D R D A V I D M C G I L L I V R A Y & D R M A T T F R E W

G L A S G O W C A L E D O N I A N U N I V E R S I T Y

From Fan Parks to Live Sites: The Politics of Pseudo Events

Presentation coverage

Fan Parks and Live Sites: The Context

Methodological preoccupations

Germany 2006 – key themes

Glasgow 2007 – key themes

Reclaiming public space

Power space

Consuming space

Conclusions

References

Historical context

2004 European Championships in Portugal first ‘pilot’ of Fan Park concept/Fan Embassies2006 World Cup attracted 13 million visitors across 10 Fan Parks from Berlin to Munich2008 European Championships in Austria/Switzerland hosted Fan Parks in each hosting cityNow a central institutionalised contractual obligation with hosting sporting ‘mega events’

UEFA’s signature European tournaments also on boardUEFA Cup Final (2007), Glasgow, Scotland – ‘fan zones’ hosted in city centreshttp://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/videos/qt/160507uefacup/

Methodological issues

Three ‘cases’:Germany 2006 World Cup

Glasgow 2007 UEFA Cup Final

Beijing Olympics Live Sites, 2008

Participant observation:Presence at Germany 2006 & Glasgow 2007

Visual recording of ‘Fan Parks’ & ‘Fan Zones’

Observation:Media sources (newspapers, ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ sources, TV coverage)

Interviews:Germany 2006 ‘vox pox’ interviews

Glasgow 2007, stakeholder interviews

Germany 2006 – Key Themes

Fan Parks at each host city

Deliberate and intentional strategy to ‘welcome’ the world to Germany – overcoming national stereotypes

“Symbolise their acceptance in the international community” (Allison & Monnington, 2002: 107)

Typically held outside of city centre business districts – in municipal spaces (e.g. Olympic Park, Munich)

Designed to manage ticketless ‘fans’ and create global ancillary spectacles alongside ‘real’ event

Spaces designed to encourage ‘performance’ and facilitate consumption – only main sponsors logo’s permitted

Extremely successful – the template for subsequent sporting events (e.g. European Championships, Olympics)

Glasgow 2007 – Key Themes

City hosted event as a means of reinforcing brand identityCity Marketing Bureau in lead role – Scotland with Style brand:

“as the city’s official place marketing agency…our task was to ensure key objectives were met and all opportunities maximised to deliver an outstanding event for Glasgow” (Scott Taylor, Chief Exec, Glasgow City Marketing Bureau)

‘Fan Zones’ intentionally located in city centre (George Square)– to exploit business potential and animate the city

Managed space with control and consumption as defining metaphors

Citizens invited to participate – as performers as part of the theatre show being staged

Glasgow 2007 – Key Themes

Managed space with control and consumption as defining metaphors

Risk-rating governed approach to spatial location:Police said the all-Spanish final was a "low-risk" match and a "fan festival" with entertainment and beer gardens has been planned for

the city centre (bbc news)

Containment and consumption could clash e.g. imperative to generate economic return over qualification to host major events:

A question of managing public order/public safety in an ‘experience economy’ (Pine & Gilmore, 1999)

Re-negotiating public space

Fan Zones as a revitalisation of public spacePlacement of ‘festivals of fun’ in central civic spaces (parks, city centres, squares)

Attracting families, visitors, locals to share spaces –communitas (Chalip, 2006)

‘Public’ demonstration of identity – whether local, national or globalised

BUT they attract specific sort of performer, as the event space created correlates with a pre-defined subject position that enacts ‘self-observation and self-regulation’ (Rose, 1999: 45)

Disciplinary techniques now found in ‘fields of play’, (Danaher et al, 2000) where a whole range of activities, machinery, techniques and subject positions, which entail the gentle punishment and quiet coercion of disciplinary power, are employed.

These bring a gaze to bear, opening up individuals to an evaluating eye and disciplinary power (Ball, 1990)

Fan Parks/Fan Zones as ‘managed arenas’

Manufacturing and accentuating intense dramatological experiences (Roche, 2000) BUT within a predominantly ‘disciplined set of spatial practices’ (Frew & McGillivray, 2008: 181)

Control and containment the dominant priority – a feature of the specific s of travelling sports fans

Audience is objectified, normalised and spatially located - given privatisation of public space this satisfied the remit of public order agencies

Power-space (Koskela, 2003)

Consuming public space

Fan Parks/Live Sites easing the means of consumption (Ritzer, 1999)

The civic (public) colonised by consumption logic

Carlsberg’s investment in ‘branded spaces’

Sponsor family ‘rights’ to dictate behaviour

YET, these public spaces hosted by local authorities accountable to citizens - who owns these spaces?

Conclusions: the Politics of ‘Pseudo’ Events

Fan Parks/Live Sites are contrived, manufactured spaces of liminality

They serve a place marketing function and are clearly ‘managed spaces’

They contribute to city branding messages

They do not, revitalise public spaces as they exclude and work to a privatised logic

Organisers of the ‘pseudo events’ of fan sites wish to adopt tried and tested techniques of branding, marketing, pricing, ancillary product sales, safety, staff (or ‘cast’), performance and the like’ (Cloke and Perkins, 2002: 525)

But, as ‘civic’ spaces (for all?) become branded spaces (for consumers), so specific disciplinary practices are enacted to secure specific outcomes

Citizens are essentially passive spectators as they accept civic spaces being gated for the purposes of hosting events which often have little direct relevance to their lives

Rather than being lived spaces (social space) for the city’s residents they become a theatre stage for visitors. The performances staged thereafter are distilled, edited, imprinted and ‘packaged’ and circulated to further reinforce the aspirational branded identity pursued by the city’s place marketing agencies. The question for public policy makers is whose space is this, for whom is it secured (by cameras, barriers, police, stewards) and who is excluded or marginalised in the process?

References

Cloke, P & Perkins, H.C. (2002) Commodification and Adventure in New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism, 5 (6), 521-549

Frew, M & McGillivray, D (2008) Exploring Hyper-Experiences: Performing the Fan at Germany 2006, Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13 (3), 181-198

Koskela, H (2000) ‘The Gaze without Eyes’: Video Surveillance and the changing nature of urban public space, Progress in Human Geography, 24 (2), 243-265

Marcuse, P (1997) Walls of fear and walls of support. In Ellin, N (ed), The architecture of fear, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 101–14.

Websites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6658581.stm(accessed 25/11/08)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6664731.stm(accessed 25/11/08)