Week 8: Mega-Events and (De)Politicization

Hi all,

Throughout the research process, I’ve said a lot of what’s on my mind for the project, and I’ve hinted at what piques my interest, but I figured I should be as clear as possible here regarding the econometrics at play and the factors to look out for in determining how to produce long-term success with a benefit concert.

There are many different ways to measure the economic activity of a concert. Lots of research has been done on how much concerts benefit local economies by attracting concertgoers using economic impact analysis. This application of econometrics relies on data such as monthly taxable retail sales, concertgoer county of residence, and attendee counts to determine a relationship between the flow of people induced by concerts and the flow of money. There are a few wrinkles, however. Of course, many concert attendees will live in the same location as a concert, and so the concert itself likely did not cause these concertgoers to spend money around the area. A resident would have bought food regardless of if they had tickets to the concert, for example. Additionally, the mass migration of people traveling to large concerts can have a counterbalancing chilling effect, as the traffic or crowding indirectly caused by the concert’s existence discourages non-concertgoers from spending money in a particular area. It’s also worth noting that not all contributions to the local economy are uniform. People who have to drive long distances to get to a concert that ends late at night will likely stay at a hotel, but most attendees may not.

Yet, from the start I wanted to look at something that I see as a little bit deeper, how cash translates into good done. A few blog posts ago, I looked at elementary models for determining maximum ticket revenue. As for expenses, it largely consists of flat costs, such as booking the event space, compensating the performers, hiring staff, or creating merchandise. This isn’t anything new, though. What value I hope to get from this Senior Project lies in the largely technological differences between concert organization now and concert organization 40 years ago. We live in a much more globalized world with targeted digital advertising and social media campaigns bringing more awareness of everything to everyone, for better or worse. Some rejoice at this new “global meritocracy of suffering,” where every cause that proves itself to be deserving eventually gets attention. Others see attention as a finite resource for which causes must compete to get the aid they need. In any case, huge spectacles can guide public attention as Live Aid did, giving great power to the organizers. It also gives them a big question to answer: “should we be political?”

Most commonly, the organizers of mega-events try their absolute hardest to say “no.” Politics, in the eyes of political scientist Chantal Mouffe, inherently involves conflict, especially resistance to predominant power structures. Mega-events, being big-tent events intended to attract as many attendees as possible—and turn away as few people as they can—thus aim to ignore politics to avoid causing controversy. Even when politics eventually gets its way and rears its head, mega-event organizers have chosen not to take a stance. During the 1972 Olympic Games, when 11 Israeli citizens were killed by Palestinian terrorists in what is now known as the Munich Massacre, then-president of the International Olympic Committee Avery Brundage famously refused to end or postpone the Olympics. “The games must go on,” he declared, and after just one day games proceeded as usual. This itself sparked controversy, of course, as neutrality is itself a political stance to which one may take offense. Yet, while avoiding politics may gain the organizers of mega-events some detractors, diving headfirst into the messy conflicts characterizing the world’s state of affairs usually makes more people disagree with one’s position. Thus, however ridiculous statements like “sports transcend politics” or “music is apolitical” may be, they nonetheless serve as mantras for your World Cups or Live Aids.

I say ridiculous because any aspect of life as major and universal as sports or music is ripe for political opportunities. In the case of large organizations or mega-events whose audiences reach around the world, the unification of peoples from all different continents inherently contributes to the political economy of globalization. FIFA has more member nations than the UN, requiring professional infrastructure and collaboration that hardly remains tied to the youthful notion of kicking balls into goals. In order to accomplish this Herculean task of organizing the World Cup every four years, FIFA nominally adopts a neutral, depoliticized stance, and yet each member state’s participation in the World Cup reflects a political choice to be a part of the global sporting community and the global sporting business.

On the other hand, nationalist sentiments flourish in competitive environments. Though it is true that music and sports can create communities comprising different nationalities and cultures as a result of their universal nature, they also serve to craft national images and cultures for governments to project. Music and sports, as cultural and even ethnolinguistic exports, are prime examples of ways governments exert influence by showing off their proudest achievements. As these exports compete in a global market, heads clash and tensions arise. Though the Olympics are competitions between athletes as opposed to countries, athletes must indeed be subjects of their respective country. Additionally, the disparity in resources that countries can offer their teams doubtless affects their national team’s performance at the elite level. You will also never see Ukraine and Russia paired against each other by the organizers in the initial stages of a sports tournament, as such a meeting abounds with underlying political hostility. In effect, the game of making a mega-event apolitical consists not of refraining from taking a political stance, but rather balancing the already-prominent nationalist and globalist forces at play.

To avoid making this blog post too long, I will continue this topic in my Week 9 blog post, where I will also cover my trip to Ellenville, centering on the decisions Mr. Goldman and I make for hosting the benefit concert as well as all the underlying logistics. Additionally, I’ll provide updates about the research and the preparation of the final presentation and any deliverables. Till then, that’s all. See you next time.