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

Transcription

1 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

2 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, 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.

3 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

4 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 Manager of Sport & Physical Activity Development Section British Columbia Ministry of Community, Aboriginal & Women s Services Ron Wight Office of the Deputy Minister Saskatchewan Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation Rick Traer Chief Executive Officer Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance Éric Savard Directeur général Les 3 es Championnats du monde d athlétisme jeunesse de l IAAF Sherbrooke, Québec Brian MacPherson Director General Canadian Paralympic Committee Peter Montopoli Chief Marketing Officer Skate Canada Louie Di Palma Manager - Recreation Unit Sport & Recreation Branch Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Guy Thibault Conseiller recherche Direction du sport et de l'activité physique Secrétariat au Loisir et au Sport, Québec Paul Hardy FIFA Marketing Consultant Directeur des Compétitions Les 3 es Championnats du monde d athlétisme jeunesse de l IAAF Sherbrooke, Québec Mr. Fred MacGillivray President and Chief Executive Officer Trade Centre Limited Halifax, Nova Scotia Mark Lowry Executive Director, Sport Canadian Olympic Committee Stacey Allaster Vice President and Tournament Director 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

5 STAFF TEAM: Mike McWhinney (Lead) Senior Policy Advisor Assistant Deputy Minister s Office Department of Canadian Heritage Judy Sutcliffe Principal The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated Social Research Consultants Elaine Harvey Manager Hosting and Major Games Sport Canada Department of Canadian Heritage Jennifer Brenning Program Officer Sport Canada 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)

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

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Issues Research Findings Strategic Hosting Framework Key Recommendations Conclusion INTRODUCTION Policy Context Hosting Strategy Work Group Structure of the Report Approval Process and Announcements BACKGROUND Issues: Need for a Strategy RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS History of Canadian Heritage Funding of International Sport Events in Canada History of Other Federal Government Funding of International Sport Events Economic Impact of Hosting International Sport Events Canadian Municipal & Provincial Hosting Strategies Other Countries Are Acting Bid Guidelines from International Federations NEXT STEPS PROPOSED STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK: Purpose of Hosting Principles Scope - Categorization of Events Conditions Ideal Strategic Framework Objectives of a Strategic Hosting Framework Determining International Sport Events Canada Should Seek To Host Major Multi-Sport Events Single Sport Events Small International Sport Events Large International Single Sport Events Tools to Assist Bidders Coordinating the Bid Process the International Sport Events Coordination Group (ISECG) and the Roster of Experts Process for Domestic Bids Operated By NSOs / MSOs Timing for Review Process 62

8 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

9 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, 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

10 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) agreements 1. National sport events were excluded as they are covered by the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework of Sport Canada 2. 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 crossjurisdictional 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

11 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 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

12 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

13 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 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 to host in Hosting Decision made by IF in Olympic/Paralympic Summer 2016/2020/ /2013/2017 Games Olympic/Paralympic Winter Games Commonwealth Games / /2019 Pan American Games Summer World University Games (FISU) Winter World University Games (FISU) Special Olympics World 2017/ /2016 Summer Games Special Olympics World Winter Games 2019/ /2018 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 4 If Hamilton does not win the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid. If Hamilton wins the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid. REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK 5

14 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 decisionmaking, 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

15 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

16 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 tourism 5. 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 decisionmaking 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 bypassed. 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, Mills Report (1998) Sport Leadership, Partnership and Accountability The Federal Hosting Policy originated in 1989 and was revised in 1996 and 2000 REPORT ~ STRATEGIC HOSTING FRAMEWORK 8

17 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, , 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

18 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

19 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) agreements 8. 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

20 The Work Group met five times between April and August, 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 $1,400,000 PCH Funding Across Time $1,330,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $880,000 $992,000 $ $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $545,000 $316,000 $185,000 $215,000 $300,000 $250,000 $335,000 $38,929 $35,111 $30,833 $35,833 $42,857 $31,250 $30,455 $32,593 $39,680 $40,303 $ Year PCH Funding SSH # of Events Event Average Figure 1: PCH Funding International Single Sport Hosting Program 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

26 AB: $40,765,000 NT, NU & YT: $350,000 SK: $70,000 QC: $8,398,000 PE: $0 ON: $19,389,000 NS: $105,000 NL: $105,000 NB: $25,000 BC: $79,156,000 AB % (pop. 9.9%) BC % (pop. 13%) MB % (pop. 3.7%) NB % (pop. 2.4%) NL % (pop. 1.7%) NS % (pop. 3%) ON % (pop. 38%) PE - 0 % (pop. 0.4%) QC % (pop. 24.1%) SK % (pop. 3.3%) MB: $58,360,000 NT, NU & YT - 0.2% (pop. 0.3%) Figure 2: PCH funding distribution by province, 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