Recreation and Sport Studies

Studying, Experiencing and Facilitating Kinesiology, Recreation and Sport through Wellness and Physical Activity

Securing Sport: Protecting Those Who Participate

1 Comment

This past September I had the privilege to attend the 2013 Jeux de la Francophonie in Nice, France. The games are a combination of artistic and sporting events, and 55 countries attended in 2013. I had the good fortune of placing 3rd in my weight category, which I think is great, but I considered the games much smaller in scope compared to other “Mega Events”.

However, the security was extraordinary at the games. Armed soldiers patrolled the streets, entire rail lines and highways leading into the heart of the city were shut down, and cameras everywhere were documenting every second. During the event we were informed that security was tightening because of the rise in threat level. Participants from African nations were “disappearing”. Chances are that they were most likely defecting, but the mission staff could not rule out that the causes was more malevolent.

The large scale security of the event made me ponder a question I’ve had many times in the past while attending other sporting events: “Why is Sport the target for Terrorism?”


After further research I can now offer up two explanations why sporting events are desired targets of aggression.
First sporting events are highly viewed spectacles. Mega-events are high-profile, deeply symbolic affairs. These events generate a global audience through intense media coverage. For example, the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China was broadcast in 220 countries. Another example is the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which more than 3.2 billion people, or 46.4 percent of the world population, watched live coverage for a minimum of one minute. Individuals and groups see these events as opportunities to make a statement for the same reason advertisers seek commercial space at mega events: viewership.

The second reason these media-saturated events are targeted by extremist is because of the large gathering of crowds creates a climate for political opportunism. Both state and social movements can draw viewers from the spectacles of the International sport to the arena of their choosing, and sway public opinion.

Governments use sport as a ring for national and global politics. Political capital and social prestige is to be gained by hosting, attending, and being successful at the Games. This is because success is linked with the promotion of a nation’s brand image. This is illustrated by the ambition of the British government was to use the 2012 Olympics to promote British culture at home and abroad. According to the article Britain’s mission was to project an image of a ‘modern Britain … open (welcoming, diverse, tolerant), connected (through our involvement in the UN and G20, politically, geographically, in terms of trade and travel), creative, and dynamic. Governments also use Mega Events to exert leverage on specific issues. For example, Presidents George W. Bush’s threat to boycott the Beijing opening ceremony due to Tibet, or Western Leaders skipping the events Sochi’s due to Russia’s Anti-Gay laws, and later the incursion into Ukraine.

Groups and individuals also harnessed sport’s global audience for protest activity. This happened at the 2010 Winter Olympics Vancouver with the anti-poverty campaigners (Heart Attack) and the Free Tibet protests in Beijing during the 2008 Games. Most have been (relatively) peaceful, with little or no impact on the delivery of the Games themselves, but there have been numerous examples of extremism with both domestic and international terrorist groups. In fact, for the 2012 Olympics, the UK security services believed that the most serious security threats emanate from militant individuals or groups, including Al Qaida, their associated networks, and those who share Al Qaida’s ideology but do not have direct contact with them, or domestic terrorist related to Northern Ireland, chiefly from Republican terrorist groups.

With so many individuals attention grasped by a single sporting event, Governments have gone to great lengths to secure their interests. This means incurring huge expenditures in security, which has created a culture of risk aversion. This raises further questions such as whether security becoming a bigger spectacle then the sporting event, and what trends does the future hold for security of sport.

The answers to these questions can be found on my Blog:



Houlihan, B., & Giulianotti, R. (2012). Politics and the London 2012 Olympics: the (in)security Games. International Affairs, 701–717.

One thought on “Securing Sport: Protecting Those Who Participate

  1. The terrorism discourse that surrounded the 2012 London Olympics can be attributed to two major historic events: The Munich Massacre of 1972 and the attacks on the World Trade Centre towers of September 11th, 2001. As said by Richards, Fussey, and Silke (2011):

    Munich, in particular, remains the benchmark by which all other terrorist attacks against the Olympics are judged. Indeed, for terrorist groups themselves, Munich remains an iconic event. Captured Al Qaeda documents, for example, show that the group regards Munich as the second most important terrorist attack of the past 50 years (not surprisingly, they rate 9/11 as the most important). (p. 1)

    The 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics was the first major international sporting event “post-9/11” and provides evidence of United States’ commitment to security for the games (Atkinson & Young, 2005). The Salt Lake City Games exceeded USD$310 million for “securing” the games and included 16,000 security personnel, with F-16s and Blackhawk helicopters circling a 45 mile “no fly zone” (Atkinson & Young, 2008). The budget for the following Olympic Games, Athens 2004, surpassed the billion dollar mark: USD$1.5 billion were spent on security, which included a 70,000 person security force (Atkinson & Young, 2008; Gold, 2011). All “post-9/11” Olympic Games discourse surrounds the threat of terrorism and the emphasis on military surveillance and is reflected in the billions of dollars spent at the succeeding games (Young & Atkinson, 2008). The Athens Games, dubbed the “Armed Camp Games”, was the first to surpass the billion dollar mark and started the escalating trend of spending on “securing” the games. The following games in Torino, Italy saw a security bill of USD$1.4 billion, a decrease in comparison to Athens.

    These benchmarks of terrorism protection are now not only ingrained in the Olympics, but all major sporting events. Jay Coakley (2009), sports sociologist, believes that because of the visibility of sporting events, which can be seen in the first globally televised terrorist attacks in Munich in 1972 (Schiller & Young, 2010), and the concentration of many people in one place, sports are a perfect target for terrorist attacks. This visibility will continue to haunt future Olympic bids in their quest of “securing” the games and what they and the IOC see as necessary to prevent what took place in 1972 and 2001.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s