A neglected legacy: Examining the challenges and potential for sport tourism development in post‐Olympic Athens

Abstract

Purpose

Although research on the impacts of the Olympic Games on Athens addressed the impact of the Games on economy, generic tourism, and urban restructuring, there has not been given to date attention on the prospects for sport tourism development in Athens as a result of hosting the Olympics, especially if it is considered that the construction of Olympic facilities was legitimized by the government's intention to use them for sport. To address this omission, the purpose of this study is to draw attention to examining the challenges and potential of post‐Olympic Athens to exploit its Olympic legacy for the development of sport tourism.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative approach was employed by conducting nine semi‐structured interviews with Athens’ tourism/administrative officials and analyzing them in line with pertinent literature.

Findings

Results show that the city's tourism officials respond with ad‐hoc policies in their effort to capitalize on Athens’ Olympic legacy. Consequently, Athens’ potential is constrained by the absence of a comprehensive tourism policy aimed at enriching and diversifying the city's post‐Olympic tourism product. In this context, the study shows that there is limited awareness by the city's tourism administration for sport tourism development and for establishing appropriate coordination mechanisms, which could foster mutually beneficial links between sport and tourism stakeholders. This leaves unexploited the potential for utilizing effectively Athens’ Olympic facilities and destination capitals in developing a competitive sport tourism product mix.

Research limitations/implications

A limitation of the study is that it examines Athens’ sport tourism prospects through the lens of tourism policy. Future studies are needed to examine also sport policy. On a broader level, it is suggested that future research should extend the focus on the study of post‐event leverage to find the best means for fostering post‐Games Olympic tourism from a sustainability perspective.

Practical implications

To redress post‐Olympic Athens’ inertia and associated structural problems that affect its tourism policy, the study presents a framework for the strategic planning and sustainable development of sport tourism in Athens.

Originality/value

The study by examining Athens’ neglected legacy for sport tourism, attempts to synthesize a common ground for sport and tourism development in Olympic cities. This inquiry suggests the need for a broader planning and leveraging framework to extend the study of Olympic tourism in the post‐Games period as it relates to the use of Olympic legacy and post‐Olympic assets, which can, in turn, reveal the conditions for synergistic development of sport and tourism. Also, such an examination may shed light on what and how can be corrected in order to mitigate the sources and consequences of problems, while providing lessons for future Olympic cities. Finally, by focusing on sport tourism as it is induced by the Olympics knowledge can be advanced on how to effectively leverage the Olympic legacy and develop sustainable post‐Olympic tourism products.

Citation

Ziakas, V. and Boukas, N. (2012), "A neglected legacy: Examining the challenges and potential for sport tourism development in post‐Olympic Athens", International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 292-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/17582951211262710

Introduction

The hosting of 2004 Olympics in Athens constituted a unique opportunity for the diversification and enrichment of Athens’ (and Greece's) tourism product (Asprogerakas, 2007; Kavaratzis, 2008; Weed, 2008; Zografos and Deffner, 2007). Yet, due to the fragmented nature of sport and tourism industries in Greece, a lack of coordination is evident between commercial providers and public governing bodies of sport and tourism sectors. In fact, it is widely accepted that the field of sport tourism suffers from a lack of integration between the sport and tourism sectors at the policy and supply levels (Devine et al., 2010; Weed, 2001; Weed, 2003; Weed and Bull, 1997). The effective integration of sport and tourism requires that policy makers develop a joint strategic approach and establish infrastructures that facilitate linkages between operators in the different sectors (Standeven and De Knop, 1999; Weed and Bull, 2009).

It is generally recognized that the Athens’ Olympics were successful in terms of meeting the high operational standards for conducting multiple sport competitions in state‐of‐the‐art facilities (Apostolopoulou and Papadimitriou, 2004; Gold, 2011; Weed, 2008). The successful organization of the Olympic Games by Athens left a valuable legacy for the city and the major projects that were implemented in the preparation for the Games such as the new international airport, the new metro network, and the new sport facilities, enhanced the sport and tourism superstructure of Athens (Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004; Tziralis et al., 2006). However, a successful event and successfully marketing the host city are distinctly different concepts (Ritchie, 2000). In the case of Athens there were major planning failures concerning the lack of coordination between the organizers of the Olympic Games and the tourism bodies (Singh and Hu, 2008), the lack of leveraging benefits from the Games (Weed, 2008), and the lack of post‐Olympic use of facilities (Gold, 2011). These planning failures constrained the attainment and magnification of positive outcomes that the Olympics could bring to Athens and Greece in general. Although empirical research on the impacts of the Olympic Games on Athens is limited with the few studies addressing the impact of the Games on the economy (e.g. Kasimati and Dawson, 2009), generic tourism (e.g. Zografos and Deffner, 2007), and urban restructuring (e.g. Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004), to date that has been insufficient attention given to the prospects for sport tourism development in Athens, especially if we consider that the construction of Olympic facilities was legitimized by the government's intention to use them for sport (Official Gazette of the Government, 2005).

In this respect, the purpose of this study is to ignite interest in examining the challenges and potential of post‐Olympic Athens to exploit its Olympic legacy for the development of sport tourism. By doing so, the study attempts to synthesize a common ground for sport and tourism development in Olympic cities. This inquiry suggests that apart from focussing on the pre‐ and during‐Olympic periods, a focus on Olympic tourism in the post‐Games period as it relates to the use of Olympic legacy and post‐Olympic assets can reveal the conditions for synergistic development of sport and tourism. Also, such an examination may shed light on what and how can be corrected in order to mitigate the sources and consequences of problems, while providing lessons for future Olympic cities. Finally, by focussing on sport tourism, as it is induced by the Olympics, we can advance our knowledge on how to effectively leverage the Olympic legacy and develop sustainable post‐Olympic tourism products.

Sport tourism planning for creating sustainable post‐Olympic tourism products

The appeal of sport makes it an attractive tool for destinations to enrich and diversify their tourism product. This drives the implementation of policies that seek to integrate sport and tourism (Bull and Weed, 1999; Chalip, 2001; Getz, 1998; Grabowski, 1999; Higham, 1999; Pigeassou, 1997; Smith, 2001; Weed, 2009). In this respect, Higham (2005) questioned how coordinated sport and tourism planning interests contribute to the development or periodic under‐utilization of facilities and infrastructure at a tourism destination. To evaluate the effectiveness of sport tourism development strategies it is important to examine the ways that the use of a destination's assets optimize the synergistic benefits of the sport and tourism product mix.

Nevertheless, managing any useful form of integration between sport and tourism depends as much upon the organization of government administration as upon the will of those involved in delivering the experiences (Standeven and De Knop, 1999). The organization of Olympic Games may induce cooperation between sport and tourism agencies in an effort to leverage the Games (O’Brien, 2006; Weed, 2008). Weed (2008) examines in detail the emergence of Olympic tourism defining the phenomenon as tourism behavior motivated or generated by Olympic‐related activities. This definition covers the full range of pre‐ and post‐Games sport tourism activity and generic tourism that can be stimulated by the Olympics.

In general, the investment of a host city in building Olympic facilities and implementing urban regeneration projects can generate favorable or unfavorable legacies for residents (Essex and Chalkley, 1998; Gold and Gold, 2011; Hiller, 2006; Horne, 2007; Mangan and Dyreson, 2009). As Smith (2009) underlined, if sustainable regeneration from major events is to be achieved, an important consideration is to plan for the effective post‐event utilization of the new facilities and manage the associated risk that the new facilities will not be used after the event. When the post‐Olympic use of facilities ends up being an uncertain legacy (Searle, 2002), a range of unintended consequences may be derived (Hall, 1992; Olds, 1998; Prasad, 1999; Ritchie, 1999). To avoid this happening and/or mitigate its consequences, the sustainable management and leveraging of Olympic assets in the post‐Games period needs to effectively incorporate sport in an Olympic city's tourism product through a long‐term post‐Olympic strategy. In addition, this may tackle the unmet expectations and inequalities in terms of the human and social legacy of the Games, as long as the Olympics contribute to the enhancement of self‐esteem and empowerment of local residents (Hiller, 2000).

The literature reports positive outcomes that accrued from the Olympics for tourism development. The building of tourism infrastructure in the case of Barcelona significantly enhanced its image and credibility as an international tourist destination (Duran, 2005). The Sydney Games were the first to implement comprehensive pre‐ and post‐Games leveraging programs in order to boost tourism (Brown et al., 2004; Faulkner et al., 2000), and enhance business networking relationships (O’Brien, 2006; O’Brien and Gardiner, 2006). These programs entailed the creation of alliances between the Olympic Games organizers and the Australian Tourist Commission that enhanced the destination promotion activities and exploited the positive publicity generated by the Games. Similarly, the Winter Olympic Games in Turin (Bondonio and Guala, 2011) and Vancouver (Kaplanidou and Karadakis, 2010) applied strategic legacy programs for tourism development (Weed, 2008), while for the London 2012 Summer Games a range of initiatives were designed to build a sustainable Olympic sport development legacy in terms of promoting sport participation across the country (Girginov and Hills, 2008). All these advancements illustrate the potential to develop joint programs for leveraging the Games and creating sustainable sport and tourism legacies.

Current tourism leveraging programs of the Olympics are strongly associated with the role of the media in city/nation branding. As Payne (2006, p. 167) suggests: “Whether it is to increase tourism, change foreign and domestic policy, attract investment or aid, or boost international trade, the goal of national image management is to cast the nation in a more favorable global light.” In this regard, Preuss (2004) argues that the most significant Olympic spectator is television because it increases the image of the host city to a vast variety of audiences and provides an avenue for corporations to invest on Olympic emblems/commercials. This creates the opportunity for host cities to generate and maximize positive exposure through the media that can help build their tourism brand.

Even though the promise of the Olympics does not ensure that the expected benefits will be obtained, the Olympics are prestigious enough to force quick decision making on improving infrastructures and economic development opportunities, as the 1984 Los Angeles Games’ entrepreneurial behavior model first demonstrated (Andranovich et al., 2001). As the authors emphasize, the question arising is whose interests are served by a shift to entrepreneurial activities. In any case, it should be acknowledged that rapid decision making does not always result in effective planning, collaboration among stakeholders, and sustainable outcomes. For instance, while the Los Angeles and Barcelona Games set the basis for the effective entrepreneurial planning, the incursion of considerable amount of private funding in combination with the creation of private‐public alliances for financing the Games appeared to be problematic, as the case of Atlanta in 1996 illustrates (Gold and Gold, 2008). Specifically, the Atlanta Games benefited the business community rather than the disadvantaged communities that expected benefits such as job positions, better infrastructure, and improved housing (Maloney, 1996).

The issue, therefore, is the sustainability of strategies that originate from sport tourism development policies, which according to sustainable development principles should maintain economic efficiency, social equity, and environmental integrity (Campell, 1996; Fitzgerald and Leigh, 2002). Consequently, a comprehensive triple bottom line analysis has been suggested as a framework for the planning, management, and evaluation of the social, economic, and environmental aspects of events (Hede, 2008). Accordingly, event leveraging for optimizing the outcomes of sport events has moved toward sustainable development (O’Brien and Chalip, 2008). The gigantism of the Olympics, involving immense infrastructure and operating costs (Giatsis et al., 2004), apparently contradicts with the principles of sustainability that advocate sharing and dispersing social, economic, and environmental impacts across time and space for the benefit of all (Girginov and Hills, 2008). In this regard, leveraging aimed to extend the benefits obtained from the Olympics in the post‐Games period constitutes a long‐term time‐horizon that can potentially compensate for the costs of Olympic growth and be aligned with sustainable development.

Girginov and Hills (2009) by employing a constructivist perspective to examine the link between the London Olympics and sustainable sport development suggested that the creation of a positive legacy from the Games requires a complementary understanding of sustainability as a social construct and a set of processes that reflect collective and contested goals. Thus, they contended that sustainable sport development involves an unending iterative process of construction, destruction, and maintaining of opportunities for people to participate and excel in sport and life. Therefore, sustainable sport development is not a static goal to be achieved (Girginov, 2008) but a constant process of participation and contestation that results in social learning and change. From this perspective, the convergence of sport and tourism legacies and their alignment with sustainable development rest on a common reconstructive participatory process thereby involving stakeholders that can enable change.

Accordingly, Costa and Chalip (2005) put forth that local policy should move toward participatory planning in order to integrate and leverage a host community's assets and optimize the role that sport plays in development. This call is for identifying the ways that sport tourism can be incorporated into the socio‐political structures of host destinations for contributing to their sustainable development. To do so, it is imperative to consider the spatial and temporal dimensions of sport tourism. In this regard, Hinch and Higham (2004) suggested that the foundations of sport tourism development lie in the geographical principles of space, place, and environment. Likewise, Weed and Bull (2009) explained the interconnectedness of sport and tourism as a social, economic, and cultural phenomenon that stems from the unique interaction of activity, people, and place.

The application of sustainable principles to sport tourism brings forth serious challenges that derive from the contested relationship between sustainability and tourism. Sharpley (2009), in his critique of sustainable tourism development as unrealistic, proposed a more pragmatic approach on sustainability, which provides a framework for optimizing those benefits within locally determined environmental parameters. Sharpley's destination capitals approach is a logical process of need identification followed by an analysis of destination resources or capitals which, when related to market opportunities and external forces, provides a basis for tourism development plans. Thus, sustainability is inherent in the process of assessing the potential contribution of destination capitals to generate a flow of benefits to the destination according to the desired outcomes of tourism development. Likewise, sustainable sport tourism development can devise strategies that utilize those resources and assets that have the potential to optimize the returns to the destination. This approach concurs with leveraging events (O’Brien and Chalip, 2008) and other synergistic or complementary assets to attain, magnify, and sustain their outcomes for a sport tourism destination. In this context, leveraging programs can be operationalized in the post‐Olympic period for creating and harnessing a sustainable sport tourism legacy.

2004 Athens’ Olympic legacy

Athens’ Olympic legacy has been multi‐dimensional including, among others, physical, social, and cultural dimensions. This is mainly because Athens sought through the Olympics the multiple goals of upgrading its urban environment and infrastructure, improving its image, and rejuvenating its tourism industry (Beriatos, 2006). Athens followed a multi‐nuclear strategy dispersing the construction of new facilities, which led to the creation of sport and leisure clusters (Gospodini, 2009) or urban poles of interest (Serraos et al., 2007) that concentrated in their premises sport, leisure, and commercial activities. This altered the physiognomy of Athens’ urban tissue by combining the architecture of its Olympic projects modern design with traditional characteristics that resulted in a “glocalized” urban landscape (Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004). Nonetheless, the Olympics also brought unintended consequences (Maloutas et al., 2009), such as their excessive financial cost, environmental problems (e.g. Hadjibiros and Sifakaki, 2009), and housing evictions (e.g. COHRE, 2007).

Arguably, the Olympics generated a significant legacy for Athens that is epitomized in its built and human heritage. In terms of tourism development, the Games brought about the unification of the city's urban landscape with the coast at the south (Kissoudi, 2008; Sykianaki, 2006), enriching its tourist product mix and facilitating the transportation of tourists, via the initially made for the Olympics, tram‐line that connects the city center with Athens’ southern outskirts (Boukas et al., 2012a; Zografos and Deffner, 2007). Moreover, because the rationale for hosting the Olympics was based on the intention to project the cultural identity of Athens and Greece (Boukas et al., 2012b; Fauquembergue, 2008; Traganou, 2010), the Olympics acted as the medium for the unification, enhancement, and projection of many areas with cultural significance (Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004). The cultural significance of the Olympics for Athens was also highlighted by the Olympic Truce (IOC, 2008), the Cultural Olympiad (Athens 2004, 2004), and the integration of modernity (Kissoudi, 2010) with the past (Khirfan, 2010) that exhibits the multi‐cultural character of the city (Athens 2004, 2004; Boukas et al., 2012b). Finally, the Games provided an opportunity for the participation of various people that amplified the concept of volunteerism (European Commission Citizenship, 2005; Karkatsoulis et al., 2005; Panagiotopoulou, 2005).

In summary, Athens underwent dramatic spatial and landscape transformations in its restructuring as a post‐industrial metropolis having at its core the tourism, recreation, culture, and trade services (Gospodini, 2009). While the Olympics gave an impetus to urban reshaping and status of Athens, the challenge for the city is to capitalize on its modern “glocalized” capabilities and Olympic legacy in order to revive its tourism industry. Consequently, the development of sport tourism represents an essential means to enrich and diversify Athens’ post‐Olympic tourism product.

Theoretical framework

In order to investigate Athens’ post‐Olympic assets and the potential for sport tourism development, the following three streams of theoretical inquiry need to be contextualized:

1. (1)

   legacy planning of the Olympic Games and mega‐events;

2. (2)

   event leveraging; and

3. (3)

   destination capitals approach in tourism sustainability.

This allows situating the planning for sport tourism legacies of the Olympics (and mega‐events) in a sustainable framework and envisioning their effective leveraging.

Although the concept of legacy is not new, it is only recently that it has been formalized suggesting the need for strategically developing long‐term, sustainable legacy plans (Leopkey and Parent, 2012). Legacy has been conceptualized as the planned and unplanned, positive and negative, intangible and tangible structures created through a sport event that remain after the event (Gratton and Preuss, 2008; Preuss, 2007). On these grounds, mega‐events have the capacity to generate various types of long‐lasting legacies, commonly understood as the impacts and outcomes of events (e.g. Cashman, 2006; Mangan and Dyreson, 2009; Toohey, 2008). This dictates host cities to plan for achieving positive outcomes and preventing or mitigating negative impacts. The issue thus is what event planning processes or models can enable host cities to harness mega‐events.

In this regard, the concept of leverage has been introduced by Chalip (2004) to denote those activities, which need to be undertaken around the event itself, and those which seek to maximize the long‐term benefits from events. This approach entails a forward, ex ante, and analytic mindset for legacy planning focussing on why and how intended outcomes can occur, thereby explaining the processes and strategic means that can enable their attainment. From this perspective, events should be seen as opportunities for interventions; not interventions in themselves (Chalip, 2004). As O’Brien (2006) suggests, events and their opportunities are merely the seed capital; what hosts do with that capital is the key to realizing sustainable long‐term legacies.

Recognizing events as capital brings forth the need to cross‐leverage them with a host city's other capitals. Sharpley's (2009) destination capitals approach provides a framework for leveraging the opportunities events create in synergy with the host city's assets by fostering their inter‐connectedness in order to generate a flow of sustainable tourism benefits. The challenge is to create the appropriate conditions in which event stakeholders can reach a consensus in formulating leveraging initiatives that embed legacy in the sustainable development of the host city.

The types of leveraging initiatives may vary as the types of legacies that are sought. Likewise, their time of commencement (before, during, or after the event) and duration vary according to the host's objectives. There is a lack of research in examining the temporal aspects of leveraging. It is uncertain on the best time to start a legacy program and for how long, so that benefits are maximized. In this vein, it is important to know what the effects are of different legacy programs that took place before, during, and after the event. Since legacy is the outcome that remains in the aftermath of the event, its leveraging should extend in the post‐event period and sustain its benefits. From this standpoint, we can envision leveraging programs that can be operationalized in the post‐Olympic period for creating and harnessing a sustainable sport tourism legacy and enriching as well as diversifying a host city's post‐Olympic tourism product.

Methodology

This study was part of a larger research that examined Athens’ tourism development in the post‐Olympic era. Findings from this research indicated the status and qualities of post‐Olympic Athens as a national capital that need to more effectively exploit its cultural tapestry in order to become a competitive cultural destination (Boukas et al., 2012a). Further, findings illustrated the multi‐faceted Olympic heritage of Athens, which brings forth the opportunity for cross‐leveraging the Olympic legacy with its cultural assets (Boukas et al., 2012b). This research revealed the unexplored potential to leverage the Olympic legacy for sport tourism development and thus instigated the undertaking of this study.

In line with the two previous studies, a qualitative approach (Yin, 2009) was chosen for the initial investigation of post‐Olympic Athens’ sport tourism development. Semi‐structured interviews were employed, as they allow more detailed information to be gathered, by providing an opportunity for the interviewer to probe and expand the interviewee's responses (Weiss, 1994). A secondary data analysis of the relevant literature and pertinent government documents was undertaken along with the collection of primary data in seeking to discover, describe or map patterns, and trends in sport tourism policy making.

Data were collected for this research between summer 2010 and spring 2011 in order to obtain more representative responses that account for the effects of the dramatic socio‐economic crisis on Athens. The period of approximately seven years after the Games allowed a critical reflection of the issues that surfaced in post‐Olympic Athens. Nine interviews were conducted with high‐rank tourism officials and representatives who have/had an important contribution to the Athens’ Olympics during and after their organization (Table I). This purposive sampling of high‐rank administrators aimed to draw knowledge from the most informed actors who have influenced the tourism legacy of the Games. Elite interviewing provides a rich and thorough source of data as top executives hold strategic knowledge (King, 1994) and can express their ideas/experiences (Arksey and Knight, 1999). In this regard, the basic criterion for the selection of interviewees was that they held a key position in organizations responsible for the management of Olympic assets and for development of tourism policy in the post‐Games period. As such, the sample represented primarily the lens of tourism policy in order to delineate an initial account of the primary grounds that shape sport tourism in post‐Olympic Athens.

The interviews were conducted in the offices of the interviewees and their length ranged between 30 and 40 minutes. An interview guide was used to provide a focus for the questions.

Main directions:

• •

  identify the position and importance of sport tourism for Athens overall tourist product mix as well as the types of sport tourist activities currently offered;

• •

  explain the ways that the Olympic Games contributed to the development and enhancement of the sport and tourism industries of the city;

• •

  explore the potential of the Olympic legacy to be leveraged for sport tourism development; and

• •

  analyze the challenges and opportunities to develop sport tourism in the post‐Olympic period.

The interviews sought to probe deeply by asking supplementary questions. Furthermore, unofficial discussions were conducted with the personnel of the Greek National Tourism Organization and with Athens’ sport tourism providers for the broader understanding of sport tourism development in post‐Olympic Athens. Since this study was part of a larger research, data collection was constantly informed from the overall pool of data.

All the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim in the Greek language. Afterwards the interviews were translated in English and analyzed manually. Content analysis employed a directed approach using pre‐determined categories for the coding scheme (Silverman, 2001). The thematic categories were the following: context of tourism policy; Olympic legacy and sport tourism policy/planning; and opportunities and challenges for sport tourism development. This structured approach allowed to categorize data according to prior research and incorporate new insights. Data that did not fit the coding scheme were categorized as alternative themes. All the results were checked for validity and consistency by comparing them with the two previous studies and also by going back to the general literature. This helped to substantiate the findings of the study.

Results

In this section, the findings of the study are presented in the order of the pre‐determined themes that the data were analyzed. The analysis aims to set the basis for dealing with the range of issues that impact on Athens’ sport tourism potential. The results are presented with reference to the literature aiming to substantiate the findings of the study and further examine their implications.

Context of tourism policy

The emergence of sport tourism in Athens (and in Greece) can be studied through the lens of tourism policy. For this reason, the context of tourism policy that affects the development of sport tourism is examined. In the interviews conducted an official explained Athens’ position in the Greek tourism policy:

Athens has never been the priority of the national tourism policy. Rather the effort has been to promote tourism in the whole country and thus position Greece as a destination (R1).

On these grounds, a respondent summarized the major efforts of Greek tourism policy making as follows:

First, to promote incentives for diverse tourism enterprises to invest in territories that have tourism prospects but they are not developed until today. Second, there is an effort to develop alternative forms of tourism which should be realized with the cooperation of the local authorities (R2).

Another respondent explained that the making of the Greek tourism policy is not being created in vitro but in practice receiving continuous feedback from the volatile environment of the tourism industry:

There is more practical policy‐making than wider strategic planning. Hence, there is not a comprehensive strategy in the tourism sector. There are ad‐hoc policies for some special issues and some policies result from general governmental policies that indirectly influence the tourism sector (R3).

Consequently, the tourism policy in trying to meet the changing needs of tourists attempted to reconfigure its tourism product mix. An interviewee explained:

There has been an effort to reshape and enrich the tourist product. This started with the logo that was extended from the mono‐dimensional “sea and sun” to include nine circles that describe the nine thematic axes: sun and sea, nautical tourism, culture, touring, countryside tourism, health and wellness, conference tourism, luxury tourism and city‐break […] Athens focuses basically on city‐break, conference and luxury tourism (R1).

In this context, the growth of sport tourism offerings is rather reactive to market demand and trends as a special form of tourism. In particular, a respondent stated about the development of sport tourism:

The Greek tourism policy tries to create the appropriate conditions, the infrastructure, the facilities and the technical equipment which are necessary for modern sport‐training centers. Tourism policy provides incentives to hotels to enrich their facilities with the construction of both indoor and outdoor gyms. For instance, hotels are given incentives for the creation of golf courses. The Greek tourism policy therefore is focused on providing the incentives, which will assist in the development of sport and recreation as an additional part of the Greek tourism product. Of course, there is provision about the financial and legislative context as well as the projection and promotion of recreational tourism. Lastly, for the professional athletes’ competitive sport tourism the existence of modern infrastructure is necessary in order for this form of tourism to be developed (R2).

Similarly, another respondent explained:

Sport tourism is mainly part of other main types of tourism such as nautical or countryside tourism. In Athens sports are offered in city‐break and luxury tourism as complementary activities. Of course, a big part of sport tourism is the international events that the city hosts such as the Special Olympics (R3).

It seems, therefore, that sport tourism is viewed by the tourism administration in Greece and Athens as an alternative form of tourism, which has the potential for development and can contribute to the enrichment of its tourism product. Yet, sport tourism is not viewed as a distinct phenomenon with its own dynamics and requirements, which calls for integration of sport and tourism policies in order to fully exploit its potential.

Olympic legacy and sport tourism policy/planning

The findings of the interviews shed light on the impact of Olympic legacy on sport and tourism. In terms of the role of the Olympic legacy in tourism development, one respondent explained:

The Olympic Games was a very good chance for the modernization of the infrastructure (highways, ports, airports, etc.), and tourism facilities (hotels, museums, etc.). Furthermore, Athens used the Olympics in the promotion of its tourism product. The Olympics is a powerful symbolic event, which gives the opportunity even years after its organization to attach to marketing messages all the elements of Athens’ tourism product (R4).

The promotion of Athens’ tourism product should be able therefore to associate the Olympics with the destination elements of Athens. This depends on a comprehensive tourism marketing strategy and how the complex sport and tourism enterprises, as well as the authorized public agencies, cooperate.

However, the lack of strategic planning inhibits the potential for exploiting Athens’ Olympic legacy. As an official underlined:

There was not strategic planning neither for the post‐Olympic use of the facilities nor for the development of sport tourism. This has brought a burden to the state and the city, which do not have the money to maintain them. It is a pity. The situation of closed, abandoned facilities that was shown in the international media is at least embarrassing for our Olympic legacy (R7).

Another official agreed with the above statement but turned attention to the risk of promoting positive characteristics in the image of Athens that stem from its Olympic legacy, which do not represent the daily reality of the city:

There are positive stereotypes about Athens that are promoted. For example, during the Olympics there was a “vibe” of the city with street parties and other activities that enhanced the celebratory atmosphere. However, this is not the real Athens. So if someone visited Athens during the Olympics, visits again the city and confronts the traffic congestion will probably be disappointed (R9).

In terms of sport development, an official underlined:

The Olympics aimed to put us on the map as a sporting nation. The new facilities lifted our profile and can be used for training and international events. To a degree that however it's difficult to evaluate I think they helped us to have significant victories in sports such as the EURO 2004 […] and basically they improved the infrastructure and know‐how in managing important sport events (R8).

Another respondent mentioned the Olympic Education Program (OEP) that was initiated in all Greek school levels in 2000:

With the Olympics there was the OEP in schools, which I believe it raised awareness and cultivated an Olympic sporting culture by promoting the values and spirit of Olympism to the kids (R5).

While the impact of the OEP is questionable, there is some evidence about its contribution as a source of pedagogical ideas. Specifically, the OEP taught students the history of the Olympics, the values of sports (e.g. fair play, respect for co‐athletes, etc.), the importance of Olympics for Greece, the significance of volunteerism, and the role of exercise in health (Grammatikopoulos et al., 2005). As Smith (2009) pointed out, this illustrates the power of major events to act as “hooks” that can generate support for wider regeneration projects and thus the value of OEP can be viewed from this standpoint.

Despite the failure and ineffectiveness of the Greek tourism policy, the service quality, and the differentiation of the Greek tourism product were enhanced satisfactorily through the Olympics, which contributed to the enrichment of Athens’ product mix, its athletic infrastructure, and its international profile as a sporting city.

In terms of sport tourism development, an interviewee summarized the forms of sport tourism that Athens has been able to offer in its tourism product mix:

There have been some developments in sport tourism with the opportunity of the Olympic Games. First, Athens has achieved to host some other international events taking into advantage its know‐how and international exposure as an Olympic city. It also attracted teams for training in its [Olympic] facilities. Luxury sport tourism was significantly enhanced with the renovated hotels and the attendant services provided. Also, recreational sport activities like yachting, golf, and diving have been improved and offered as complementary activities in the city's tourism product (R9).

The potential for harnessing Athens’ Olympic legacy is also related to the city's heritage that was highly enriched due to the Olympics. According to Kissoudi (2010), the quality of life in Athens was improved and projected further its athletic, economic, and cultural deposits. The enrichment of heritage was both tangible and intangible. The Olympics enhanced the residents’ pride for Athens. As one respondent indicated: “During the Games the residents of Athens were proud for their city and its heritage. This feeling lasted also after the Games, but I believe it is fading now” (R9). Even worse, the difficult time that Greece currently faces due to the economic problems prevent the opportunity to realize the potential of Olympic legacy. There is a need to utilize the venues in sport tourism development since there is a clear comparative advantage: a rich history and a unique infrastructure and heritage.

Overall, the Olympics despite the economic, social, and environmental burdens they caused, in terms of tourism development helped in the city's re‐imaging and upgrading of its infrastructure (Asprogerakas, 2007; Kavaratzis, 2008; Kissoudi, 2008). However, the lack of strategic planning about the post‐Olympic use of the newly constructed facilities (Beriatos, 2006; Gospodini, 2009; Zifou et al., 2004) has also led to an inability to develop a competitive post‐Olympic tourism product (Weed, 2008).

Opportunities and challenges for sport tourism development

The organization of the Olympics provided to Athens a range of state‐of‐the‐art venues and facilities for sport and tourism usage (Asprogerakas, 2007; Gospodini, 2009). As a respondent explained:

The Olympics offered to the city new sport venues and they contributed to the renovation of many other athletic facilities such as the Olympic Complex, the Hellenikon Complex or the coastal zone of Faliron (R7).

The Olympics was a unique opportunity for Athens to upgrade its infrastructure. As Malfas et al. (2004, p. 215) argued: “The impact of the Games on the physical environment includes the building of new sport facilities, accommodation, changes to the look of the city, and transport links as well as industrial space.” In this regard, the venues are the “raw material” for the development of high‐quality sport tourism, while the whole city's infrastructure has been renovated facilitating the comprehensive development of sport tourism forms. It is also evident that according to the plans of the government during and after the Olympics, the venues were scheduled to primarily accommodate, among others, sport uses (Official Gazette of the Government, 2005).

Another opportunity derived from the Games was the effective/efficient know‐how in event management. As Potsiou and Zentelis (2005, p. 20) stated: “As it has happened in other hosting countries, too, the international assistance from other countries especially in the fields of planning know‐how and technology was necessary and successful, too.” Athens’ organizational bodies shared knowledge and best practices with other organizers of mega‐events and therefore, developed valuable insight. In this respect, it is an opportunity for the city to adapt these practices for the future development and promotion of sport tourism. The venues and the know‐how exist. It is a matter of entrepreneurship and effective management for proceeding to the diversification of Athens’ tourism product.

Along with the infrastructure of the city, there was also an improvement in its tourism structure. Even though the number of accommodation units in Attica was not increased significantly, there was an upgrade in terms of their service quality and many of them were fully renovated (Tsartas et al., 2008). As a respondent indicated: “Many tourist businesses were upgraded prior to the Games in order to offer services of much better quality than the past and be more competitive” (R6). Given the demanding nature of sport tourists for increased service quality, Athens has a unique chance to meet their expectations.

Finally, one of the most significant comparative advantages of Athens for developing sport tourism is its natural resources, and especially the sea. As a responded mentioned: “The Olympic venues that are related to sea and water sports have the greatest potential to be used for sport tourism successfully” (R4). In this respect, Athens could be an ideal urban destination that combines culture, good weather, shopping, and the appropriate environment for sea/water‐based sport tourism activities. For example, a respondent mentioned the marina of Aghios Kosmas:

The marina has a 1,000 yachts (of more than 10 meters length) capacity and has the potential for the construction of a luxury hotel. The marina is the “diamond of the crown” that the Olympics left behind. It is a tourist marina and the gate of Athens from the South for many yachts (R7).

Similarly, another respondent indicated as a significant sport tourism destination the marina of the Faliron Olympic Coastal Zone Complex:

Despite that the marina in Faliron Zone was never used for the Olympics, it has the potential to be used for sport tourism and it has already hosted sport crews that arrived there for training at the Aegean Sea […] However, this was of small scale (R8).

Why then does this potential remain unrealized? The city faces a number of challenges that hinder the development of sport tourism. The main problem for the city as well as for the whole country is the current economic crisis that leads to persistent social problems and negatively affects the potential for development. However, the crisis also brings forth the need for rapid decisions in order the comparative advantages of the city to be fully used for its faster recovery. According to a respondent:

The economic crisis put many of the plans for developing post‐Olympic Athens in the drawer. However, we need to act fast and according to a specific plan in order to fully use the Olympic legacy (R5).

The respondents agreed that the construction of large venues created an unbearable maintenance cost. For this reason, these venues should also be used for other purposes. It was argued:

The facilities can be used effectively for sport tourism purposes but only in combination with other recreational uses. Because of their size the cost to maintain them is huge and the revenues from sport tourism are not enough to cover their operation and maintenance. For example, we have suggested some of the facilities to be used also for paintball, yachting, and as theme parks (R7).

And:

Change of land use is the key for the [post‐Olympic] use of the facilities. It is impossible all of them to be used for athletic purposes especially in sports that are not popular in Greece. Also, we cannot cover the cost of maintenance. Changing their land use for other purposes such as conferences and parks we can combine the development of sport tourism with other elements of Athens’ tourism product (R8).

Indeed, the plans for the post‐Olympic development of the venues in Athens and their implementation have been dramatically delayed. Consequently, many of the opportunities mentioned earlier in this section are lost. As a respondent stated:

The post‐Olympic use of the venues for sport tourism and other types of tourism in general is still behind the schedule [7 years after the Games]. There are still cases where we still don’t know how the venues will be used. Unless we act fast we won’t be able to maintain the Olympic facilities. For this reason many of them are still closed (R9).

Additionally, the lack of a strategic plan concerning how each venue should be used and by whom (Beriatos, 2006; Zifou et al., 2004) raises problems regarding the efficiency of the tourism policy to develop a holistic post‐Olympic product (Weed, 2008). Moreover, the questionable development of Athens’ assets regarding sustainability standards is also highlighted. As Tziralis et al. (2006, p. 26) stated:

The sustainability of the Games’ impact could be further documented by the permanent nature of the facilities used for staging the Games. Out of the 1.975 billion € spent for the renovation or construction of Olympic facilities, only 10.2% concerned temporal facilities.

Although the permanent nature of Olympic venues could justify their long‐term utilization, there have not been significant attempts toward achieving their sustainable management. As one respondent indicated: “Many stadia are closed and I don’t know if the plans back then are still valid today” (R7) or “The permanent properties were built without knowing what will happen after the Games. That's why many of the venues are still closed” (R8). Another respondent stated the lack of collaboration between interested parties for using the facilities in tourism development:

There were cases where decisions were hindered because of bureaucratic schemes or other times where the dialogue between ministries, local communities, and other stakeholders led to a dead end (R6).

As a result, the framework of the post‐Olympic use of the Olympic venues not only for sport tourism but also for other uses appears to be problematic. Given the problems that Greece currently faces, there is an urgent need to formulate and implement a strategic plan for their future use for tourism purposes.

Discussion and implications

The findings of this study indicate that Athens responds to the diverse needs, problems, and opportunities of its tourism industry with ad hoc policies dealing with particular issues. These individual ad hoc responses to tourism opportunities and problems may merely provide short‐term solutions to essentially long‐term problems (Jenkins, 1994). Buhalis (2001) has previously identified the need for Greece to adopt a long overdue master plan and comprehensive tourism policy. This call, which is still relevant and largely unrealized, would provide the strategic direction and management tools for cities and regions in Greece to devise their own tourism strategies. Within this context, Athens should analyze its resources and adapt its strategic planning accordingly by utilizing its post‐Olympic assets and establishing inter‐sectoral linkages between sport and tourism providers that are compatible with their economic, social, and environmental needs. Thus, Athens’ destination capitals should be leveraged through strategies aimed at generating a flow of benefits and optimizing the returns to the city.

The organization of the Olympics illustrates the adoption of a neo‐liberal policy by Greece and associated application of globalized free‐market practices. Maloutas et al. (2009) argued that the neo‐liberal urban planning doctrine as applied to the case of Athens’ weak planning/policy resulted in an exclusively consumption‐oriented cultural economy with low internationalization, while the dispersed localization of Olympic venues have reproduced the pathogenies of Athenian symbolic economy and spatial structure. In this regard, it is imperative for Athens to re‐orientate planning actions toward economic restructuring associated with flexibility of production, high capital mobility, and the growth of tertiary activities (Cooke, 1986). The position of Komilis (1994) illustrates that the Greek regional planning, organizational, and coordinating functions are in need of better instruments, mechanisms, and management systems capable of removing constraints that give rise to policy divergences and conflict situations among various actors. In redressing these structural weaknesses, the tourism administration in Athens needs to reorganize the city's tourism product‐service mix.

Within this context and considering the economic crisis that currently affects Athens’ economic and social life, ways to exploit the Olympic legacy need to be explored. One way for doing so, is by building partnerships between the public and private sectors to enable the leveraging of the Olympic legacy. Through these partnerships benefits for both sides are evident such as the allocation of the risk (Roumboutsos and Anagnostopoulos, 2008) where the Greek public sector can operate in a regulatory and legal context and the private sector can deal with the maintenance, financing, and management skills (Tomadaki, n.d.). According to Furrer (2002), forms of public‐private partnerships can lead to the acceleration of public investment decisions. Public‐private partnerships for leveraging the Olympic built heritage of Athens could become a valuable means for escaping the grave situation of the economic recession. The establishment of public‐private partnerships should be placed on a sustainable development framework for sharing and dispersing the social, economic, and environmental impacts/benefits among all stakeholder groups.

This study shows that there is limited awareness by Athens’ officials and tourism policy makers to develop sport tourism as a distinct market and subsequently there is not a strategic plan of the tourism policy to integrate the sport and tourism sectors. Given the inherent weaknesses of Athens’ tourism policy, the sustainable diversification/enrichment of the city's tourism product is a challenging task. The inertia in leveraging the post‐Olympic assets needs to be urgently redressed in order for Athens to harness their potential. Since Athens has followed the post‐industrial trajectory of a consumption‐oriented cultural economy, the way ahead is to effectively develop these sectors of the economy. To do so, Athens needs to capitalize upon its Olympic legacy by developing a portfolio of sport and cultural events. An event portfolio strategy can reach a wide range of audiences and thus attract extensive tourism visitation (Chalip, 2004; Chalip and Costa, 2005; Getz, 2005, 2008; Ziakas, 2010; Ziakas and Costa, 2011a, b). This requires cities to think holistically about events and by organizing and managing their event portfolios effectively, they can move from being cities with events to become “eventful cities” (Richards and Palmer, 2010). In terms of sustainability, leveraging strategies for events should generate and retain revenues locally and thus assist the long‐term viability of local business (Smith, 2009), while protecting the social and environmental integrity of the host city.

On this basis, a comprehensive sport tourism development strategy in Athens can develop other types of sport tourist products that would enhance its distinctiveness and authenticity as a destination. Higham and Hinch (2009) argue that sport‐based tourist attractions have unique qualities that facilitate authentic tourism experiences including the uncertainty of outcomes, the role of athletic display, the kinesthetic nature of sport activities, and the tendency for strong engagements in sport. These characteristics of sport can protect and (re)construct the cultural authenticity of a destination. As such, the Olympic legacy provides added value to the sport‐based tourist attractions that Athens can develop by using its post‐Olympic assets for sport tourism development.

A strategy toward sport tourism development

The Olympics provided Athens with a significant number of sport venues and facilities (for the complete list see Boukas et al., 2012b). One year after hosting the Games the Greek Government introduced a statute about the sustainable development and social utilization of the Olympic infrastructure, underlying the importance of the venues for the future use in sport activities (Official Gazette of the Government, 2005). In terms of sport tourism, Table II illustrates those Athens’ post‐Olympic facilities with the potential to be used as significant resources for the development of sport tourism.

In order to leverage Athens’ Olympic legacy and venues, this study proposes in Figure 1 a sport tourism development strategy for Athens. To realize this strategy, the public sector should establish partnerships with private organizations. The joint planning of sport tourism as a niche market needs to formulate a strategy aimed to accomplish the following objectives:

1. (1)

   the coordinated development of tourism with all sport activities and the resolution of the unavoidable conflicts arising out of their demand for common property resources (land, air, water);

2. (2)

   the strategic integration of sport and tourism and further diversification of the sport tourism industry; and

3. (3)

   a balanced distribution of sport tourism's benefits and disbenefits according to sustainability principles.

These objectives could be incorporated in a new legal framework, providing the mechanisms to enable the implementation of all the initiatives via cooperation between sport and tourism providers. As the findings of this study indicate, there are a number of opportunities for the development of sport tourism in post‐Olympic Athens, which, however, are offset by a series of challenges. The opportunities include the multi‐dimensional Olympic legacy, the state‐of‐the‐art Olympic facilities and venues, the improved tourism superstructure, the know‐how in event management, the variety of complementary cultural tourist activities, and Athens’ natural resources, especially the sea. These constitute the destination's capitals, resources, and assets that need to be exploited by Athens’ tourism policy.

However, the lack of strategic planning and the non‐differentiation of the city's tourism product hinder its competitiveness. The size and cost of facilities places a burden on the city for their maintenance, especially as long as they remain underutilized. Moreover, ineffective marketing and weak financial operations constrain the quality of Athens’ tourism product. These challenges are exacerbated by the economic crisis that bedevils the whole country. In addition, the lack of comprehensive tourism policy and the continuous decrease of Athens’ competitiveness due to structural weaknesses, mass tourism, seasonality, and damage to the environment resulting from unrestricted tourism activities, deteriorate the status and conditions of the city's tourism industry.

Based on the analysis of Athens’ opportunities and challenges for sport tourism development a number of strategic actions can be implemented. Athens needs to develop an event portfolio using the Olympic facilities and capitalizing on Olympic legacy. All types of sport tourism need to be developed in order to broaden the spectrum of sport tourism products and services available. The different sport tourism products can be bundled with other main or complementary tourism activities and attractions to reach different target markets. The government should privatize the Olympic venues via leasing and investment schemes as well as seeking to establish a climate of confidence and stability in the tourism industry. In terms of service quality, Athens’ administration needs to establish appropriate mechanisms to control and ensure that services are delivered according to promised standards. All these actions require updated legislation to respond to the needs of sport tourism's providers and consumers. To achieve sustainability, tourism policy should safeguard the environment and disperse sport tourism impacts to central and peripheral areas. Also, to make distinctive Athens’ post‐Olympic tourism product, the city should refocus on its cultural and traditional characteristics (such as heritage, customs, and architecture). Finally, these strategic actions should be coordinated through the formation of an integrated joint marketing strategy for sport tourism, which can eventually lead to the creation of a diversified, differentiated, and competitive sport tourism product.

Conclusion and directions for future research

This study aimed to ignite interest in Athens’ prospects to become a sport tourism destination, and by examining the associated challenges and opportunities suggests how Athens can move forward. The strategic planning scheme attempts to incorporate all the required elements of a sustainable framework envisaging the creation of synergies between the sport and tourism sectors in Athens. This framework contains the objectives of a planning scheme for sport tourism, the opportunities and challenges, and the strategic actions that should be taken accordingly. In addition, the need for an integrated joint marketing strategy for sport tourism is highlighted in order Athens to develop a diversified, differentiated, and competitive sport tourism product.

The case of Athens and its planning failures provide insights for other Olympic cities that aim to harness their Olympic legacy and assets by raising the question of how the underutilized Olympic assets can be leveraged. As Figure 2 shows, the development of a sustainable Olympic tourism product depends on the efficacy with which the Olympic legacy and the destination capitals are cross‐leveraged in the post‐Games period. This calls for the need to pay more attention to leveraging after the end of the Olympics. The leveraging of major events does not end with the completion of an event but there should be post‐event leveraging programs implemented to attain sustainable outcomes. Sustainability can become the core constituent in the process of leveraging the event legacy and destination capitals. There is a need for negotiated trade‐offs among all stakeholders to form a consensus for the distribution of benefits and dispersal of impacts that accrue from the implementation of cross‐leveraging strategies. This consensus can be realistically reached if post‐event leverage is based on the employment of joint strategies that aim to obtain and maximize benefits in accordance with the objectives of tourism development, contingent upon the destination's environmental carrying capacity as well as economic and social needs. In this context, policies for sport tourism development can create synergies with other forms of tourism that optimize their benefits to the destination.

Therefore, this study stresses the need to develop a broader planning and leveraging framework for Olympic host cities that incorporates sport tourism into its scope and extends leveraging in the post‐Games period. Specifically, tourism planning should build sport programs and activities tied to the Olympic assets and facilities. The leveraging of the Olympic legacy for sport tourism development represents a relatively unexplored pillar of potential post‐Olympic initiatives, aimed to foster tourism development in the long run after the end of the Games. Consequently, this brings forth the potential of embedding the leveraging of post‐Olympic tourism in the sustainable development agendas of Olympic cities and creating cross‐leveraging synergies among different forms of tourism such as sport and cultural tourism (Boukas et al., 2012b).

In conclusion, the post‐Olympic period provides a unique context for examining the potential use of Olympic facilities and legacy from a sustainability perspective. Future research is needed to investigate the means to leverage the Olympic legacy and assets for sustainable sport tourism development. In this context, the processes and outcomes of leveraging Olympic destination capitals need to be delineated to help destination managers devise comprehensive sport tourism planning and policies. Similarly, the potential of an event portfolio to become a tool for the sustainable development of Olympic cities as sport tourism destinations needs to be examined. This line of inquiry can also help identify ways to foster synergies of sport tourism with other forms of tourism in order to optimize the derived benefits to an Olympic destination and develop sustainable post‐Olympic tourism products.

Figure 1

Strategic planning for sport tourism in Athens

Figure 2

Post‐event leverage for creating sustainable post‐Olympic tourism products

Table I

Background of interviewees

Table II

Athens’ post‐Olympic facilities as assets for sport tourism development

Corresponding author

Vassilios Ziakas can be contacted at: V.Ziakas@euc.ac.cy