EN中文

Journal of Geographical Sciences >

2021 , Vol. 31 >Issue 12: 1791 - 1815

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-021-1923-z

Intercity connections and a world city network based on international sport events: Empirical studies on the Beijing, London, and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games

  • XUE Desheng ,
  • OU Yubin
Expand
  • School of Geography and Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Xue Desheng (1969-), PhD and Professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-03-25

  Accepted date: 2021-08-14

  Online published: 2022-02-25

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(41930646)

Copyright

Copyright reserved © 2021. Office of Journal of Geographical Sciences All articles published represent the opinions of the authors, and do not reflect the official policy of the Chinese Medical Association or the Editorial Board, unless this is clearly specified.
Fold

Abstract

With so many sports becoming increasingly popular, sports have come to play an important role in promoting the process of globalization and formatting the world city network (WCN). Previous studies have constructed the WCN based on the distribution of international sport federations (ISFs) and the sites of international sport events (ISEs), but there is still a lack of systematic research on the intercity connections caused by ISEs. Taking three most recent Olympic Games as cases, this paper explores intercity connections and WCN based on ISEs. The results show that (1) the Olympic WCN has city nodes around the world except in Antarctica, and the number and activity values of the cities in host countries may increase intensively during the Olympic Games. (2) A hierarchical city system with four tiers (global central cities, specialized central cities, national central cities and specialized cities) is formed by the intercity connections caused by the Olympic Games. (3) The WCN based on the Olympic Games, is made up of many subnetworks, while many differences occur due to the diverse decisions made by the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG), host cities or even host countries in the events associated with sponsorship activity and publicity activity. This study not only broadens the relevant fields of sports culture-oriented WCN research but also explores the instability of the WCN, which makes it an effective reference for WCN research based on ISEs.

Key words： globalization; world city network; Olympic Games; hierarchy

Cite this article

XUE Desheng , OU Yubin . Intercity connections and a world city network based on international sport events: Empirical studies on the Beijing, London, and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2021 , 31(12) : 1791 -1815 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-021-1923-z

1 Introduction

The term ‘world city’ was first used by the urbanist Geddes (Geddes, 1915) in his book Cities in Evolution and was further discussed by Hall, who emphasized world cities’ centralized economic function (Hall, 1966). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the advance of the new international division of labour (NIDL), an increasing number of cities were united by economic forces, such as multinational corporations (MNCs) (Yang et al., 2011), and researchers noticed that the division may lead to the polarization of global capitalism and the differentiation of cities (Yang et al., 2011). Based on the core-periphery model, Friedmann created the theoretical framework of the world city and promoted the well-known world city hypothesis with seven sub-hypotheses (Friedmann, 1986). Sassen expanded the framework by using the term ‘global city’ and defined global cities as the control and command centres in the urban hierarchy (Sassen, 1991), such as New York, London and Tokyo, in which advanced producer services (APS) firms may agglomerate.
World city research has further developed through the utilization of the interlocking network model method and the promotion of the world city network (WCN) concept (Taylor et al., 2002; Taylor and Derudder, 2004), which opened up new quantitative analytical possibilities in the research field (Zou and Xue, 2017). Due to the NIDL since the 1960s, scholars have increasingly paid attention to the economic forces that could unite nations and cities, such that quantitative world city research at the early stage mainly viewed world city formation from an economic perspective (Beaverstock et al., 1999). As a consequence, the investigation of the WCN constructed by the location strategies of MNCs became the mainstream research trend (Alderson and Beckfield, 2004; Krätke and Taylor, 2004; Alderson et al., 2010).
However, the excessive emphasis on economic forces led to excessive concentrations on the world cities where APS firms and MNCs agglomerate. Additionally, those cities were considered as the predominant centres of the WCN and the major nodes driving urban integration (Derudder, 2006). However, those upper-tier cities did not become the singular control core of economic activities, and other cities around the world also participated in the globalization process to some extent. Taylor’s promotion of the ‘civil society’, which refers to the social spaces where ‘citizens unite and interact with each other through a set of organizations to achieve a broad array of objectives’ (Taylor, 2004), exploits the political dimension of contemporary globalization. Based on the location strategies of international governmental organizations (IGOs) and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), Taylor first viewed the world city strictly from a political perspective and found that many cities in the global south (e.g., Kinshasa, Beijing, and Nairobi) have their own global city status in the WCN (Taylor, 2005), while Su promoted a more detailed analysis to emphasize the political functions of the cities in China (Su et al., 2014). In addition to the focus on the political dimension, attention has been given to the cultural dimension because of the rapid development of new media technologies since the 1990s, and the location strategies of well-known studios and transnational broadcast companies are considered as important factors that form the WCN (Watson, 2012; Chen et al., 2020).
Despite the focus on the economic, political and cultural dimensions of the WCN, few scholars have examined other aspects driving interactions among cities all over the world. Globalization is a complex process with many dimensions (Su et al., 2014). As an important daily activity, sports can not only keep us healthy but also provide an important source of entertainment. Furthermore, the increasing popularity of many kinds of sports (e.g., football and basketball) makes them irreplaceable ties that bind people around the world together (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007). In addition, some sporting events, such as the Olympic Games, are considered a milestone of globalization (Short, 2008). As the Olympic Charter emphasizes, ‘The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sports’; with an increasing number of sports becoming popular, sporting events attract an increasing number of devoted fans from all over the world. Sports are undoubtedly involved in and contribute to the process of globalization (Short, 2016). According to Giulianotti, there are two major characteristics of sports that may drive cities to interact. First, the spread of sports is peaceful (Giulianotti, 2011) and is not as hegemonic as the spread of politics and culture, which makes sports an important means of national diplomacy (such as China’s ‘ping-pong diplomacy’). Second, sports are not affected by national boundaries, ideology, religious beliefs, living customs or other factors (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007), which may greatly reduce the obstacles to the spread of sports between countries and cities, and the intercity connections caused by sports become increasingly frequent with the development of the technology and the overall popularity of television broadcasting (Short, 2011). Previous studies on interactions between cities caused by sports have identified three sport-related subjects that make cities interact, namely, international sport federations (ISFs), international sporting events (ISEs) and sports clubs. ISFs play an indispensable role in the promotion of urban sports and the organization of events; therefore, the subordinated order resulting from the hierarchical organizational structure of ISFs will certainly lead to interactions between cities (Roels et al., 2013). Meanwhile, as the clearest reflection of sports’ transnational natures (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007), the different levels and types of ISEs organized by ISFs will also trigger connections between cities through television broadcasts, media reports, etc. (Short, 2008). Taking football as an example, both international team events (World Cup, Intercontinental Cup, etc.) and club events (national leagues, intercontinental leagues, Club World Cup, etc.) will attract the widespread attention of fans in a certain geographical area. Although the number of fans will vary greatly depending on the level of a game, the broadcast and reporting of events in different cities within a certain geographical range will certainly lead to interactions between these cities. Aside from ISFs and ISEs, through some successful club marketing activities, clubs that participate in corresponding events can not only greatly enhance the visibility of their cities but also trigger interconnections between their city and other cities through certain measures, such as finding sponsors around the world and holding promotional club activities in other cities (Andrews, 2004; Zhao, 2008). For instance, Andrews has carried out a systematic study of the numerous commercial and publicity behaviours of the English football club Manchester United. He believes that actions like those of Manchester United have not only greatly enhanced the popularity of Manchester, the city where the club is located, and connected Manchester with many cities around the world but also played an important role in promoting the Premier League and football culture (Andrews, 2004). To some extent, globalization has promoted the spread of sports around the world, and sports have also contributed to globalization by triggering widespread intercity connections. However, except for some studies that innovatively constructed the WCN based on the location strategies of ISFs) and ISEs (Roels et al., 2013; Chen and Wu, 2016), few studies have focused on the ‘sports dimension’ of WCNs.
Scholars’ lack of the focus on intercity interactions does not mean that they have not given attention to the relationship between sports and cities; on the contrary, how sports affect cities has already been discussed in the literature (Giulianotti, 2011). According to Ruan, sports are not only high-quality methods of urban communication but also are important factors in promoting urban development (Ruan, 2012). Among the extant studies, although some details on how the establishment of different levels of sports federations and famous sports clubs in a city can enhance local urban brands (Andrews, 2004; Zhao, 2008; Roels et al., 2013), yet most of the studies still concentrate on the relationships between sporting events and cities. On one hand, hosting sporting events is considered as an effective method of urban marketing and branding that can help cities attract talents and investment, which may contribute to the development of these cities (Leo et al., 2006; Ruan, 2012); on the other hand, hosting sporting events can stimulate a city’s government to refit existing urban public facilities and carry out urban renewal, which can improve its residents’ lives (Garcia-Ramon and Albet, 2000; Smith, 2014). In addition, mega-scale sporting events typically play larger roles in promoting the development of cities (Short, 2011).
As the Olympic Games are regarded as the grandest sporting events (Short, 2011), the host country of the Olympic Games connects a large number of countries and cities in the world. According to Short, The Olympic Partner (TOP) programme that has run since the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games not only freed host cities of the Olympic Games from high debts but also greatly enhanced the positive effect of the Olympic Games on the host city (Short, 2008). Therefore, many scholars began to explore the impacts of the Olympic Games on the host city, considering four aspects. (1) Studies on the effects of Olympic Games on the planning (Andranovich et al., 2001; Alberts, 2009; Black and Peacock, 2011; Cook and Ward, 2011; Chorianopoulos et al., 2010; Gold and Gold, 2016), marketing (Zhang and Zhao, 2009; Zhang et al., 2011; Ding et al., 2012) and renewal (Garcia-Ramon and Albet, 2000; Smith, 2014; Azzali, 2019) of the cities that compete for the rights to host the games are mainstream in this research field and have considered samples of all the Olympic Games since 1984. (2) Studies on the reasons why cities compete for the right to host Olympic Games, in which scholars have mostly taken the Olympic Games or other large-scale ISEs as research samples to explore the reasons why cities host the Olympic Games and other sporting events (Shoval, 2002; Westerbeek et al., 2002; Caiazza and Audretsch, 2015). (3) Studies on the geopolitical impacts of hosting the Olympic Games on host countries and cities, in which scholars have mostly focused on the geopolitical characteristics of the torch relay of the Olympic Games (Agnew, 1994; Agnew, 2005) and especially on the Games held in socialist and developing countries (Bennett, 2016). (4) Studies on the influence of media reports and television broadcasts on the Olympic Games and the image of the host city, which have mainly been based on the content analysis of media reports (Van den Broucke and Gama Gato, 2018) and the feedback of the crowd that watched the TV broadcast (Rothenbuhler, 1988). However, the studies mentioned above did not apply a systematic approach to the intercity connections caused by the Olympic Games. Therefore, our study focuses on the intercity connections caused by the related affairs and summarizes the structure and characteristics of the WCN based on the Olympic Games by comparing WCNs based on three typical Olympic Games, which may not only compensate for the deficiency in the understanding of the ‘sports dimension’ of WCN research but also provide an example for the studies of world cities and the ISEs themselves.

2 Affairs of the Olympic Games that may lead to intercity connections

According to Taylor’s promotion of the civil society, the subjects that lead to intercity interactions are a set of organizations (Taylor, 2004; Taylor, 2005), while other researchers recognized that MNCs or even governments could be the subjects that lead to intercity connections (Short, 2008; Gold and Gold, 2016). Thus, based on Castells’ ‘space of flows’ (Castells, 1989), intercity interactions caused by the Olympic Games should be defined as the intercity flows of information, material and capital caused by the interactions between the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) and INGOs, MNCs or the governments related to the events due to specific affairs. Short proposed a framework indicating that the intercity connections caused by the Olympic Games are mainly generated through three kinds of affairs: power struggles (politics), sponsorship activities (economy), and publicity activities (culture) (Short, 2008). Each kind of affair contains two specific events. Through the interpretation of the Olympic Charter and related documents, as well as by tracking the process of corresponding activities, six specific events that lead to intercity connections are recognized as follows.
(1) Competition for the right to host the Olympic Games. In this event, star-shaped connections occur between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the competition committees of the bid cities (Figure 1a) due to the efforts cities make to win the favour of the IOC and the inspection activities of the IOC (Bairner and Molnar, 2010).
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the connections caused by different events
(2) Competition for the athletes’ qualifications to participate in the Olympic Games. Regarding this event, the interactions between different levels of Olympic committees and ISFs were interpreted in Roel’s study (Roels et al., 2013). However, his study did not address the horizontal connections between the IOC and ISFs or the connections between the IOC and the OCOG. Therefore, this study selects four kinds of connections that occur only during the Olympic Games as the research objects. The first connection concerns the interactions between different levels of the Olympic Committee, the second concerns connections between the IOC and the headquarters of ISFs, the third concerns the interactions between National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and national sport federations (NSFs) in the checking of the list of athletes, and the fourth concerns the interactions between the IOC and the OCOG in the checking of the list of athletes all over the world (Figure 1b).
(3) The TOP programme, the highest-level sponsorship programme of Olympic Games, was first launched in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games (Short, 2008; Gold and Gold, 2016) to select and determine MNCs around the world as partners of IOCs. The selected MNCs have the right to use the Olympic logo and enjoy great exposure during the Olympic Games within a period of time (Short, 2008), and star-shaped connections occur between IOCs and MNCs (Figure 1c).
(4) The OCOG sponsorship programme is a domestic sponsor programme of the Olympic Games. In this event, domestic sponsors are chosen by the OCOG to provide funds and materials for Olympic Games, and the corporations selected are divided into three levels: partners, sponsors and providers. OCOG sponsors obtain domestic business rights only during the Olympic Games; therefore, branch-shaped connections occur between the OCOG, domestic corporations and the national offices of MNCs during this event (Figure 1d).
(5) The torch relay is a traditional publicity activity of the Olympic Games. After the OCOG submits the list of torch relay cities to the IOC for approval, the OCOG contacts the government of the cities to participate in the torch relay to implement the details (Bennett, 2016); therefore, star-shaped connections occur between the IOC, the OCOG, and the governments of cities that carry out the torch relay (Figure 1e).
(6) TV broadcasts, which are considered as the most important propaganda of the Olympic Games (Short, 2011), are mainly dominated by the OCOG and IOC. In this event, a broadcast corporation is established by the OCOG and IOC, and the corporation determines the rights-holding broadcasters, including some powerful National Television and International Broadcast Unions (IBUs) that not only obtain the signal directly from the broadcast corporation established by the OCOG and IOC but also provide the signal to other national televisions that do not have broadcast rights. As a result, branch-shaped connections occur between the OCOG, IOC, right-holding broadcasters and non-rights-holding broadcasters (Figure 1f).

3 Data and methodologies

3.1 Samples and data resources

The Olympic Games include the Summer and Winter Games, among which the Summer Games are more influential (Short, 2011). The TOP programme was officially launched at the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games, which has had a great impact on the modern Olympic Games. Since the launch, eight Summer Olympic Games have been held in Seoul, Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro, among which the Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro Olympics have been the three grandest Olympic Games in recent years, creating record highs in terms of broadcasting rights income, OCOG income and the number of Olympic participants. By taking these three Olympic Games as the research objects, we can consider the Olympic Games held in socialist developing countries, capitalist developed countries and capitalist developing countries with different regimes and development conditions, creating a very representative sample. Therefore, the Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games are chosen as samples in our study.
Among the six specific events in the process of bidding and hosting the Olympic Games, the list of cities competing for the right to host Olympic Games, the distribution data of the IOC, the regional headquarters of the Olympic Committee and the NOCs come from the official website of the IOC (https://www.olympic.org/). The list of TOP sponsors, OCOG sponsors, authorized broadcasters and cities carrying out the torch relay for the Olympic Games comes from Wikipedia (https://www.wikipedia.org/) and some official Olympic documents. The data of ISFs involved in the three Olympic Games come from their official websites. Among them, four federations, the International Equestrian Association, the International Surfing Association, the International Cycling Association and the International Canoe Association, could not be included in this study due to the poor maintenance of their official website or lack of information.

3.2 Activity values

The activity value was first promoted by Taylor as a part of the interlocking network model to reflect the importance of the presence of organization i in city j (Taylor et al., 2002). In our study, the subjects involved in each event were different, and there were significant differences in the importance of each subject in different events. Activity values Vij can be standardized across subjects to establish intercity connections through the use of a five-point Likert-type scale to reflect the importance of the subjects.
3.2.1 Competition for the right to host the Olympic Games
In this event, the IOC plays the most important role, so it has a value of 5. The competition committee of the host city is more influential than the committees of other competing cities, which results in a value of 4. The competition committees of cities that enter the second round have an activity value of 2, while a value of 1 is used for the competition committees of cities that are out in the first round.
3.2.2 Competition for athletes’ qualifications to participate in the Olympic Games
An activity value of 5 is given to the IOC, which works as the dispatch centre as well as the intermediary between NOCs and ISFs in this event. The headquarters of the ISFs receive instructions from the IOC and determine the competition standards, organize qualifiers and undertake other activities, such that ISFs are attributed to the value of 4. The OCOG makes proper arrangements for the clothing, food, housing and transportation of relevant personnel during the Olympic Games, indicating its important influence and leading to its attribution of a value of 4. The regional headquarters of the Olympic Committee is considered the mediator between the IOC and the NOCs and has a value of 4. NOCs around the world not only exchange messages with NSFs in the country but are also responsible for gathering the list of athletes who will participate in the Olympic Games; NOCs’ strong domestic influence leads to their value of 2. NSFs have the value of 1 (Table 1).
Table 1 Activity values of the subjects of the specific events
Competition for the right to host
the Olympic Games		 Competition for athletes’ qualification to participate in the Olympic Games TOP programme
Subjects Activity values Subjects Activity values Subjects Activity values
IOC 5 IOC 5 IOC 5
Competition committee of host cities 4 OCOG 4 OCOG 4
Competition committee of cities that participate in the second round 2 ISFs 4 MNCs 4
Competition committee of cities that participate in the first round 1 Regional headquarters of the Olympic committee 3
NOCs 2
NSFs 1
OCOG sponsorship programme Torch relay TV broadcast
Subjects Activity values Subjects Activity values Subjects Activity values
OCOG 5 OCOG 5 OCOG 5
OCOG partners 3 IOC 4 IOC 4
OCOG sponsors 2 Government of Athens 3 Rights-holding broadcasters 3
OCOG providers 1 Government of foreign cities 2 Non-rights-holding broadcasters 1
Government of domestic cities 1
3.2.3 TOP programme
The IOC plays a decisive role in the process of determining the companies to be part of the TOP plan and is assigned a value of 5. An activity value of 4 is used not only for the MNCs that join the TOP plan (these companies can be seen as the highest-level sponsors of the Olympic Games) but also for the OCOG, which provides the platform for companies that join the TOP plan to display products to the world (Table 1).
3.2.4 OCOG sponsorship programme
In this event, the OCOG has the right to determine the sponsors and obtains a value of 5. Additionally, three-tier sponsors have different business rights in the country where the Olympic Games are hosted, so the sponsors of the OCOG in different tiers may be given the value of 3, 2, or 1.
3.2.5 Torch relay
The torch relay is the most important traditional propaganda activity of the Olympic Games. The OCOG plays a decisive role in this event and has a value of 5. The IOC also has the right to determine the cities in which the torch relay occurs, so it should be given a value of 4. Athens is the place where the torch ignition ceremony is held, and the global influence of the ceremony leads to the government of Athens’ value of 3. Foreign cities that carry out torch relays may have an international influence on audiences to a certain extent, so they are assigned a value of 2. An activity value of 1 is attributed to cities in the host country where the torch relay is carried out.
3.2.6 TV broadcasting
Television broadcasting includes two major processes: determining rights-holding broadcasters and providing broadcast signals. The OCOG has a decisive role in both processes, so it has a value of 5 in this event. A value of 4 is attributed to the IOC, which participates in the decision-making process of rights-holding broadcasters but does not directly participate in providing broadcast signals. Rights-holding broadcasters contract a certain area of broadcast rights, with a value of 3. National TV stations (non-rights-holding broadcasters), which have a value of 1, provide only domestic broadcasting.

3.3 Methodologies: The interlocking network model and social network analysis

There were a large number of vertical and horizontal connections between the subjects involved in the six specific events, and not all the subjects in the same event were connected. To reflect not only the connections between the subjects but also the importance of the subjects (Neal, 2012), we first use the activity values in the interlocking network model to characterize the importance of each subject and then use the social network analysis method to analyse the connections between cities. The specific calculation is as follows:(1) Activity values of cities: The activity value of a city is a simple aggregation of the activity values across all subjects that lead to intercity connections for a specific city. The activity value of a city can well reflect the importance of the city in the process of bidding for and hosting the Olympic Games. The specific calculation formula is:
${{S}_{a}}=\underset{j}{\mathop \sum }\,\underset{i}{\mathop \sum }\,{{V}_{ia,j}}$
where Sa refers to the activity values of a city, and Via,j refers to the activity values of subject i located in city a in event j.(2) Connectivity of cities: In event j, if subject m located in city a sends an instruction to subject n in city b, then the directed connectivity between the two subjects may be the product of the activity value of mVma,j and the activity value of nVnb,j. The aggregation of Vma,j and Vnb,j represents the directed connectivity between cities a and b in event j:
${{C}_{ab,j}}=\underset{m,n}{\mathop \sum }\,{{V}_{ma,j}}*{{V}_{nb,j}}$
The sum of the directed connectivity between cities a and b in each event is the directed connectivity between cities a and b in the city network based on the Olympic Games. The aggregation of Cab and Cba is the connectivity between cities a and b.
${{C}_{ab}}=\underset{j}{\mathop \sum }\,{{C}_{ab,j}}$
The connectivity of city a is the aggregation of the connectivity between city a and all other city nodes, which reflects the city’s ability to attract and allocate resources.
${{C}_{a}}=\underset{b}{\mathop \sum }\,{{C}_{ab}}$
(3) Betweenness centrality: Betweenness centrality is used to judge a city’s intermediate control ability in the network and the polycentricity of the entire network. The specific calculation formula is:
${{C}_{Ba}}=\underset{j}{\overset{n}{\mathop \sum }}\,\underset{k}{\overset{n}{\mathop \sum }}\,{{G}_{jk\left( a \right)}}/{{G}_{jk}}$
where CBa is the betweenness centrality of city a, Gjk(a) represents the number of connections between city j and city k, and Gjk(a) represents the number of connections between city j and city k through city a.

4 Results

4.1 The status of cities in the WCN

4.1.1 City nodes distributed all over the worldIn the WCN formed by the three Olympic Games, the city nodes are distributed all over the world except Antarctica, and there are more than 440 city nodes in each of the three networks.Generally, the number of city nodes from Europe and the host country ranks top 2 because of the presence of the OCOG and the IOC, followed by Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which have many country nodes involved in the WCN. In addition, there is a significant positive correlation between the number of city nodes involved in the WCN based on Olympic Games and the number of city nodes in the host country (Figure 2 and Table 2).
Figure 2 Regional distributions of activity values based on three Olympic Games
Table 2 Number of city nodes in different regions
Beijing Olympic Games
Regions Chinese mainland Asia except China Europe America except LA Latin America Africa Oceania Sum
Count of nations/regions 1 44 53 2 47 54 24 225
Count of cities 108 60 114 22 60 69 31 464
London Olympic Games
Regions Britain Asia Europe except Britain America except LA Latin America Africa Oceania Sum
Count of nations/regions 1 45 52 2 47 54 24 225
Count of cities 65 59 140 19 59 69 32 443
Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games
Regions Brazil Asia Europe America except LA LA except Brazil Africa Oceania Sum
Count of nations/regions 1 45 53 2 46 54 24 225
Count of cities 324 58 138 19 56 70 32 697

Note: As Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan have independent Olympic committees and sports federations, these three regions are relatively independent in the process of organizing and hosting the Olympic Games, so they are included in the statistical data of other cities and regions in Asia.

4.1.2 Significant differences occur in the spatial distribution of city nodes based on different Olympic Games
Generally, the sum of the activity values of the cities in Europe ranks first in the Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games due to the presence of some dominant cities, such as Lausanne, Rome, and London, in the event of power struggles. The sum of values for cities from Asia, Africa and Latin America ranks just after that of Europe because these continents have many country nodes with many subjects, such as NOCs, NSFs and national television broadcasters, which leads to more intercity connections.
In addition to the role of the entire network, notably, there are some remarkable characteristics of the spatial distribution of city status based on specific events. The TOP programme, for example, has developed a significant ‘triple polarization’ trend; that is, in addition to the host countries, the other city nodes involved in the TOP programme are located mostly in Asia, North America (mainly the United States) and Europe, and these three economically developed regions have become the absolutely dominant areas in this event. Furthermore, in the event of the torch relay during the Beijing Olympic Games, the cities that carried out the torch relay were distributed all over the world, and the route obviously reflected the Belt and Road Initiative, while in the London and Rio Olympic Games, the torch relay was carried out only in the cities in the host countries and the cities of Switzerland and Greece. This difference reflects China’s globalization initiative and the characteristics of the ‘border expansion’ of the torch relay (Bennett, 2016).
A comparison of the spatial distribution of the city nodes in the WCN based on the three Olympic Games shows no significant difference in the spatial distribution of city nodes in northern Latin America, North America, Central and South Asia, Oceania and Africa in different Olympic Games. However, the spatial distribution of city nodes and the sum of the cities’ activity values in Europe, East Asia and southern Latin America show significant differences in the three Olympic Games, mainly because of the substantial increase in the number and activity values of the city nodes in the host country and the surrounding areas during the Olympic Games. The OCOG can involve many cities in the host country and surrounding areas in the city network through the OCOG sponsorship programme and the event of the torch relay. Most of those cities are involved only in the Olympic Games that are held in the specific region and may not have subjects that develop intercity connections in other Olympic Games because of their low functional status worldwide (Table 3).
Table 3 Regional distribution and their contribution to total activity values in different events of different Olympic Games
4.1.3 A very small number of cities have subjects that lead to intercity connections in most countries
Among the 225 countries or regions with subjects that interact in the three Olympic Games, the host country has the largest number of city nodes, followed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and other capitalist developed countries. More than 200 countries or regions have only 1-2 city nodes involved in the city network, most of which are the capital or central cities of the country.
Among these three Olympic Games, the OCOGs of the London and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games carried out overseas torch relays in several cities in Greece, which is considered to be the birthplace of the Olympics, while the overseas torch relay cities selected by the OCOG of the Beijing Olympic Games reflect China’s globalization initiative (Table 4).
Table 4 Number of city nodes in different countries of the three Olympic Games
Count of city nodes in certain countries Count of
countries		 Countries/Regions
Beijing Olympic Games
Over 100 1 China (108)
10-100 4 America (14), Britain (12), Germany (12), Switzerland (11)
5-9 4 Canada (8), Australia (6), Austria (6), Netherlands (5)
3-4 8 Belgium (4), Guam (4), Bolivia (3), Columbia (3), Pakistan (3), South Africa (3), Bosnia and Herzegovina (3), New Zealand (3)
2 48 Myanmar, Morocco, etc.
1 160 Algeria, Albania, etc.
London Olympic Games
Over 100 1 Britain (65)
10-100 4 Greece (34), America (13), Germany (13), Switzerland (11)
5-9 4 Canada (6), Australia (5), Austria (6), Netherlands (5)
3-4 9 Belgium (4); Guam (4); France (3), Bolivia (3), Columbia (3), Pakistan (3), Bosnia and Herzegovina (3), New Zealand (3), South Africa (3)
2 49 Myanmar, Morocco, etc.
1 158 Algeria, Albania, etc.
Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games
Over 100 1 Brazil (324)
10-100 5 Greece (28), America (13), Britain (12), Germany (12), Switzerland (10)
5-9 4 Canada (6), Australia (5), Austria (6), Netherlands (5)
3-4 8 Belgium (4), Guam (4), Pakistan (3), Bolivia (3), Columbia (3), South Africa (3), Bosnia and Herzegovina (3), New Zealand (3)
2 43 Myanmar, Morocco, etc.
1 164 Algeria, Albania, etc.

4.2 Hierarchical structure of the WCN, based on the locations of the Olympic Games

Generally, the connectivity of cities displays a hierarchical distribution. As a whole, the connectivity of cities can be divided into four levels (Table 5). The connectivity of the host city of the Olympic Games and Lausanne, where the IOC is located, is more than 1000, whereby these cities can be considered as global central cities. Second-tier cities are specialized central cities that contain specialized regional central cities and transnational central cities; regional central cities are mainly cities with regional headquarters of the Olympic Committee and headquarters of rights-holding IBUs. These cities establish extensive regional connections with some national or local central cities after receiving information from the IOC and the OCOG, while transnational central cities always play an important role in one or two types of events (for example, Olympic bid cities, cities where the headquarters of rights-holding IBUs are located, and cities where ISF headquarters are located). However, transnational central cities only have intercity connections with the cities where the IOC or OCOG is located. Third-tier cities are national central cities, where NSFs, the NOC and national television stations agglomerate, while fourth-tier cities are specialized cities with a small number of subjects that generate interactions for a single Olympic event, such as cities where NSFs are located.
Table 5 Different levels of urban nodes in terms of network connectivity based on different Olympic Games
Levels (Connectivity) Count of cities Cities
Beijing Olympic Games
Global central cities (Over 1000) 2 Lausanne, Beijing
Specialized central cities (41-1000) Specialized regional central cities (96-1000) 12 Abuja, Rome, Kuwait City, etc.
Specialized transnational central cities (41-95) 27 Istanbul, Toronto, Osaka, etc.
National central cities (16-40) 194 Ankara, Lisbon, Melbourne, etc.
Specialized cities (2-15) 209 Guangzhou, Canberra, Birmingham, etc.
London Olympic Games
Global central cities(Over 1000) 2 Lausanne, London
Specialized central cities
(41-1000)		 Specialized regional central cities (80-1000) 15 Mexico City, Abuja, Rome, etc.
Specialized transnational central cities (41-79) 24 Toronto, Beijing, Miami, etc.
National central cities (16-40) 192 Ankara, Sydney, Athens, etc.
Specialized cities (2-15) 191 Bridgetown, Sucre, Almaty, etc.
Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games
Global central cities(Over 1000) 2 Lausanne, Rio de Janeiro
Specialized central cities
(41-1000)		 Specialized regional central cities (86-1000) 12 Mexico City, Abuja, Rome, etc.
Specialized transnational central cities (41-85) 24 Madrid, Toronto, Dublin, etc.
National central cities
(16-40)		 196 Ankara, Sydney, Bridgetown, etc.
Specialized cities (2-15) 442 Geneva, Cape Town, Amsterdam, etc.
The Beijing Olympic Games and the Rio Olympic Games respectively formed their own WCN with a hierarchical structure similar to a pyramid, while the London Olympic Games failed to form such a structure. This is mainly because London has economic primacy in the UK, and it chose fewer domestic torch relay cities than the host cities of the other Games. As a result, the number of specialized cities in the United Kingdom during the London Olympic Games was far less than that in the host countries of the other two Olympic Games, and the city system formed by the London Olympic Games did not present a pyramid-shaped structure.
4.2.1 Global central cities and specialized central cities: The dominance of the WCN
As shown in Table 6, the top cities, especially Lausanne and host cities, dominated the whole city network, and the proportion of the connectivity of the top 10 cities in each event was over 47%. Even in the events related to sponsorship activity and publicity activity, the proportion was as high as 55%. Among these top cities, Lausanne and the host cities of the Olympic Games serve as both originators and adopters, which makes them the most important dispatch centres in a WCN.
Table 6 Top ten most connected cities for each event in different Olympic Games
In general, the top 10 cities in the three Olympic Games are mainly global central cities and specialized central cities, including Lausanne, the host cities of the Olympic Games, cities with regional headquarters of the Olympic Committee (e.g., Mexico City, Abuja, Rome), economically central cities in the host countries (e.g., Shanghai, Sao Paulo) and cities with IBUs that obtained broadcasting rights (e.g., Geneva, Brussels, Kuala Lumpur).
Notably, Shanghai and Sao Paulo, the economically central cities in China and Brazil, agglomerated the national office of MNCs and the headquarters of domestic corporations, which led to their important influence on the sponsorship activities of the Beijing and Rio Olympic Games. However, London, which was rated A+ in the study by GaWC (Taylor and Derudder, 2004), had an outstanding status from an economic perspective and, thus, amassed the European headquarters of MNCs and domestic enterprises. Therefore, the absence of economically central city nodes in host countries during the London Olympic Games can be explained by London’s outstanding economic status.
The betweenness centrality shown in Table 7 also reflects the dominance of the top cities. Approximately 30 cities in the WCN, based on the three Olympic Games, had intercity connections with more than two other cities, while Lausanne and the host city ranked either first or second for each event in all the Olympic Games, emphasizing the central function of those cities.
Table 7 Betweenness centrality of cities in the world city networks of different Olympic Games
Rank Sum Power Struggles Sponsorship Activities Publicity Activities
City Betweenness
centrality		 City Betweenness centrality City Betweenness
centrality		 City Betweenness centrality
Beijing Olympic Games
1 Lausanne 0.060174 Lausanne 0.046732 Beijing 0.738095 Beijing 0.001244
2 Beijing 0.042567 Toronto 0.010258 Lausanne 0.476190 Dakar 0.000890
3 Toronto 0.008404 Cairo 0.004114 Tunis 0.000717
4 Brussels 0.008139 Istanbul 0.003245 Geneva 0.000575
5 Istanbul 0.006522 Kuala Lumpur 0.002948 Brussels 0.000575
6 Cairo 0.004818 Havana 0.000930 Kuala Lumpur 0.000545
7 Paris 0.004627 Paris 0.000913 Mexico City 0.000307
8 Kuala
Lumpur		 0.003343 Beijing 0.000616
9 Tunis 0.003116 Bangkok 0.000616
10 Geneva 0.002337 Pasig City 0.000242
Proportion (%) 94.32 99.98 100.00 100.00
London Olympic Games
1 London 0.058776 Lausanne 0.034593 London 0.541667 London 0.001021
2 Lausanne 0.045266 London 0.021630 Lausanne 0.163043 Johannesburg 0.000985
3 Kuwait City 0.012117 Paris 0.000460 Kuala Lumpur 0.000664
4 Seoul 0.011938 Moscow 0.000460 Geneva 0.000615
5 Brussels 0.009280 Madrid 0.000460 Brussels 0.000615
6 Tunis 0.007435 Pasig City 0.000190 Kingstown 0.000429
7 Johannesburg 0.007131 Georgetown 0.000011 Auckland 0.000229
8 Abuja 0.005210 Miami 0.000183
9 Kuala
Lumpur		 0.003263 Tunis 0.000172
10 Geneva 0.003210 Dubai 0.000172
Proportion (%) 90.26 100.00 100.00 96.73
Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games
1 Rio de Janeiro 0.032248 Lausanne 0.023938 Lausanne 0.359477 Rio de Janeiro 0.001207
2 Lausanne 0.019943 Rio de Janeiro 0.004169 Rio de Janeiro 0.333333 Johannesburg 0.000297
3 Bern 0.007153 Tokyo 0.000919 Paris 0.000272
4 Tunis 0.006279 Doha 0.000919 Tokyo 0.000166
5 Abuja 0.004968 Madrid 0.000605 Bridgetown 0.000143
6 Doha 0.004473 Prague 0.000605 Auckland 0.000138
7 Tokyo 0.003799 Baku 0.000605 Tunis 0.000110
8 Johannesburg 0.003209 Abuja 0.000539 Mexico City 0.000110
9 Kuwait City 0.002827 Pasig City 0.000132 Mumbai 0.000041
10 Paris 0.000707 Georgetown 0.000011 Rome 0.000007
Proportion (%) 97.08 100.00 100.00 99.72
4.2.2 National central cities and specialized cities: Peripheral cities in the WCN
Transnational intercity connections rarely occurred among low-tier cities in the three world city networks, except for some information received from the IOC and rights-holding Inter- national Broadcast Unions. National central cities usually served as the dispatch centres of their countries, and connections between national central cities and domestic specialized cities also occurred during power struggles. However, in other cases, intercity interactions were generated only between these two kinds of cities and the upper-tier cities in the world city network.
4.2.3 Regional subnetworks in the WCN based on the locations of the Olympic Games
Because of the large number of national central cities and specialized cities in the WCN and their characteristically domestic connectivity, regional subnetworks are generated. In general, intercity connections generated by the Olympic Games form two dense regional city networks: one is located in Europe, with Lausanne as the core, and the other is located in the host country and surrounding countries, with the host city as the core. Subnetworks also occur in Africa and North America, and the interactions between cities in Europe and cities in other regions are very close in the three Olympic Games.
In the WCN formed by these three Olympic Games, the most significant difference is the substantial increase in the number, connectivity and activity values of the cities in host countries (Figure 3).
Figure 3 Structures of the world city network based on three Olympic Games
In the event of power struggles, European cities are all well connected, while the connections between cities in Europe and these three regions are also very intensive. In addition, the bid cities of the Olympic Games play important roles in such events. A comparison of the three Olympic Games shows that during the Rio Olympic Games, due to the participation of the International Rugby Association and the International Golf Association, the intensity of regional connectivity increased significantly. Moreover, because the headquarters of the two sports federations mentioned above are located in Europe, the addition of the new sports highlighted the intensive connections of European cities in this event (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Structures of the world city network based on power struggles in three Olympic Games
Regarding the event of sponsorship activity, all three Olympic Games show a significant trend of ‘triple polarization’, which refers to the fact that cities in Europe, Asia (mainly China, Japan and South Korea) and North America (mainly the United States) are the most active cities in such events, even considering the cities in the host countries. A comparison of the intercity connections caused by sponsorship activity in three Olympic Games shows that economically central cities in the host countries not only played an essential role in sponsoring events but also had close connections with the host city (Shanghai in 2008, São Paulo in 2016) in the Beijing and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games. In addition, some enterprises located in host country cities interacted with the OCOG through sponsorship activities. However, as London was rated A+ in the study by GaWC (Taylor and Derudder, 2004), a strong agglomeration of the headquarters of domestic corporations and the national offices of MNCs in London eventually led to the absence of other articular cities in the host country during the London Olympic Games (Figure 5).
Figure 5 Structures of the world city network based on the sponsorship activities of three Olympic Games
In the events related to publicity activity, the three Olympic Games form a well-connected subnetwork in the host country and another regional subnetwork based on the distribution of television broadcasting rights. In addition, there is no significant difference in the intercity connections caused by TV broadcasts in the three Olympic Games. In the event of the torch relay, well-connected subnetworks in host countries and subnetworks between China and Europe were formed during the Beijing Olympic Games, which reflects the Belt and Road Initiative of China; however, only a subnetwork in the host country and a subnetwork between the host country, Greece and Switzerland, were formed during the London and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games (Figure 6).
Figure 6 Structures of the world city network based on the publicity activities of three Olympic Games
Overall, European cities are most closely connected in the three Olympic Games, while cities at all levels in the host countries are involved in the WCN through the OCOG sponsorship programme and the torch relay, forming a well-connected subnetwork in the host countries in different Olympic Games.

5 Conclusion and discussion

With the increasing popularity of various sports across the world, sports have become an important driving force in the process of globalization. The Olympic Games are considered as the most representative and grandest sport event (Short, 2011). Many kinds of events in the process of bidding and hosting the Olympic Games connect subjects (e.g., OCOG, IOC, ISFs) together, and the interactions between subjects lead to intercity connections, which format the sports dimension of the WCN.
Our analysis reveals the following: (1) Each WCN based on the Olympic Games has city nodes all over the world except in Antarctica, but most countries have only 1-2 city nodes. Significant differences occur in the spatial distribution of the city nodes of the WCN based on the three Olympic Games, and the number and activity values of city nodes may increase intensively when their country hosts the Olympic Games. (2) A hierarchical city system with four tiers (global central cities, specialized central cities, national central cities and specialized cities) is formed by the intercity connections caused by the Olympic Games. (3) Global central cities and specialized central cities, especially Lausanne and host cities, dominate the WCN, while national central cities and specialized cities serve as peripheral cities in the world city network. (4) The WCN is made up of many subnetworks. In general, two intensively connected subnetworks that mainly consist of European cities and cities in host countries are included in the WCN. The intercity connections caused by specific events commonly form regional subnetworks. For example, the ‘triple polarization’ subnetwork in the events for a sponsor activity, a subnetwork that connects Beijing and some European cities during the Beijing Olympic Games, emphasizes China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In addition, the Olympic Games undoubtedly involve all levels of cities in host countries in the WCN through the OCOG sponsorship programme and the events of torch relays. (5) The characteristics of the WCN, based on the Olympic Games, have many differences due to diverse decisions made by the OCOG, host cities or even host countries regarding the events of sponsorship activity and publicity activity.
Compared with the traditional WCNs from the economic and political perspectives, the WCN based on the Olympic Games presents completely different characteristics. Specifically, the WCN, from the economic perspective, presents a pyramid-shaped structure, with New York and London as the double-centres (Figure 7a) (Taylor et al., 2013; Alderson et al., 2010), and is mainly created through the location strategies of transnational APS firms and MNCs. Because of the long-term linkages between different levels of APS firms and MNCs, the hierarchical structure tends to remain stable. The political WCN, with Geneva and New York as the two articular cities, is created mainly through the location strategies of NGOs and has a stable hierarchical structure because of the long-term linkages between the organizations at different levels (Figure 7b) (Taylor, 2005; Su et al., 2014). However, the WCN based on the Olympic Games is quite different from these two WCNs. Although it also presents a pyramid-shaped hierarchical structure, with Lausanne and the host city as two articular cities, the WCN actually consists of two parts. The first part is a subnetwork that is made up of cities with different levels of Olympic committees and ISFs with Lausanne as the centre (Figure 7c); this subnetwork is stable. In contrast, the second subnetwork is created through the interactions between cities that participate in the OCOG sponsorship programme, the torch relay and TV broadcasting, with the host city as the articular city; this subnetwork changes greatly according to the host city and is thus unstable.
Figure 7 Different kinds of world city networks
Overall, the WCN formed by the Olympic Games is a ‘changing WCN’. This finding not only supplements existing WCN theory but also provides a useful reference for future research on the WCN based on global events (not only sport events). However, it is still very difficult to comprehensively study the intercity linkages caused by sport events due to the lack of official statistical data, such as the detailed sources and travel routes of audiences of sporting events. Further development in the research on the WCN based on sport events will facilitate a deeper understanding of intercity linkages in the era of globalization.

Notes

We use some abbreviations in the article to prevent us from repeating the names of organizations or terminologies; here is the list of abbreviations:
1) WCN - World City Network
2) ISF - International Sport Federation
3) ISE - International Sport Event
4) OCOG - Organizing Committee of Olympic Games
5) NIDL - New International Division of Labour
6) MNC - Multinational Corporation
7) APS - Advanced Producer Service
8) IGO - International Governmental Organization
9) INGO - International Non-Governmental Organization
10) TOP - The Olympic Partner
11) IBU - International Broadcast Union
12) IOC - International Olympic Committee
13) NOC - National Olympic Committee
14) NSF - National Sport Federation

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Agnew J, 1994. The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1): 53-80.

DOI

[2]
Agnew J A, 2005. Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power. New York: Temple University Press.

[3]
Alberts H C, 2009. Berlin's Failed Bid to Host the 2000 Summer Olympic Games: Urban development and the improvement of sports facilities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(2): 502-516.

DOI

[4]
Alderson A S, Beckfield J, 2004. Power and position in the world city system. American Journal of Sociology, 109(4): 811-851.

DOI

[5]
Alderson A S, Beckfield J, Sprague-Jones J, 2010. Intercity relations and globalisation: The evolution of the global urban hierarchy, 1981-2007. Urban Studies, 47(2): 1899-1923.

DOI

[6]
Andranovich G, Burbank M J, Heying C H, 2001. Olympic cities: Lessons learned from mega-event politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2): 113-131.

DOI

[7]
Andrews D L, 2001. Manchester United: A Thematic Study. London: Psychology Press.

[8]
Azzali S, 2019. Mega sporting events as tools of urban redevelopment: Lessons learned from Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 172(18000093): 81-89.

[9]
Bairner A, Molnar G, 2010. The Politics of the Olympics: A survey. London: Routledge.

[10]
Beaverstock J V, Smith R G, Taylor P J, 1999. A roster of world cities. Cities, 16(6): 445-458.

DOI

[11]
Bennett M M, 2016. Torched Earth: Dimensions of extraterritorial nationalism in the Chinese and Russian Olympic torch relays. Geoforum, 74(2): 171-181.

DOI

[12]
Black D, Peacock B, 2011. Catching up: Understanding the pursuit of major games by rising developmental states. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 28(16SI): 2271-2289.

DOI

[13]
Caiazza R, Audretsch D, 2015. Can a sport mega-event support hosting city's economic, socio-cultural and political development? Tourism Management Perspectives, 14(1): 1-2.

DOI

[14]
Castells M, 1989. The Information City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

[15]
Chen C, Yang C, Jia Z Z, 2020. Cultural network of global cities based on Multinational TV media perspective. Urban Planning International, http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.5583.TU.20200316.1216.005.html in Chinese)

[16]
Chen L H, Wu Z H, 2016. Turning Shanghai into a world-renowned sports city based on the perspective of event network. Sport Science Research, 37(4): 14-21. (in Chinese)

[17]
Chorianopoulos I, Pagonis T et al., 2010. Planning, competitiveness and sprawl in the Mediterranean city: The case of Athens. Cities, 27(4): 249-259.

DOI

[18]
Cook I R, Ward K, 2011. Trans-urban networks of learning, mega events and policy tourism: The case of Manchester’s Commonwealth and Olympic Games projects. Urban Studies, 48(12): 2519-2535.

DOI

[19]
Derudder B, 2006. On conceptual confusion in empirical analyses of a transnational urban network. Urban Studies, 43(2): 2027-2046.

DOI

[20]
Ding L Y, Wang Y, Chen W M, 2012. Empirical research on the marketing of Olympic cities. Journal of Chengdu Sport University, 38(10): 31-34. (in Chinese)

[21]
Friedmann J, 1986. The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1): 69-83.

DOI

[22]
Garcia-Ramon M D, Albet A, 2000. Pre-Olympic and post-Olympic Barcelona, a ‘model’for urban regeneration today? Environment and Planning A, 32(8): 1331-1334.

DOI

[23]
Geddes P, 1915. Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics. London: London: Williams.

[24]
Giulianotti R, 2011. Sport, transnational peacemaking, and global civil society: Exploring the reflective discourses of “sport, development, and peace” project officials. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(1): 50-71.

DOI

[25]
Giulianotti R, Robertson R, 2007. Sport and globalization: Transnational dimensions. Global Networks, 7(2): 107-112.

DOI

[26]
Gold J R, Gold M M, 2016. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games, 1896-2020. London: Routledge.

[27]
Hall P, 1966. The World Cities. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

[28]
Krätke S, Taylor P J, 2004. A world geography of global media cities. European Planning Studies, 12(4): 459-477.

DOI

[29]
Leo V B, Erik B, Alexander, 2006. Sport and City Marketing. Beijing: The Eastern Press.

[30]
Neal Z, 2012. Structural determinism in the interlocking world city network. Geographical Analysis, 44(2): 162-170.

DOI

[31]
Roels J, Derudder B, Witlox F, 2013. International sport federations in the world city network. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 37(2): 142-159.

[32]
Rothenbuhler E W, 1988. The living room celebration of the Olympic Games. Journal of Communication, 38(4): 61-81.

DOI

[33]
Ruan W, 2012. The study on the relationship between sports event and urban development [D]. Beijing: Beijing Sport University. (in Chinese)

[34]
Sassen S, 1991. The Global City: New York, London and Tokyo. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.

[35]
Short J R, 2008. Globalization, cities and the Summer Olympics. City, 12(3): 321-340.

DOI

[36]
Short J R, 2011. Mega-events: Urban spectaculars and globalization. International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities, 12(1): 170-188.

[37]
Short J R, 2016. Global Cities. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, 34(2): 1-9.

[38]
Shoval N, 2002. A new phase in the competition for the Olympic gold: The London and New York bids for the 2012 Games. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(5): 583-599.

DOI

[39]
Smith A, 2014. “De-risking” East London Olympic regeneration planning 2000-2012. European Planning Studies, 22(9): 1919-1939.

DOI

[40]
Su N, Xue D S, Agnew J, 2014. World cities and international organizations: Political global-city status of Chinese cities. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(3): 362-374.

DOI

[41]
Taylor P J, 2004. The new geography of global civil society: NGOs in the world city network. Globalizations, 1(1): 265-277.

DOI

[42]
Taylor P J, 2005. New political geographies: Global civil society and global governance through world city networks. Political Geography, 24(6): 703-730.

DOI

[43]
Taylor P J, Catalano G, Walker D R F et al., 2002. Measurement of the world city network. Urban Studies, 39(13): 2367-2376.

DOI

[44]
Taylor P J, Derudder B, 2004. World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis. London: Routledge.

[45]
Taylor P J, Derudder B et al., 2013. New regional geographies of the world as practised by leading advanced producer service firms in 2010. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3): 497-511.

DOI

[46]
Van den Broucke S, Gato L G, 2018. Contesting the brand: A media analysis of the image of Rio de Janeiro as host of the 2016 Summer Olympics in Dutch language newspapers. European Journal for Sport and Society, 15(3): 268-287.

DOI

[47]
Watson A, 2012. The world according to iTunes: Mapping urban networks of music production. Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 12(4): 446-466.

DOI

[48]
Westerbeek H M, Turner P, Ingerson L, 2002. Key success factors in bidding for hallmark sporting events. International Marketing Review, 19(2/3): 303-322.

DOI

[49]
Xue D S, Zou X H, 2018. World urban network based on global space expansion of Chinese commercial banks and its influencing factors. Acta Geographica Sinica, 73(6): 989-1001. (in Chinese)

[50]
Yang Y C, Leng B R, Tan Y M et al., 2011. Review on world city studies and their implications in urban systems. Geographical Research, 30(6): 1009-1020. (in Chinese)

[51]
Zhang J X, Lu X L, Luo Z D et al., 2011. Urban great events marketing: From flowing space to place promotion: Case study of Beijing Olympic Games. Urban Planning International, 26(6): 110-115. (in Chinese)

[52]
Zhang L, Zhao S X, 2009. City branding and the Olympic effect: A case study of Beijing. Cities, 26(5): 245-254.

DOI

[53]
Zhao M X, 2008. Influence of competitive sports on city brand: Taking the traditional England Super League soccer team as example. Bulletin of Sport Science and Technology, 16(3): 117-119. (in Chinese)

[54]
Zou X H, Xue D S, 2017. Quantitative trends of the world city research and the evolution of its methods. Human Geography, 32(1): 16-22. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉