-sport and large international single sport
       events as requested;
       Provide advice as requested to provincial / territorial governments;
       Provide advice to bid committees / cities to strengthen the quality of their bids and
       enhance their chances of a successful bid, knowing what these experts do about
       how and on what basis IFs make hosting decisions.


6.10 Process for Domestic Bids Operated By NSOs / MSOs

Some MSOs28 and some large NSOs29 hold their own domestic bid processes prior to
obtaining the rights to host an international event as part of their strategic hosting plans.

If the international sport event requires the financial support of governments to stage the
event or to fund the construction or renovation of facilities, the Hosting Strategy Work
Group believed that the process just described (section 6.7) should be followed.
Governments should indicate that they plan to provide financial support, before the
international rights to host these events have been secured and prior to the domestic bid
process being undertaken. The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

          26. If a community or NSO/MSO seeks to obtain the rights or commits to host
              an international sport event prior to informing the appropriate levels of
              government, that is a decision of that corporation and there is no obligation
              by any level of government to provide assistance post facto.



28
   Examples of MSOs who hold their own domestic bid process include Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Commonwealth
   Games Council,
29
   Examples of NSOs who hold their own domestic bid process include the Canadian Hockey Association, Skate Canada, and the
   Canadian Soccer Association.


         REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                            61
The process described in section 6.7 above would be undertaken with NSOs’/MSOs’ input
at the stage where the Potential for Success Assessment Analysis is being completed so that
their observations and knowledge of the bidding process and the international sport scene
could be taken into account.

Ultimately, the decision as to which bid cities are provided with government financial
support, would rest with the F-P/T governments. However, the final decision on the host
city is made by an International Federation of which the NSO / MSO is normally a
member. NSOs / MSOs are likely to have important information about factors that
influence hosting decisions by the IFs. It will thus be advisable for governments to take
seriously into account the recommendations of the NSO / MSO as to what Canadian city
will most likely be able to put forward a winning bid.

For example, if City A expressed an interest in hosting Event Y and the NSO knew that a
bid from City B would be more likely to succeed internationally, this information could be
made known to the International Sport Events Coordination Group. The International
Sport Events Coordination Group could coordinate discussion through F-P/T governments
to identify another event that could be held in City A, and that City B could be put forward
as the Canadian candidate city for Event Y. With the help of the NSO to identify the
reasons why a bid from City A would not succeed, a plan would need to be developed to
assist City A in addressing those needs so that in the future, it would be well positioned to
host EventY.

As noted above, if more than one P/T or more than one city within a P/T indicated an
interest in hosting an event that had been identified as desirable for Canada to bid for, then
the NSO / MSO would be asked to conduct a domestic bid process to select an appropriate
candidate city. In this way, the city that could best host the event from the standpoint of
the sport could be identified. However, it would be important for the NSOs/MSOs to take
into account the governments’ purposes in hosting, when conducting the domestic bid
process as well as the principles underlying the Strategic Hosting Framework. The Hosting
Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       27. NSOs/MSOs be asked by governments, when conducting a domestic bid
           process, to have regard for governments’ purposes for hosting, building
           capacity across the country, economic and community development, and
           promoting Canadian culture and values, and the principles of the Strategic
           Hosting Framework strengthened planning resulting in fiscally responsible
           decisions, regional balance in distribution of capacity building across the
           country, a sport development focus with community leadership, and
           coordination and collaboration among municipalities, both orders of
           government and the sport community.


6.11 Timing for Review Process

The Hosting Strategy Work Group noted that the process described herein for major multi-
and large single international sport events or for small international sport events will

       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 62
provide the time for governments to make, fiscally prudent decisions, although this process
may take longer than the one followed to date.

Government decision-making may take up to two years, and that time frame should be built
into the bidding decision-making process. This time frame is recommended to allow for
sufficient review within government and to allow an opportunity for the large amounts of
financial support being requested to be incorporated into the governments’ fiscal planning
cycles.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       28. The process for identifying interested cities, obtaining appropriate
           government approvals and determining which cities should represent
           Canada to an International Federation, be initiated at least two years or
           earlier prior to the hosting decision date to allow adequate time for
           appropriate analysis to take place.

It was noted during Hosting Strategy Work Group discussions and also in consultation that
there is not a very good understanding of government decision-making processes, the
timing, the considerations that need to be taken into account and factors that can have an
influence. It was felt that a primer on government decision making in this field would be
helpful in particular for community groups to understand the process of dealing with
governments.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

       29. A short description of government decision making in this field be
           developed and posted on a website outlining in general terms the factors
           and considerations that need to be taken into account by governments
           when arriving at a decision, and how timing can be affected by that.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                               63
7.0    CONCLUSION

The Canadian Sport Policy identified the variety of issues facing the development of a
comprehensive approach to hosting international sport events in Canada. In attempting to
address these issues, the Hosting Strategy Work Group realized the complexity of the
public policy problem facing governments. This complexity is compounded in a federation
with complementary governmental roles within a shared jurisdiction such as sport.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group concluded that there was a basis for establishing a
collaborative framework between both orders of government for hosting international sport
events. The Work Group defined major multi-sport and large and small single sport
international events and developed a framework for deciding when and why governments
should support the hosting of each of these categories of international sport events. The
Strategic Hosting Framework includes objectives, principles, conditions for supporting
hosting events, and outlines a mechanism for ongoing communication, consultation and
collaboration. The framework also includes mechanisms that would ensure the sharing of
learnings, resources, and expertise with key partners. The Work Group documented the
benefits of hosting international sport events and established the relative importance of the
various benefits through the weightings assigned to the Assessment grids it proposed be
designed. Finally the Work Group identified the need for a coordination function through
the International Sport Events Coordination Group to implement a collaborative
government framework.

The Strategic Hosting Framework described in this report is the first step in putting order
into the process instead of the unsystematic approach that has increasingly characterized
the field of hosting international sport events. It also provides governments, in
collaboration with the sport community, with an opportunity to plan and allow time to
make prudent, fiscally responsible decisions.

Considerable work will need to be done cooperatively by both orders of government to
refine and develop this process to take it to the next stage. It will also be a challenge to all
governments to ensure that the final process, once approved, is adhered to and respected.
Governments now have an opportunity and a mechanism to work together for the benefit of
sport and of communities across the country that are eager to host international sport events
but needed a framework to simplify the sport-to-government, government-to-government
and community-to-government relationships in this context.

The recent history of all 14 F-P/T governments working together to develop and approve
the Canadian Sport Policy was a significant step for sport, and has laid the groundwork for
continued cooperative efforts. Finalizing and endorsing a Strategic Hosting Framework
will follow that lead. The members of the Hosting Strategy Work Group are pleased to
have had the opportunity to make this contribution to the development of sport in Canada.




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   64
                       APPENDICES




REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK   65
APPENDIX A: List of Recommendations

The Hosting Strategy Work Group recommends that:

1. Governments’ support for bids to host major multi-sport international events be
   awarded to the community best positioned to be successful while being mindful of
   developing capacity across the country. To achieve a better regional balance of sport
   infrastructure and legacy, support be provided to Atlantic Canada to enable that part of
   the country to bid for and host a multi- or large single international sport event within
   the next decade.

2. Every effort is being made to sensitize Event Organizing Committees to the importance
   of building a permanent, significant fiscal, sport programming or sport facility legacy
   from the events they host. These efforts should include “how-to” manuals on bidding
   for international sport events that emphasize the importance of legacy. Legacy should
   continue to form an integral part of the multi-party or contribution agreements.

3. Each major international multi- or large single sport event that is hosted should create a
   legacy fund. The objectives of the legacy are to build sport capacity consistent with the
   Canadian Sport Policy with resources to come from two sources. (A) Consistent with
   past practices, between five and ten percent each of provincial and federal
   governments’ contributions to the operational budget for hosting major multi- and large
   single international sport events. (B) Any event surplus should be added to this legacy
   fund. The benefits from the legacy fund should be distributed consistent with the
   principle of equitable development and support for the national, provincial and regional
   / local levels of the sport system.

4. Funding for hosting international sport events be increased at the federal government
   level and in provinces where programs now exist; and in provincial/territorial
   governments, where no funding is ear-marked for hosting international sport events,
   that funded programs be created so that the benefits from hosting can be realized in a
   more consistent, planned manner. There should also be funding at both the federal and
   provincial/territorial government levels for bidding for major multi-sport and large
   single international sport events.

5. Event Organizing Committees be given contact information regarding other federal and
   provincial/territorial departments’ program opportunities and that these Organizing
   Committees be encouraged to seek relevant and applicable additional support outside
   the PCH multi-party or contribution agreement.

6. STEAM be the standardized model used for economic impact studies, and that these
   studies be a mandatory element of the assessment of a major multi- or large single
   international sport event seeking funds from governments, as a predictor of economic
   impact; and that completion of STEAM on-site be a mandatory requirement through the
   multi-party agreement for major multi- or large single international sport events, while
   the event is being hosted.

      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                66
7. An International Sport Event Coordination Group (ISECG) be created to undertake and
   coordinate the tasks connected with the implementation of the Strategic Hosting
   Framework described in this report. Tasks to be completed by the International Sport
   Event Coordination Group are outlined in the report (Section 6.9). The Coordination
   Group would perform this coordination function in collaboration with F-P/T officials.

8. This report be shared for feedback with stakeholders throughout the sport system,
   including, but not limited to, National and Multi-Sport Organizations,
   Provincial/Territorial Sport Organizations, municipalities and organizations with an
   interest in international sport event hosting or sport tourism, and event promoters, and
   that the feedback be incorporated into the Strategic Framework prior to endorsement by
   the F-P/T governments.

9. The Strategic Hosting Framework including the recommendations in this report be
   formally endorsed as a joint initiative of the federal and provincial/territorial
   governments.

10. The Federal Policy on Hosting International Sport Events be reviewed and revised,
    where appropriate, when the recommendations from this report have been finalized.

11. The proposed Strategic Hosting Framework be reviewed in two years in the context of
    the work of the other Canadian Sport Policy, Federal-Provincial/Territorial Priorities
    for Collaborative Action implementation working groups, to ensure that there is
    congruence among the processes proposed by each working group.

12. The purposes of the Strategic Hosting Framework be accepted as: building capacity, by
    contributing to excellence, participation, development of the sport system and sport
    infrastructure, maximizing economic and community benefits including increased
    emphasis on physical activity and healthy communities, and promoting Canadian
    culture and values.

13. Strengthened planning resulting in fiscally responsible decisions, regional balance to
    distribute capacity building across the country, a sport development focus with
    community leadership, and coordination and collaboration among municipalities, both
    orders of government and the sport community be accepted as the principles
    underpinning the Strategic Hosting Framework.

14. National Sport Organizations develop hosting plans for international sport events as
    part of their sport excellence and sport development strategies.

15. International sport events eligible for funding consideration by both orders of
    government under the Strategic Hosting Framework, which are identified as part of the
    NSO’s hosting plan, be limited to events where participants must qualify to compete or
    where entries are restricted.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                 67
16. Annual international sport events identified as part of the NSO’s hosting plan be
    included for funding under the Strategic Hosting Framework on a declining basis30 over
    a period of three or four years.

17. Governments plan:
            To host two major international multi-sport events every ten (10) years;
            To host one large international single sport event every two (2) years in
            Canada;
            To support financially thirty (30) or more small international single sport
            events every year in Canada; and
            To continue bidding for some events several times before a bid is successful,
            particularly the more desirable events that other countries also want to host
            such as the Olympic/Paralympic Games.

18. Governments and Multi-Sport Organizations (the franchise holders of the major multi-
    sport events) work in collaboration to plan to host all major international multi-sport
    events over the next 25 – 30 years as shown in Table 6, in an effort to achieve the
    significant sport capacity building outcomes, economic and community benefits and
    promotion of Canadian culture and values that hosting these events affords.

19. In the event that more bids might be won for major international multi-sport events than
    planned over a period of time, it is recommended that governments support fewer bids
    for major international sport events over the next 10-year period to mitigate the fiscal
    pressure.

20. The process of interested NSOs / bid communities / event promoters obtaining
    government approval for bids to host small international sport events include:

             a) Identification of interest
             b) Evidence of support from P/TSO and NSO and the municipality (via council
                resolution)
             c) Completion and submission of documentation for review by both
                provincial/territorial and federal governments, and approval to proceed to the
                next step for review of a more comprehensive information package.
             d) Approval to proceed to the next step for review of a more comprehensive
                information package.

21. A roster of individuals with expertise in sport event bidding and hosting, business, law,
    municipalities, sport tourism, and with International Federations be drawn up and
    maintained by the International Sport Events Coordination Group; and that this roster
    be made available to both orders of government to assist in reviewing submissions
    requesting funding.



30
     Declining funding over four years might resemble the following: in the first year, funding would be X%, in the second year, it would
     be X minus 30%; in the third year, X minus 60%, and in the fourth year, X minus 90%. In the fifth year, there would be no senior
     level of governments’ funding for the event, under the proposed framework.


             REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                      68
22. The expectations of governments for submission materials for small international sport
    events be tempered by the size of the request for funding, bearing in mind their
    obligation to ensure appropriate accountability requirements are met.

23. Government officials use the proposed types of information to develop a Regional
    Distribution Report and that the Regional Distribution Report be updated and presented
    for information purposes to F-P/T Ministers at their annual Ministers' Conference.

24. The process for determining what major multi-sport and large single international sport
    events be hosted in Canada, be confirmed as:
                   Assess events against purposes (Analytical Assessment);
                   Estimate likelihood of successful bids with assistance of NSO/MSO
                   (Success Assessment);
                   Determine interested bid cities;
                   Inform Ministers of regional distribution of bids, and
                   Identify Canadian candidate cities through NSO/MSO domestic bid
                   process and determine government support.

25. A number of resources, reference documents, templates and best practices to assist in
    the development of a submission be designed and made available to any community or
    group that wishes to access them, via a website. Further, that the assumptions and
    design of templates be revisited regularly to ensure that they are kept up to date,
    reflecting the latest research and practices.

26. If a community or NSO/MSO seeks to obtain the rights or commits to host an
    international sport event prior to informing the appropriate levels of government, that is
    a decision of that corporation and there is no obligation by any level of government to
    provide assistance post facto.

27. NSOs/MSOs be asked by governments, when conducting a domestic bid process, to
    have regard for governments’ purposes for hosting, building capacity across the
    country, economic and community development, and promoting Canadian culture and
    values, and the principles of the Strategic Hosting Framework strengthened planning
    resulting in fiscally responsible decisions, regional balance in distribution of capacity
    building across the country, a sport development focus with community leadership, and
    coordination and collaboration among municipalities, both orders of government and
    the sport community.

28. The process for identifying interested cities, obtaining appropriate government
    approvals and determining which cities should represent Canada to an International
    Federation, be initiated at least two years or earlier prior to the hosting decision date to
    allow adequate time for appropriate analysis to take place.

29. A short description of government decision making in this field be developed and
    posted on a website outlining in general terms the factors and considerations that need
    to be taken into account by governments when arriving at a decision, and how timing
    can be affected by that.

       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   69
APPENDIX B: Communications Canada Program Requirements

The objective of Communication Canada’s Sponsorship Program is to raise public
awareness and understanding of Government of Canada’s priorities, programs, services and
access channels through the sponsorship of eligible events across Canada.

Communications Canada program requirements define an eligible event as an activity of a
not-for-profit Canadian organization; held in Canada; and proposed by the event
organizer(s), not by someone acting on the event organizer’s behalf.

The event/activity is evaluated based on the following criteria:
           • The extent to which the event/activity supports the objective of the
               Sponsorship program;
           • Organizer’s expertise and/or capacity, including track record of success;
           • Whether the event/activity has the support of the community and other
               public or private partners;
           • How the event/activity would contribute to regional as well as urban-rural
               balance in the Government Sponsorship Program; and
           • Availability of funds.

The value of the sponsorship is negotiated based on the following factors:
           • The communication potential;
           • The size and nature of the expected audience;
           • Other partners/sponsors; and
           • Both regional and urban-rural balance.

A sponsorship agreement is signed stipulating the conditions of the sponsorship.

                     Table 7: Communications Canada Funding, 2002-2003

    EVENT                                          Sport Canada   Communications Canada
    IBA World Championship                         $25,000        $25,000
    (Sherbrooke)
    Coupe du Monde cyclisme                        $25,000        $100,000
    feminine (Montreal)
    World Junior Hockey                            $25,000        $100,000
    Championship (Halifax)
    U19 W Soccer Championship                      $250,000       $150,000
    (Edm/Van/Vic)
    Internationnaux de Tennis junior               $15,000        $10,000
    du Canada (Repentigny)
    Internationale de Volleyball                   $25,000        $140,000
    FIVN World Tour (Montreal)

NOTE: This program is under review in 2003-2004.



        REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                              70
APPENDIX C: Municipal and Provincial Hosting Strategies

                          Prince George, British Columbia

OVERVIEW                                             Prince George developed five goals as
                                                     part of their strategy:
Key Agency                                           Goal # 1 - Promote Prince George as
• Leisure Services Department                        an event hosting community (develop
                                                     brand name for Prince George)
Strategy                                             Goal #2- Facilitate training programs
• Event Hosting Strategy                             for event organizers (in areas such as
                                                     sponsorship, media, fundraising,
Target Market                                        volunteers);
• Regional, Provincial National and                  Goal #3 – Develop standardized bid
   International                                     packages;
                                                      Goal #4- Provide support to new
                          Funding                     and existing events.
   The primary
   objective of the
                          • The City provides
                                                      Goal #5 – Increase the number of
   Grants are to             funding through the
                                                      events national and international
   encourage growth in       Leisure Department
   the Event Tourism         in the form of bidding grants between $1,500 to $10,000.00
   Sector and as such        depending on the proposal. Event Development Grants to
   would not be              support start up costs for inaugural annual events to a
   provided to existing      maximum of $5,000. Event Incentives Grants are based on
   annual or semi-           number of participants $2.00 per participant for regional
   annual events.            events; $4.00 per participant for provincial events and $8.00
                             per participant for national and international events.

Locus of Expertise
• Leisure Services Department who involve other agencies and departments as necessary
   to review applications which are submitted by interested host organizers and/or
   community organizations. The Department reports to the City Council on a semi-
   annual basis in regard to the administration of the grants.

Risk Management
• Analysis of grant application and evaluation reports

Decision-Making Process
• The City Council has authorized the Leisure Services Department to receive, review
   and award Events Tourism Grants.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                    71
                          Sports Internationaux de Québec

OVERVIEW                                                          The primary objective
                                                                  of the event promoter is
Key Agency                                                        to attract events as part
• Private “event promoter” organization given the mandate         of economic
                                                                  development and
   by the City of Quebec to develop a strategic approach for      increase tourism and
   bidding for sport events. (NOTE: there is a similar            athletic participation on
   organization in Montreal called “Internationaux du sport       behalf of the City
   Montréal”)                                                     through hosting national
                                                                  and international sport
Strategy                                                          events.
• The provincial government established a “Strategic
   Cooperation Committee” made up of key stakeholders (Sport Quebec, tourism, two
   levels of government, industry, media) to prepare a list of sport events that meet their
   objectives (economic development and increase tourism and athletic participation).

Funding
• The provincial/municipal governments provide funding to these event promoters for
   organizational support (such as the creation of an events guide) and once the events
   have been awarded to Quebec City, decide the level of support required, upon receiving
   a formal funding request.

Target Market
• National and International events (created, annual or one-offs)

Locus of Expertise
• Sport Internationaux de Quebec (ISQ) provides expertise and support by providing
   economic impact assessment tools, developing bid/host resource manuals,
   administrative support, logistical support etc.

Risk Management
• The Strategic Cooperation Committee analyzes the file including the budget prior to
   approval to move forward with an international sport event bid.

Decision Making Process
• Sport Internationaux de Quebec conducts preliminary research and analysis and
   submits to the Strategic Cooperation Committee and it is the Committee that approves
   moving forward. The ISQ then contacts key stakeholders and conducts further research
   and analysis on the event and develops a preliminary budget for bidding and hosting.
   The Committee reviews and approves the budget prior to officially requesting support
   from governments. Once all support has been received the bid preparation begins prior
   to submission to the International Federation.




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                   72
Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
• The Quebec Government worked with the key stakeholders to create the Strategic
    Cooperation Committee in order to coordinate and manage the number of bids for
    international sport events coming out of the Province of Quebec. Without the Strategic
    Cooperation Committee made up of representation from key stakeholders, this type of
    event promoter would be seeking to host events without the provincial government and
    the sport community’s knowledge.
• Through their role as an event partner, the ISQ develop protocol agreements with
    bid/host event groups to offer their expertise and resources throughout the bid and
    hosting process.


                                      Saskatchewan

OVERVIEW

Key Agency
• Events Saskatchewan (partnership between Sask          An initial two year business plan was developed
   Sport Inc; Tourism, Government of Sask)               for 1998-2000 after an assessment the support
                                                         continues until 2005 leading to Saskatchewan’s
                                                         Centennial. The Goals of the Initiative are:
Strategy
                                                           • Form a partnership between tourism, sport,
• Bid Saskatchewan Initiative 1998 to 2000                   and the Government;
• Events Saskatchewan Initiative 2000 to 2005              • Create awareness

                                                           • Identify potential events and assist to secure
Funding                                                      these events;
• The funding for the Events Saskatchewan                  • Foster and facilitate positive alliances
   initiative is provided by the three organizations         between communities and organizations;
   (Sask Sport, Tourism, Provincial Government)            • Encourage and support Saskatchewan
   and provides leadership and support to bid/event          communities to develop and host sport and
   organizing groups.                                        recreational events


Target Market
• National and International events

Locus of Expertise
• Events Saskatchewan

Risk Management
• Events Saskatchewan does not provide financial support; it provides information on
   bidding and hosting

Decision Making Process
• Events Saskatchewan does not make decisions on which events to support.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                      73
Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
• Events Saskatchewan promotes community and economic development in
    Saskatchewan. It provides valuable reference materials for event bidders/organizers. It
    also provides an opportunity for partnerships between sport, tourism and the
    government. However, Events Saskatchewan is not involved in bidding for and hosting
    events, therefore, bid groups can go forward without municipal or provincial
    government knowledge leading to potential difficulties when a bidding group seeks
    government support after they have been awarded the event.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                              74
APPENDIX D: Other Jurisdictions’ Hosting Strategies31


                                                             Australia
OVERVIEW

Key Agency                                                                     Regional Event Corporations in Australia are
• Australian Sport Commission                                                  responsible for attracting and fostering major events,
• State and Territory event corporations                                       the largest proportion being sports events. The main
                                                                               issue is how to improve the performance of sports
                                                                               events as tourism products in order to maximize the
Strategies                                                                     return on the dollars invested. Options include:
• National Sport Tourism Strategy                                                   • Improving the yield from existing events
                                                                                    • Staging more events
• Business Plan 2006                                                                • Targeting and supporting events that offer
                                                                                         the biggest potential returns in terms of
Target market                                                                            tourism
• National and international                                                        • Spreading the benefits of new and existing
                                                                                         events to more regions, rather than just the
                                                                                         major metropolitan centers
Funding                                                                             • Better co-ordination of sporting events with
• State and territories provide $AUS9.6 to                                               other tourism related activities so as to
   11.5 million plus on-going support annually                                           maximize visitor stay and yield.
• Nation has reduced tax burden for certain
   major events

Locus of expertise
• National, state & territorial event corporations, regional clusters and facility hubs
• Sport organizations exist at all levels

Risk Assessment                                               Australia: Towards a National Sport Tourism Strategy
• Economic assessment is
                                                                             Key Elements of the Strategy
   used to determine event                             Improve the co-ordination and competitiveness of the sports tourism
   corporation’s budgets                                                              industry
                                                         Identify and address education and training issues for the industry.
Bid Decision-making                                           Minimize the impact of regulatory issues on the industry
• Sport organizations and                               Identify and address the infrastructure requirements of the industry
   communities initiate bids                         Identify and address the research and data collection requirements of the
                                                                                      industry
   and ASC assesses                                 Improve the means of evaluation of the economic benefits of sport tourism
   applications                                                    Co-ordinate the implementation of the strategy.



31
     Much of the material contained in this appendix was originally developed for the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation
     in November 2001 by the consulting firm Economic Growth Solutions in association with Lynn Morrow Consulting. The Work
     Group would like to thank and acknowledge Don Baxter and Lynn Morrow for their contribution to the body of knowledge about
     sport tourism in Canada and internationally.


            REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                                                      75
Marketing
• Both one-off events and manufactured events
• Where possible, the Commonwealth Government, through a Major Events
  Commonwealth Coordination Group (MECCG) works with event organizers,
  State/Territory governments, industry stakeholders and other Commonwealth Agencies
  to assist in the facilitation and effective running of major events in Australia. The
  MECCG includes representatives from more the 20 Commonwealth departments and
  agencies. The four main areas of responsibilities are: Border control, media, security
  and business/tourism development opportunities. The Commonwealth has also
  established the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) to assist in promoting Australia
  as an international tourism destination. The ATC offers marketing support to various
  host organizations.
• National and State financial assistance and support for sports staging international
  events is available.

Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
• The national government needs to provide and disseminate information, and encourage
    better communication between sports and tourism players. It needs to also facilitate
    major projects, perhaps replicating the approach adopted for the Olympics, where a co-
    ordination unit brought together the many Commonwealth agencies necessary to make
    the event a success, but on a continual not event specific basis. Also, support is needed
    to help agencies to navigate the maze of government and minimize any adverse impacts
    of regulation is an important role for government.
• Stronger linkages need to be created between the sport and tourism sectors in order to
    enhance sporting events as tourism products. One of the key issues for maximizing the
    tourism benefits of sport activity and events is the availability of a range of accessible
    accommodation, covering the range of accommodation expectations from budget to
    luxury markets. As part of a facilities audit, identifying state, national and international
    standard facilities through an accommodation directory would assist in more effectively
    targeting particular events.
• The development of regional sporting “hubs” avoids duplication and maximizes the
    synergies with complementary facilities in nearby regions. Also, the recent trend
    toward the construction of multipurpose facilities that can be used for a variety of
    community functions can help to manage the risks associated with the long term
    sustainability of infrastructure investment.
• Lack of identity and cohesiveness is a major impediment to the growth of the sport
    tourism sector. There needs to be better communication and co-ordination at national,
    state and regional levels to gain an understanding of the benefits of strategic alliances.
    Sharing of physical resources and information and co-operative planning is essential.
• A key issue for regional areas is to identify the range and level of resources and
    infrastructure that they do possess, and to use this information as the basis for
    identifying and pursuing suitable sport tourism opportunities. This includes a
    coordinated and sound economic approach to development of facilities, and the
    appropriate infrastructure including sporting facilities, adequate accommodations and
    transportation.
• Sport organizations need to develop event management skills. More broadly, education
    and training needs must be addressed in the sport tourism sector. This also means a

       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                  76
   sound research base needs to be developed, and a standardized approach to evaluation
   adopted.

Mention must be made to the significant role the 2000 Summer Olympic/Paralympic
Games played in exposing Australia’s sport and tourism assets to vast new audiences and
markets, providing significant opportunities in the sport tourism field. A legacy of
expertise in a range of sport-tourism fields was left by the Olympics/Paralympics, as well
as a legacy of world-class sporting venues, all of which will give Australia a head start in
bidding for major sporting events in the years following the Games.


                                    United Kingdom

OVERVIEW                                           In the UK a major event is defined as:
                                                   ♦ Involving competition between teams and/or
Key Agency                                              individuals representing a number of nations; and
• UK Sport: Major Events Steering Group            ♦ Attracting significant public interest, both at home
   (guide direction, national voice,                    and overseas, through spectator attendances and
   recommend priorities and funding),                   media coverage; and
   Government & Agencies Committee                 ♦ Of international significance to the sport(s)
                                                        concerned, and features prominently on their
   (single link to government)                          international calendar.
Strategy
                                                   These can be categorized as:
• National Strategy for Major Events               ♦ Large events
                                                   ♦ Calendar events
Target market                                      ♦ One-off events
• Major events                                     ♦ Showcase events

Funding
• Lottery (program) (1.6 million pounds annually), Exchequer (400,000 pounds) and
   commercial (sponsorship) funds

Locus of expertise
• UK Sport provides leadership, strategy, liaison, co-ordination with stakeholders,
   ensuring value for money, monitoring and evaluation; with regional and local capacity
   building

Risk Management
• Economic impact assessment model being developed

Bid Decision-making
• Recommendations from an expert group (Major Events Steering Group) review the
   application and make recommendations to UK Sport Council. UK Sport Council will
   ensure that public funds only support events consistent with strategy (eight criteria
   identified)




       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                     77
Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
• Multitudinous and sometimes conflicting organizations bidding for events made clear
    the need to improve the bidding for and staging of major events through a national
    policy addressing the key issues of leadership, support and expertise, co-ordination
    among stakeholders, strategic development of sport, and optimizing public benefit. Bids
    cannot be approached in an ad hoc, piecemeal manner. Further, all too often
    organizations concerned primarily with sport overlook the need to involve a broad
    range of stakeholders from other sectors.

                                                             Economic & Sport Community
                       UK Sport
                                                             Benefits
             Deciding Where the Money Goes                   • Economic benefits include job
  Nature of the event - number and competitiveness of           creation, particularly in the small
  the countries participating                                   and medium-sized business sector,
  Public profile - the ability to attract a global audience
                                                                regional development, increased
  and the likelihood of domestic success
  Development of Sport - the extent to which the event          international exposure leading to
  is supported by performance and development                   increased tourism and increased
  programmes, to ensure that existing performers peak           exports, enhanced infrastructure
  at the right time and newcomers have appropriate              and increased tax revenues. Over
  opportunities to take up the sport                            280,000 visiting spectators and
  Influence in International Sport - the role that the          media attended Euro 96, spending
  event will play in enhancing the UK's standing in
  international sport and lay the ground for bids from
                                                                over 120 million BPS in the eight
  multi-sport competitors                                       cities and surrounding regions and
  Technical quality - the organizers' technical ability and     generating over 4,000 full-time
  track record of staging events                                equivalent job years. The total
  Economic Considerations - the extent to which the             economic impact of the event was
  event represents value for money and the nature of            calculated to be 195 million BPS.
  economic impact it is likely to have
                                                                (The UK Sport strategy defines
  Social Benefits - levels of public support and the ability
  to involve and develop opportunities for young
                                                                economic impact as "the net
  people                                                        economic change in a host
  Cultural Benefits - the role that the event will play in      community that results from
  promoting British culture internationally and in              spending attributed to a sports event
  association with cultural programmes                          or facility.")
                                                             • The significance of the sports event
   industry has not been recognized. Studies have shown that the 450 major spectator
   events generated over 1 billion BPS in additional expenditure to the local economies in
   which they are staged, and much of this income is from overseas visitors.
• The benefits to sport development include benefits to athletes, coaches, officials and
   volunteers from training, competitions, programming and facilities legacies. Sport
   organizations also benefit from increased exposure and influence, and experience
   increased participation in their sport. The United Kingdom strategy is based on the
   sport organizations’ hosting plans. While some sport organizations are more advanced
   in their planning than others, the UK Sport Council will assist the organizations in
   developing this plan and ask for hosting plans to project ten years out.
• Social benefits range from unique work experiences, including training and youth
   participation, to volunteer promotion and increased emphasis on fitness and health.
   Hosting also provides a forum to celebrate national identity and pride. Further, major

       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                       78
   events have a very positive role to play in fostering understanding of environmental
   issues, raising awareness and generating resources.


                                                   Ireland

OVERVIEW

Key Agency
• Irish Tourist Board Sports Tourism
                                                               In Ireland the priority is to demonstrate
Strategy                                                       synergy with the Tourism Brand and the
                                                               aim is to spread the benefits of tourism
• International Sports Tourism Initiative                      across the region. Events considered:
                                                               ♦ Those involving competition between
Target market                                                       teams and/or individuals representing
• Major events                                                      a number of nations; and
                                                               ♦ Those of international significance to
Funding                                                             the sports concerned and feature
                                                                    prominently on the international
• Irish Tourist Board allocated $7.6 million Euro
                                                                    calendar;
   per year from 2002-2005. The contribution to                ♦ Those that attract significant public
   the event is provided 50% upon signing an                        interest both at home and overseas.
   agreement and 50% upon successful delivery of               These can be categorized as:
   the event.                                                  ♦ Large events
                                                               ♦ Commercially successful
Locus of expertise                                             ♦ Hallmark Events
• International Sport Tourism Advisory Group                   ♦ One-off events
   meets every 3 months to review applications
   and makes recommendations to the Irish Tourist Board Sports Tourism Department.

                                                     Risk Management
              Irish Tourist Board                    • Evaluation Model (STEM) was devised by
        Deciding Where the Money Goes                   an independent sport consultant to offer a
 Publicity Opportunities - media coverage,              scientific method of evaluating the event
 promotion, marketing, advertising, exposure to         based on the criteria established; STEM
 other markets such as Britain, Europe,                 includes an economic impact assessment.
 Australia and global appeal;
 Promotional Opportunities -TV rights,               Bid Decision-making
 signage, corporate entertainment, consumer
 trade, internet opportunities;
                                                     • Application forms are evaluated using the
                                                        STEM model and this information, along
 Economic Opportunities – visitor numbers, yield        with an evaluation and recommendation
 from attendees, repeat business, prestige and
 platform, profile of the event.
                                                        by the International Sport Tourism
 Funding is provided much like a sponsorship            Advisory Group is presented to the Tourist
 agreement whereby it is based on the                   Board Sports Tourism Department.
 promotional opportunities of the Irish tourism
 brand by the event.



       REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                           79
Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
• The International Sports Tourism Initiative was launched in January 2000 for the
    purpose of support efforts of attracting major international sport events with tourism
    potential for Ireland. Since 2000, the program has sponsored a total of 46 major
    events. The priority on economic development and tourism has a limited impact on
    sport development. The event focus such as the PGA events and Grand Prix motor
    racing, is a viable strategy to heighten the Irish Tourism Brand, however, the
    opportunity for sport development is limited. The pre-evaluation of the event using a
    scientific method (STEM) provides the Irish Government with reliable, concrete
    information prior to making a decision on the level of financial contribution. With this
    focused approach, Ireland has identified itself as a unique location that can capture the
    attention of the world’s sport market through further high quality, high profile
    “prestigious” events.



                                      South Africa

OVERVIEW

Key Agency
• Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism – Sport and Recreation South Africa

Strategy                                                  In South Africa the guiding principles in
                                                          selection of events include:
• National Strategy on Bidding and Hosting Major          Benefit to the people – the event must leave a
   International Events (draft March 2003)                legacy such as sport development, national
                                                          pride, skill development, infrastructure, and
                                                          development of the SA brand
Target market                                             Development & Incremental – build on success
                                                          by hosting smaller events first – build capacity
• Continental and international events                    Aligned with national priorities - job creation,
                                                          black economic development, alleviation of
Funding                                                   poverty, and HIV/AIDS.

• Currently any bidding or hosting funding is
   through submission to Cabinet.

Locus of expertise
• Proposal to create a Major Events Council with representation from sport, tourism,
   industry, media and three levels of government.




      REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                            80
    South Africa’s criteria of events:  Issues, Barriers & Opportunities
    1.   Legacy – All events must
         demonstrate a post-bidding and
                                        • The National Strategy on Bidding and Hosting
                                            Major International Events was discussed at a
         post-event legacy for sport, regional
         and national development.          conference of provincial and federal governments
    2.   No financial deficit from bidding or
         hosting                            and sport federations in March 2003.
    3.    Sound administration and financialUnfortunately, when the discussion took place most
         management including a business    individuals had a vested interest in their own sport
         plan
    4.   Feasibility study on the costs/    being included. This made ranking and priority
         benefits including economic impact setting very difficult. The top ranked event was the
    5.   Partnerships including all levels of
         government, tourism, hospitality,
                                            2014 Commonwealth Games. It was suggested that
                                            the strategy include a development approach that
         industry, private sector, security etc.
    6.   Community/organizational           selects the key mega and major events, and then fill
         support from the host site,
         including Council and Executive    the calendar with events that will prepare South
         approval                           Africa to host the mega /major event.
    7.   Environmental impact study
                                        • The plan is very ambitious for a country that has
                                            minimal hosting experience. Discussion at the
       planning conference concentrated on the large events, but the country requires a plan to
       host smaller events to prepare to build the capacity for hosting larger events.
•      There is no mechanism planned to handle events that circumvent the process.
•      It was recommended that all sport organizations and local governments that are
       considering submitting a bid for an event between 2003 and 2020 submit a request for
       approval to government first, that includes an overview of the event and bidding
       process and cost-benefit analysis. It was also recommended that the national strategy
       seek further consultation and receive government approval.
•      A final recommendation was that once there is approval for the national hosting
       strategy that Sport and Recreation South Africa work with all sport organizations,
       provinces, and local governments to support and implement the strategy.

                                             United States of America

In the USA, sport event hosting is managed by Regional Sport Commissions that are
funded by a combination of foundation funds, a levy on hotel rooms in their jurisdictions
(“bed taxes”), corporate sponsorships and contributions from local and state governments.
These Regional Sport Commissions focus on attracting both professional and amateur sport
events. The information that the Work Group was able to glean about the US system and
process was limited by the time available.

The Hosting Strategy Work Group learned that International Federations are expanding the
requirements for guarantees from bidding countries as a means of enhancing their revenues.
These guarantees are expected by IFs from governments, but in the U.S., governments tend
not to be as involved in funding the bidding process, relying more heavily on the corporate
sector. As well, since the 1980 Winter Olympic Games in Lake Placid, U.S. television
broadcasters have succeeded in maintaining ownership of domestic broadcast rights, a
source of revenues not therefore open to the IFs. IFs, in consequence, are more likely to
select a bidding country where they can access the domestic TV broadcast rights as well as
obtain financial guarantees from governments.


           REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                              81
    APPENDIX E: International Federation Bid Requirements

                      Table 8: International Federations Bid Requirements

      BID                       IOC32       Common-      FISU33    IAAF34     FIFA35    FISA36    FITA37
 REQUIREMENTS                  (>$1B)         wealth   (>$200M)   (>$120M)   (>$500M)   (~$2M)   (<$150K)
                                            (>$500M)
Introduction
Dates and Location
of the Competition
Government
Support –
including letter of
assurance for free
access to the
country for
participants of the
event as well as
access of
equipment and
supplies for the
competition
Candidate City
letter of support
required
Organizing
Committee
structure and roles
and responsibilities
Human Resource
structure and plan
Public Opinion of
the Event
Legal Aspects
(laws related to
hosting, doping,
any legal
obstacles)
Budget
Government

    32 Estimated overall budget of event.
    33 University Games
    34 Athletics
    35 Football / Soccer
    36 Rowing
    37 Archery


              REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                                82
      BID             IOC32   Common-      FISU33    IAAF34     FIFA35    FISA36    FITA37
 REQUIREMENTS        (>$1B)     wealth   (>$200M)   (>$120M)   (>$500M)   (~$2M)   (<$150K)
                              (>$500M)
Financial
Contributions

Revenue
Generating                                                                 (or)     (or)
Potential
(outlining
marketing plans)
Existing sports
venues
international
standards & event
program
(diagrams)
Planned sports
venues
international
standards & event
program (plans)
Additional sports
venues (diagrams
& plans)
Technical Plan
Medical Services
and Anti-Doping
Ceremonies,
Special Events,
Hospitality
Community
Programs
Communication
Plan
Map of
City/Region
highlighting
location of venues
Team Officials
(Athletes,
Coaches)
Accommodations
(Athletes Village)



          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                      83
      BID              IOC32   Common-      FISU33    IAAF34     FIFA35    FISA36    FITA37
 REQUIREMENTS         (>$1B)     wealth   (>$200M)   (>$120M)   (>$500M)   (~$2M)   (<$150K)
                               (>$500M)
International
Media and
Broadcast Centre
Hotels (diagrams,
map of locations,
rates)
Media
Accommodation
Transportation
Infrastructure
(existing, planned,
additional)
International
Airport
Detail of distances
and journey times
between venues
Population of
Country, City,
Region
Meteorology
Environment
assessment
Background of
Experience of the
Organizing
Committee
Security and Risk
Management




          REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK                                       84

								
To top