This article was downloaded by: [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine]On: 02 November 2014, At: 10:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality Marketing &ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

The Nation-Branding Legacy of the 2010FIFA World Cup for South AfricaBrendon Knott a , Alan Fyall b & Ian Jones ba Cape Peninsula University of Technology , Cape Town , South Africab Bournemouth University , Bournemouth , United KingdomAccepted author version posted online: 24 Jul 2012.Publishedonline: 16 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Brendon Knott , Alan Fyall & Ian Jones (2013) The Nation-Branding Legacy of the2010 FIFA World Cup for South Africa, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22:6, 569-595,DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2012.663155

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2012.663155

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22:569–595, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19368623.2012.663155

The Nation-Branding Legacy of the 2010 FIFAWorld Cup for South Africa

BRENDON KNOTTCape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

ALAN FYALL and IAN JONESBournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom

There has been a growing awareness of the potentially significantimpact that hosting sport mega-events, such as the 2010 FIFA WorldCup in South Africa, can have on a nation’s brand. Within thebroader context of nation branding, this article explores the specifictourism legacy that may be achieved from sport mega-events anddetails an exploratory investigation that aimed to identify brandperceptions and changes in perceptions of international visitors toSouth Africa during the mega-event. The tourism legacy of the eventappears to be the degree to which brand perceptions of travelerschanged and formed as a result of visiting the nation. The valueof these changed perceptions manifests in important behavioralintentions, such as repeat visitation and positive word-of-mouthpromotion. The study concludes that mega-events provide anopportunity to elicit tourism legacies for a nation, especially interms of nation-brand development for the host.

KEYWORDS nation branding, sport tourism, mega-event, legacy,FIFA World Cup, South Africa

INTRODUCTION

The first ever FIFA World Cup on African soil was awarded to South Africa,and took place from June 11 to July 11, 2010. From the outside, South Africaappeared to be a good choice as it represented Africa’s most developed

Address correspondence to Brendon Knott, Cape Peninsula University of Technology,Roeland St., Cape Town 8000, South Africa. E-mail: knottb@cput.ac.za

569

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

570 B. Knott et al.

economy, boasts the wealthiest football league system in Africa and is hostto the continent’s largest sports’ media and television companies (Knott &Swart, 2011). The success by South Africa in attracting the FIFA World Cupto its shores was particularly remarkable in that it was only readmitted toFIFA 12 years prior to the decision being made, after decades of sportingisolation as a result of its apartheid political policies. With Nelson Mandela,the new democracy’s first president, in attendance at the final announce-ment, the hosting of the World Cup appeared to confirm the transformationof the nation from political outcast to the hub of a new breed of developingcountries. Although South Africa has also had its share of publicized prob-lems, such as rising crime rates, high unemployment, a lack of access tobasic services such as housing and education, and a high HIV infection rate(Donaldson & Ferreira, 2009; Bob, Cornelissen, & Swart, 2010), the hosting ofthe World Cup symbolized hope for the country and a chance to prove thatthis developing nation could host an event of this magnitude as efficientlyas the developed economies who had hosted the previous editions of theevent, such as Germany in 2006 and Korea and Japan in 2002. Although thecountry had hosted other sport mega-events, such as the 1995 Rugby WorldCup, the 1996 African Nations Cup (football), and the 2003 Cricket WorldCup, the 2010 FIFA World Cup represented by far the largest sport event tobe hosted by the nation.

One of the principal issues for all concerned with the organization ofthe 2010 event was the issue of legacy, with an important aspect of thelegacy viewed as the long-term impact of the event on the nation brandof South Africa. The 2010 Local Organizing Committee made it clear thatthe vision for the event, and one of its main objectives, was to change theglobal perceptions of South Africa and the African continent (Jordaan, 2011).Not only was it important to attract short-term event visitors, but also thatthese visitors left with a positive impression of the nation and that the nationbenefited long after the event, through increased tourism and investment.Hosting and winning the 1995 Rugby World Cup is generally accepted tohave had a cohesive effect on South Africa’s national identity and imageof the country, especially as a unified “rainbow nation” (Tomlinson, Bass,& Pillay, 2009). However, Tomlinson et al. (2009) argued that this was atransient moment, with the legacy more mythical than practical. A study ofnation brand perceptions of South Africa conducted during the 2008 BeijingOlympic Games (Knott, Swart, Turco, & Bob, 2010) confirmed this by show-ing that there were limited clear perceptions of South Africa’s nation brand.In addition, heightened media attention on the nation in the lead up to themega-event had focused on many negative aspects such as inflation, crime,and xenophobic riots (Tomlinson et al., 2009), casting doubt over the coun-try’s ability to successfully and safely host the event. The 2010 FIFA WorldCup therefore presented a platform for the nation to be showcased to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 571

largest global television audience for any single-sport event ever, creatingan opportunity to destabilize common stereotypes about Africa and dispelAfro-pessimism (Donaldson & Ferreira, 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2009). It washoped that as the global media showed the world the diversity of cultures,natural beauty and organizational efficiency of the country, for example, theeconomy would be boosted by an increase in tourism, foreign business andinward investment.

While the sentiment within the nation was that the event was a resound-ing marketing success (Cape Town Tourism, 2010), there has been littleempirical evidence of the impact and legacy of the event on the nation brand.This article therefore sets out to discuss the emergence of nation brandingwithin the sport tourism context and to investigate potential nation-brandinglegacies to be derived from the hosting of a mega-event. An empiricalstudy of international visitor perceptions conducted during the event isthen discussed. The conclusions drawn are aimed at broadening the under-standing of sport tourism and nation branding, especially related to sportmega-events, and within a developing nation context. The following sec-tion examines the context and development of nation-branding literatureand is followed by a review of related sport tourism literature and the con-text of sport mega-events and their legacies, in specific relation to nationbranding.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Nation Branding

In the struggle for competitive advantage, national reputation is becomingmore and more significant as countries compete for the attention, respectand trust of investors, tourists, consumers, donors, immigrants, media, andgovernments (Anholt, 2007). Further to this, Van Ham (2001, p. 2) statedthat in “today’s world of information overload, strong brands are importantin attracting foreign direct investment, recruiting the best and the brightest,and wielding political influence.” Van Ham also claims that the unbrandedstate has a difficult time attracting economic and political attention, and thatimage and reputation are becoming essential parts of the state’s strategicequity. Olins (2002) supported these views, claiming that a successful nationbrand will be seen as a key national asset.

The relationship between branding and places, such as nations andcities, is not always well understood (Morgan, Pritchard, & Pride, 2010).Place branding refers to branding and building brand equity in relation tonational, regional and/or local (city) identity (Govers & Go, 2009, p. 16).Govers and Go (2009) further explained that place branding is a represen-tation of identity, building a favorable internal (with those who deliver the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

572 B. Knott et al.

experience) and external (with visitors) image leading to brand satisfactionand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, and favorable associations.

Keller (2008) explained that an important “building block” of a brandand a source of brand equity is brand image. Brand image refers to “the waypeople think about a brand abstractly, rather than what they think the brandactually does” (Keller, 2008, p. 65). Brand image thus refers to the more intan-gible aspects of a brand that represent associations formed directly throughcustomer experiences or indirectly through advertising, word of mouth, orother sources of information (Keller, 2008). Keller (2008) concluded that thechallenge for marketers is to create “strong, favourable and unique” brandassociations (p. 67). Applying this understanding to a country leads to thedefinition of a nation’s brand image as the sum of all beliefs, ideas, andimpressions that a person has of a nation (Baloglu & McCleary, 1997; Kotler,Bowen, & Makens, 2003; Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2007; Govers & Go, 2009).Brand image is therefore a “subjective interpretation of reality” made by thetourist (Govers & Go 2009, p. 18). Kotler and Gertner (2002) explained thatmost country images are in fact stereotypes, extreme simplifications of thereality that are not necessarily accurate. They might be dated, based onexceptions rather than on patterns, on impressions rather than on facts, butare nonetheless pervasive. The importance of brand image as it translates intotourist behavior is highlighted by Kotler et al. (2003). They stated that brandimage is a clear antecedent of quality, satisfaction, decision-making, andpostpurchase behavior, that could include repeat travel and word-of-mouthpromotion of the destination.

Tacsi and Gertner (2007) suggested that there are two “ends” of infor-mation transmission in destination image formation: the destination; and thereceiver. Baloglu and McCleary (1999) referred to those messages that stemfrom the destination itself as stimulus factors. Changes to the stimulus fac-tors, through advertising, publicity, or one-off events such as the FIFA WorldCup will not necessarily be transferred directly to the receiver, in that pro-jected and received images are not always identical. In reality, a number ofmoderating factors will influence this relationship, referred to by Baloglu andMcCleary (1999) as personal factors, which are the social and psychologicalcharacteristics such as the personal background, attitudes, and experiences ofthe receiver, and the use of alternative information sources, such as unofficialwebsites, that lead to a more “organic” (Gartner, 1993) image of a destination.Thus, prior to visitation, individuals will, despite the efforts of the destinationto present a particular, and consistent image, have varying attitudes towardsthe image of the destination itself. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) explainedthat attending an event will impact upon such organic images of a des-tination in that it will provide a more “complex” image than that initiallyheld by the receiver. Prior to visiting a destination, Fakeye and Crompton(1991) argued that organic images would often be simple and stereotypical.Such country stereotyping includes perceptions of the products, services,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 573

and feelings towards the people of these countries (Tasci, Gertner, & TamerCavusgil, 2007). Through exposure to, and greater contact with the varyingdimensions of the destination (the “contact hypothesis”), such stereotypesbecome diminished, leading to a “more differentiated outlook and a truercomprehension of the destination” (Tacsi & Gertner, 2007, p. 414), providedthat such contact is voluntary on the part of the tourist, and takes placewithin a socially supportive atmosphere (Tolmjenovic, 2010).

The application of branding techniques to nations is growing in fre-quency while Dinnie (2003) noted that there are increasingly more reasonswhy nations must manage and control their branding, such as the need toattract tourists, factories, companies and talented people, and to find mar-kets for their exports. Country images are also likely to influence people’sdecisions related to purchasing, investing, changing residence and travelingwith Kotler and Gertner (2002) reasoning that this requires countries to adoptconscious branding if they are to compete effectively on the global stage.

Anholt (2003, p. 208) proposes six basic channels or areas of activitythrough which countries communicate with the world and thus build theirimage: tourism promotion (e.g., the efforts of tourism promotion bodies aswell as tourists’ own first-hand experience of visiting a country); exportsof products and services/brands; government policy (i.e., foreign policy aswell as domestic policy and how this is portrayed in the media); investment(i.e., how the country attracts inward investment and recruits foreign talent/skills); culture and heritage (i.e., music, art, and sport); and the people ofa country (i.e., their behavior, high profile leaders, media, sport stars, andthe general population). Anholt (2003) proposed that these six areas formthe points of a “hexagon of competitive identity.” The Anholt Nations BrandIndex (ANBI) is a measurement and benchmarking tool of a country’s globalbrand equity. It is based on the responses of over 20,000 respondents across20 countries to a series of statements related to the aspects of nation branddiscussed above of 50 different nations (Anholt-GfK Roper, 2010). Prior to theWorld Cup, South Africa ranked 37th overall on the list of nations, with thestrongest aspects of its brand noted as (ranking in brackets) culture (27th)and people (31st), while tourism (35th) and exports (38th) were slightlyweaker aspects; governance (40th) and immigration or investment (43rd)were noted as the weakest aspects.

South Africa faces branding challenges similar to most developingnations, given the unfamiliarity of its brand and also having potentiallyincorrect, outdated, or stereotyped associations (Anholt, 2007). The “BrandAfrica”/continent-brand effect results in all African nations being associatedwith the same attributes (Anholt, 2007). For Brand Africa, these tend toinclude all of the negative problems associated with the continent, suchas crime, civil war, famine, disease, and corruption. An additional challengeis that country images can be long lasting and difficult to change and mayrequire a significant event or experience to alter (Kotler & Gertner, 2002;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

574 B. Knott et al.

Anholt, 2006). This leads to the following discussion on sport mega-eventsand their potential to impact a nation brand.

Sport Mega-Events and Nation Branding

The study of sport mega-events and their impacts and legacies form part ofthe growing body of knowledge in the tourism niche area of sport tourism.Although earlier studies in sport tourism focused on definitional issues (e.g.,Cohen, 1974; Hinch & Higham, 2001), more recent studies have tended tofocus on particular aspects, such as economic impact (e.g., Burgan & Mules,1992); social cultural impacts (e.g., Waitt, 2003); management issues (e.g.,Jago, Chalip, Brown, Mules, & Ali, 2003); and legacy (e.g., Chalip, 2004;Preuss, 2007).

Hinch and Higham (2001) described sport tourism as the confluence ofthe two sociological activities of sport and tourism, asserting that sport isan important activity within tourism, and travel is fundamentally associatedwith many types of sport. The overlapping niche area of sport tourism canbe defined as “leisure-based travel that takes individuals temporarily outsideof their home communities to participate in physical activities (Active SportTourism), to watch physical activities (Event Sport Tourism), or to vener-ate attractions associated with physical activities (Nostalgia Sport Tourism)”(Gibson, 2006, p. 2). Active sport tourism includes all those that travel tocertain destinations specifically to participate in, officiate in or assist in anyway in the production of a sport event or activity. Event sport tourism refersspecifically to those that travel as spectators, be it as fans/ supporters orcasual observers. Nostalgia, or “celebratory” (Turco, Riley, & Swart, 2002,p. 2) sport tourism, includes those that travel to reminisce, appreciate oreducate themselves about sport or sport events (e.g., visiting sport stadiumsor museums). Linked to this definition, sport tourists are therefore visitorsto a destination for the purpose of participating in, viewing, or celebrat-ing sport (Turco et al., 2002). Central to understanding and defining sporttourists appears to be the type of activities undertaken and the motivation ofthe tourist. Gammon and Robinson (2004) distinguished sport tourists by theactivities they undertake while traveling and by their primary or secondarymotivation to engage in sports while traveling. Travel to a destination maynot only primarily be for sport. Tourists may be attracted by the destination’sattractions and therefore fit the sporting activities into their plans to visitthe destination (Turco et al., 2002). Sport therefore becomes a supplementalor secondary attraction that can further satisfy visitors’ needs, extend theirlength of stay and stimulate economic activity (Turco et al., 2002). Althoughthere is a recognized dearth of research on the demographic profile of sporttourists (Turco et al., 2002), studies point to the sport event tourist tendingto be more male than female and the majority between 18 and 44 years ofage (Standeven & De Knop, 1999; Turco et al., 2002; Getz, 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 575

Comprising a major segment of the sport tourism industry, sportevents have become an increasingly important component of global tourismeconomies (Cornelissen 2007). Events occur on many different scales orlevels, with the largest of these levels being the mega-event. Hall and Hodges(1998, p. 3) describe mega-events as “distinctive, identified by the volume ofvisitors it attracts, economic revenue generated, and its psychological impacton attendees, that is, whether or not it is a ‘must-see’ event.” They explainthat mega-events usually require significant public funds to stage, and arethus unusual, or infrequent in occurrence. These events have significant eco-nomic and social impact, which is affected by the extent of the internationaldimension of the event. Getz (1997) added that mega-events are loaded withtradition; attract significant media attention at international level; and arecomplemented by other smaller events that add to its greatness, such usparades and festivals.

The FIFA World Cup is the world’s largest single-sport event, whichattracts a global television audience of over 35 billion people. The FIFAWorld Cup, hosted by South Africa in 2010, is considered a mega-event. Theevent is estimated to have attracted a total of 309,554 foreign tourists to SouthAfrica during the month-long event for the primary purpose of attending theevent (FIFA, 2010). As an example of the opportunity created by the FIFAWorld Cup for international visibility through media coverage, the follow-ing statistics are telling: 400 media broadcasters and over 15,000 journalistsattended the event from all over the world (Emmett, 2010). There were morethan 200 hours of television coverage, with more than 700 million televisionviewers watching the final of the event alone (Du Toit-Helmbold, 2011);these figures exclude the coverage of the event by independent and newmedia broadcasters. These figures highlight the global media impact for thenation during the event period, which featured 28 match days. In terms oftelevision audiences, over 700 million people tuned in to watch the FIFAWorld Cup final (Cape Town Tourism, 2010).

Cornelissen (2007, p. 248) maintained that “leaving appropriate long-term legacies has become a discourse which has left an indelible mark onthe way in which planning for today’s sport mega-events takes shape.” Preuss(2007, p. 208) provides the following definition of legacy in that irrespective“of the time of production and space, legacy is all planned and unplanned,positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for andby a sport event that remain longer than the event itself.” More recently,studies have questioned the positive benefits from events and the equityof their distribution, indicating a new focus is emerging with an empha-sis on leveraging positive benefits of an event (Chalip, 2004; Dickinson &Shipway, 2007). Chalip (2004, p. 228) defines leveraging as: “the processesthrough which the benefits of investments are maximized.” Leveraging canrelate to aspects around the actual event (e.g., visitor spending) or thelong-term benefits both before and after the event has taken place (e.g.,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

576 B. Knott et al.

destination image). There are a multitude of possible legacies from mega-events, usually related to the following main areas (Preuss, 2004): urban(e.g., changes made to the urban structure of the host city); economic (e.g.,job creation; economic investment opportunities; foreign investment attrac-tion; and small business development/entrepreneurship); infrastructure (e.g.,networks, ranging from transport to telecommunications, which are reno-vated or developed for a mega-event); social (e.g., nation-building/ socialcohesion; education; and environmental awareness); sport (e.g., the devel-opment of international-standard sporting facilities and related infrastructureupgrades and an increase in sport participation, spectatorship and sponsor-ship); and tourism (e.g., a better known and understood destination andbrand; an improved reputation for tourism service delivery; improved publictransport systems; and improved tourism information systems). The focus ofthis article is on the tourism legacy, and in particular, the impact of the eventon nation branding.

There has been a growing awareness of the potentially significant impactthat hosting sport mega-events, such as the FIFA World Cup, can have on acountry’s brand image (Gibson, Qi, & Zhang, 2008). Sport mega-events havebecome increasingly important in the contemporary era, with their hostingbecoming an object of policy for an increasing number of nation states inthe world, most notably “as a means to gain international visibility in someways” (Cornelissen, 2007, p. 242). Sport mega-events represent a “uniquepublicity platform and opportunity for place marketing” (Essex & Chalkley,1998), or, as Berkowitz, Germano, Gomez, and Schafer (2007) put it, “agreat branding opportunity” for nations (p. 164). Such events may providean opportunity to create or promote an image and also rebrand a nation(Florek & Insch, 2011; Anholt, 2007). Rein and Shields (2006) explainedhow sports stimulate an emotional heat between the participants and theaudiences that can symbolize the energy, vigor, and strength of an emergingnation in ways that eco-branding, museums, and other cultural attractions,for example, cannot.

Sport can be a powerful agent in the imaging, reimaging, and brandingof places, especially through the hosting of sport mega-events (Getz, 2003;Higham & Hinch, 2009). The high media profile of mega-events can be har-nessed to increase the awareness, prominence, and standing of places aswell as serve as an agent of change in terms of imagery and place meaning(Florek & Insch, 2011; Chalip & Costa, 2005; Higham & Hinch, 2009). Eventsconstitute an important stimulus factor in the image formation process of adestination (Mendes, Oom Do Valle, & Guerreiro, 2011). Florek and Insch(2011) assert that the potential to build and enhance the image of a desti-nation through a mega-event is unlimited. For example, the Olympic Gameshave long been used to serve the imaging or reimaging of places (Higham& Hinch 2009). Florek and Insch (2011) cited the case of Sydney and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 577

Olympic Games of 2000 that accelerated the awareness of Australia as adestination by up to 10 years, while they also cited the case of Germany’simage being “softened and boosted” through the hosting of the 2006 FIFAWorld Cup.

Sport exerts a significant influence on the meanings that people attachto space. Higham and Hinch (2009) explained how the cultural dimensionsof sport are readily harnessed by sports organizations, destination manage-ment organizations and media to represent and disseminate the lifestylesand ways of living associated with specific places. This may be significantin terms of the decision-making processes and experiences of tourists. Sportevents offer the potential to build strong associations between specific peo-ple (participants and spectators) and particular places (Higham & Hinch,2009). Hinch and Higham (2009, p. 242) noted the growing prominence ofsport in terms of place identity and the potential for sports to offer “authenticcultural experiences of place.” Mendes et al. (2011, p. 371) also referred tothe experiential nature of events, explaining that an event provides a chancefor visitors to “carry out a gratifying experience with access to the local cul-tural scene.” Although this may be limited to the moment, its value remainsas a memory and contributes to the process of image formation for a nation(Mendes et al., 2011).

Place identity can be constructed through both natural and built ele-ments of the sports landscape. Iconic elements of design (such as the newsports stadium built for the 2010 FIFA World Cup) have the potential to con-tribute in powerful ways to place identity and place promotion (Higham& Hinch, 2009). There have also been more recent investigations into therelationship that the image of the event has on the image formation of theplace, with Florek and Insch (2011) investigating the interrelationships andinterdependencies between the two overlapping sets of images. They sug-gested that the congruence of event-destination image should be leveraged,and advocated an analysis of and strategic selection process for such events.

Despite the growing academic interest in this subject, there is still aneed for work on the strategic use of sports as a branding tool for coun-tries other than the industrialized and established ones (Rein & Shields,2006). However, two similar studies of mega-event host nation perceptionswere done prior to and after the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Korea (Kim &Morrison, 2003) and in 2008, prior to the Olympic Games in Beijing, China(Gibson et al., 2008). Both studies concluded that there were strong influ-ences on perceptions of the nation under study as a result of its hosting of amega-event.

This section has looked at nation branding in the context of sporttourism and especially as a legacy of sport mega-events. While it is agreedthat the hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa representeda unique platform and opportunity for creating and/or managing the host

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

578 B. Knott et al.

nation’s brand, it was unclear exactly what this impact would be. Thefollowing section now looks at the specific methodology of the primaryinvestigation of this study.

METHODOLOGY

Study Context and Aim

Given the literature context already discussed. A primary, exploratory inves-tigation was designed to assess the sport tourism impact of the mega-eventfor the host nation. In particular, the nation-branding impact would be inves-tigated by identifying perceptions of international visitors to South Africaduring the 2010 FIFA World Cup event, regarding the nation brand and itskey attributes, and through determining any changes to these perceptions asa result of their visit during the event.

Although similar research aims were found in previous studies ofmega-events, there did not appear to be any consensus as to the bestmethodological approach. Preuss (2007) suggested looking at impacts atthree time periods: before, during, and after the event. Kim and Morrison(2003) investigated the change of national image perceptions among for-eign tourists to South Korea as a result of the nation’s co-hosting of the2002 FIFA World Cup by surveying regular tourists from three key touristmarkets (Japan, the United States, and China), 3 to 4 months prior to andafter the mega-event, using mall-intercept type interviews at Seoul airport.Gibson et al. (2008) investigated the perceptions of China as a result of itshosting of the 2008 Olympic Games by surveying non-travelling sport fansresiding in the United States. The study was done at a single point in time,prior to the event. These differences highlight the global impact of mega-events and raise two important methodological questions. Firstly, relatingto the sample population: Should respondents be drawn from the generaltourist population to the host nation, from the sport tourists specifically trav-eling for the event, or from among nontraveling sport fans in other nations?Secondly, relating to the issue of timing: Should such a study be undertakenas a pre-event and postevent comparative evaluation or merely at a singlepoint in time?

For the purpose of this study, it was decided to focus on internationalvisitors to South Africa at a point in time (during the mega-event) that werespectators of the event, either watching the event at the stadium or at theofficial fan park. Fan parks are designated public viewing areas that areintended to accommodate members of the public and international visitorswho are not able to purchase tickets or to travel to match venues, enablingthem to watch all events on large television screens and to enjoy other enter-tainment in an access-controlled environment (Swart, Daniels, Donaldson, &Cornelissen, 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 579

Data Measurement

From the literature reviewed, there did not appear to be one standardquestionnaire suitable for the needs of this study. Accordingly, aquestionnaire was designed based on a number of factors and modelsthat surfaced from the literature (e.g. Anholt’s [2007] nation-brand hexagon;Kersting’s [2007] conceptualization of national identity; and Gibson et al.’s[2008] Beijing Olympic Games perception analysis). The questionnaire designwas mostly structured, using closed-ended questions and Likert-type scales,although open-ended questions were also used to test prior and cur-rent perceptions of the South African brand. The format was designedto fit a double-sided A4 page for ease of administration for fieldwork-ers and to keep the interview brief in duration, bearing in mind thatthe respondents were event spectators on their way to or watching anevent.

The demographic details requested of respondents were limited tonationality, age, gender, and ethnic origin (self-rated). Nationality was usedas the first question in order to screen out any potential local respondents,while the remaining demographic questions were asked at the end of theinterview. A second screening question asked whether respondents hadwatched events live at a stadium or at a fan park. The travel behavior of thevisitors was assessed by asking respondents if they had traveled to previousFIFA World Cup events, if they had traveled to South Africa or to Africa pre-viously, and if the mega-event was the primary reason for their travel. Threeopen-ended questions asked respondents what their perceptions of the hostnation were prior to traveling to the nation, what their current perceptionsof the nation were, and if there had been a change in perceptions, whatthey attributed this change to. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents wereasked what factors had influenced the formation of their perceptions prior totraveling to the nation and the degree to which these factors had influencedtheir perceptions. Still using the Likert type scale (1 = no, strongly disagree; 5= yes, strongly disagree), to test brand attributes respondents were asked fortheir level of agreement with a selection of 15 endings to the sentence: “Doyou believe that South Africa is/has.” The batch of attributes was generatedfrom Anholt’s (2007) nation-brand hexagon (i.e., related to tourism promo-tion, investment, government policy, exports, arts and culture, and people).Using the same scale, the impact of the brand perceptions on tourism behav-ior was tested by asking respondents for their level of agreement with10 endings to the question: “Has your visit to South Africa encouragedyou to.” The behavior attributes ranged from repeat visitation to emigration,based on the national identity formation scale (Kersting, 2007). Respondentswere also asked if they had heard of the official destination-marketing slo-gan “South Africa—alive with possibility,” as well as the unofficial slogan thatwas well-publicized in the media “South Africa—the rainbow nation.” Finally,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

580 B. Knott et al.

respondents were asked to provide their e-mail address if they consented tobeing interviewed in a follow-up survey.

The questionnaire was analyzed by two international sport tourism aca-demics and modifications were made based on their recommendations. Thequestionnaire was then pretested on 26 international visitors to Cape Townbefore the event, with some further minor modifications made.

Data Collection and Analysis

Surveys, in the form of face-to-face, intercept-questionnaire interviews, wereused to gather perceptions of the international sport tourists in South Africa.Respondents were interviewed at the official fan parks and stadium precinctsin two of the major host cities, Cape Town and Durban, on match days dur-ing the event period (June–July 2010). It was believed that most visitorswould travel around the country rather than merely being based in one city,meaning that perceptions would not be limited to the city where respondentswere interviewed. A total of 561 international visitors, using a spatially based,purposive sampling approach, were selected at these locations. This methodensured that the survey was not skewed towards a particular area or groupof visitors within the fan park or stadium precinct, by selecting every 5thpotential respondent and only one respondent within a particular group offans/visitors, and ensuring a broad coverage of interviews across the entiredemarcated/fixed area. This approach is consistent with similar tourism stud-ies (e.g., Gibson et al., 2011; Turco, Swart, Bob, & Tichawaa, 2011). Seniorand postgraduate sport management and tourism students were used to con-duct the interviews under the supervision of the lead author of this article.The local students were complemented by a team of visiting internationalstudents, resulting in the fieldworkers being able to speak a number of keyforeign languages between them, such as French, Spanish, and German,even though interviews were conducted in English. The computer softwareStatistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows) was used to cap-ture and analyze the data, using cross-tabulations (using the chi-square testfor significance) as well as factor and cluster analysis where appropriate.

RESULTS

Profiling the International Sport Tourists and Their Travel Behavior

A profile of the international tourists surveyed revealed that the vast majorityof respondents (75%) were first-time visitors, with the World Cup event beingthe primary reason for travel for 77% of all visitors. A demographic profile ofthe respondents revealed the following points of interest (see Table 1). Mostvisitors were from Western Europe (United Kingdom, 27%; Netherlands, 11%;and Germany, 10%) and North America (United States, 15%), although there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 581

TABLE 1 International visitor profile as a percentage of the sample

Profile Visitors (N = 561)

NationalityUnited Kingdom 27United States 15Netherlands 11Germany 10

Ethnic origin (as stated by respondents)White/Caucasian 79Black 7Latino/Hispanic 5Asian and Indian 5

GenderMale 77Female 23

Age:Mean age: 32 years 77Younger than 40 years

Travel profileHave traveled to previous FIFA World Cup 37Would not have traveled to South Africa if

no World Cup event51

First-time visitors to South Africa 75World Cup was primary reason for travel 77

were a number of visitors from the host’s nontraditional tourist markets suchas Central and South America (8%), Asia/Australasia (8%), and other Africannations (7%). The predominant ethnic origin of respondents (self-rated) wasWhite/Caucasian (79%) and the gender was predominantly male (77%). Themean age was 32 years, with 77% younger than 40 years old.

Looking at the travel profile of the visitors, it was found that over a thirdof visitors had attended a previous FIFA World Cup (37%), with the majorityof these being Germany 2006. Just over half (51%) said that they would nothave considered traveling to South Africa had it not been for the World Cupevent.

Regarding perceptions of South Africa’s competency at hosting the FIFAWorld Cup and the nation’s ability to host future sport mega-events, therewas strong agreement with the questions (with percentage of strongly agreein brackets; N = 561): “Do you believe that South Africa is a competent hostof the football World Cup?” (52.2%) and “Do you believe that South Africa isan excellent destination to host future sport mega-events?” (49.3%).

There were significant differences between the following responses ofrespondents whose primary motivation for travel was to attend the eventcompared to those for whom this was a secondary motivation (i.e., whoseprimary motivation was general tourism, visiting friends and relatives, busi-ness, or other). Forty percent of respondents whose primary motivation fortravel was the World Cup had attended previous FIFA World Cup events,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

582 B. Knott et al.

TABLE 2 Differences between primary and secondary motivations of sport tourists as apercentage of the sample.

Profile, behavior, and intentionsPrimary

(n = 415)Secondary(n = 124)

Chi-square(p)

ProfileGender (Male) 83 55 .000Age (Average) 34 26 .000Attended previous FIFA World Cups 40 26 .004Would not have traveled to South Africa if it were not

for the World Cup20 80 .000

Behavioral intention (strongly agree with statement: “My visit to South Africa hasencouraged me to”)

Will encourage others to visit South Africa 57 72 .001Will return to South Africa to watch or participate in

sport events75 58 .000

Will become friends with South African people 42 61 .001Will appreciate South African food, music, art, and

dance41 59 .000

Will pay more attention to news or media relating toSouth Africa

28 43 .000

Will consider emigrating to South Africa 20 37 .002Will visit other African countries 32 58 .000

Nation-brand perceptions (agree or strongly agree with statement: “South Africa is/has”)A number of successful sports teams and participants 71 60 .012A segregated (divided) social society 49 65 .032Well-respected political leaders 41 26 .019A safe place to visit 71 53 .007

compared to 26% of respondents for whom the event was a secondary moti-vation for travel (significant using the chi-square statistic, p = .004; Table 2sets out the full set of significant differences in this regard.) Eighty percent ofsecondary motivation respondents would still have traveled to South Africa ifthe World Cup event were not held there, compared to only 20% of primarymotivated respondents (significant using the chi-square statistic, p = .000).The primary motivated respondent was found to be more male (83% com-pared to 55%, p = .000) and slightly older (average age 34 years comparedto 26 years, p = .000) than the other respondents.

Nation-Brand Perceptions

While prior knowledge and perceptions of South Africa for first-time vis-itors were rather limited, the unprompted responses tended to focus onthe traditional tourist strengths such as: the natural beauty (including ref-erences to the “beautiful coastline,” “mountainous,” “lush”); abundance ofwildlife (although some expected to find more animals in the urban areas);and diversity of cultures and people. However, the top prior perception

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 583

of the nation related to crime/safety and security, with respondents notingtheir concern or fear of crime (including references to petty crime such as“theft” and “mugging” as well as more severe aspects such as “rape” and“murder”). There were also other negative prior perceptions of the countrymentioned, such as “dirty,” “undeveloped,” “poverty,” “income inequality,”“disease/HIV/AIDS,” and “racial tension.”

When asked about which factors/sources of information influencedthese perceptions prior to traveling and to rate the strength of these fac-tors, respondents noted that the following were most important: internationalmedia, friends/relatives experiences, and previous sport events in SouthAfrica. In particular, some noted that the fear of crime was as a result ofthe media attention focused on this aspect in the lead up to the mega-event. A factor analysis of these sources failed to reduce the total numberof variables that could explain the total variance (i.e., <60% total varianceexplained).

Nearly three quarters (74%) of the first-time visitors agreed that theirperceptions of the nation brand had changed since attending the WorldCup event in the country. This exhibited a statistically significant relation-ship compared to those respondents who had visited previously (usingthe chi-square statistic, p = .000; i.e., first-time visitors to South Africawere significantly more likely to have had their perceptions altered). Thisis similar to the findings from a FIFA (2010) study that stated that 84%of international visitors held the country in higher esteem after attendingthe event. The new, unprompted perceptions related mostly to “beauti-ful scenery/natural beauty,” “clean,” “modern/developed,” “diverse peopleand culture,” “friendly/welcoming/hospitable people,” “not as dangerous asexpected,” “not as much poverty as expected,” and “more urban/large cities.”

The most significant, unprompted reasons given for the change in theperceptions from prior to the event related to: “traveling in South Africa,”and “interacting with South Africans.” Linking these perceptions with thereason for traveling, respondents showed a strong support for the nation asa competent host of the World Cup (92%) and as a potential host for futuresport mega-events (85%).

New, prompted, perceptions of the brand among all visitors (displayedin Table 3) were gauged using a Likert-type scale to indicate respondents’level of agreement with a set of different question endings. The top twoperceptions were similar to those of the unprompted responses, notably“beautiful scenery and natural attractions” (80%) and “many friendly, wel-coming people” (67%). Other highly rated perceptions were: a good climatefor tourism and sport (63%) and many diverse/different cultures (52%). Onceagain, a factor analysis was performed to possibly reduce the number of fac-tors tested. However, this failed to significantly reduce the number of factorsas the percentage of explained variance was less than 60% with four factorsused.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

584 B. Knott et al.

TABLE 3 Nation-brand perceptions

Do you believe that South Africa has/is: 1 2 3 4 5 M

Beautiful scenery and natural attractions 0.7 0.2 0.9 18.5 79.7 4.8Many friendly, welcoming people 0.9 1.4 3 27.5 67.2 4.6A good climate for tourism and sport 0.7 0.9 6.5 29.2 62.7 4.5Many diverse cultures 1.1 1.1 6.3 39.9 51.7 4.49A competent host of the football World Cup 1.3 1.8 4.7 40.1 52.2 4.4A world-class tourism destination 0.7 1.4 6.4 41.3 50.1 4.4An excellent destination to host future sport

mega-events1.4 1.1 12.9 35.3 49.3 4.4

World-class sports facilities 1.3 2.7 11.1 46.9 38.1 4.2A number of successful sports teams and participants 2 5.6 23.8 42.5 26.1 3.8A desirable country to live in 3.6 6.5 28.4 37.7 23.9 3.7A safe place to visit 1.8 8.3 23.6 49.5 16.9 3.6A segregated (divided) social society 6.5 10.7 30.2 34.4 18.3 3.5Many business or investment opportunities 6 9.7 40.3 28.3 15.7 3.4A stable democratic government 7.4 12.4 54 17.4 8.8 3.1Well-respected political leaders 9.9 14.2 38.6 28.2 9.2 2.9

Note. n = 561. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = unsure, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

There were only a few significant differences between associations offirst-time and repeat visitors. Repeat visitors were more likely to disagree thatSouth Africa “has a stable democratic government” and “respected politicalleaders” (p = .000 for both), while they were more likely to agree that SouthAfrica is a “desirable country to live in” (p = .000).

There were also some significant differences between respondentswho’s primary motivation for travel was to attend the event compared tothose for whom this was a secondary motivation (with percentage of respon-dents who strongly agreed with the statements and the chi-square test ofsignificance result in brackets; see Table 3). Primary motivated respondentsagreed or strongly agreed that South Africa “has many successful sport teams”(71% compared to 60%, p = .012); is “a safe place to visit” (71% comparedto 53%, p = .007); and “has well-respected political leaders” (41% comparedto 26%, p = .019). Secondary respondents found South Africa to be a more“segregated social society” (65% compared to 49%, p = .032).

Tourist Behavior Intention and the Nation Brand

In order to gauge whether the travel and event experience would impact onthe sport tourist’s consumer behavior, respondents were asked to respondto a series of statements expressing their behavior intention, again usinga Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement with the endingsto the statement: “My visit to South Africa has encouraged me to” (thefull list of results is set out in Table 4, in order of highest agreement).The responses show the highest agreement with the statements (with mean

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 585

TABLE 4 Influence of nation-brand perceptions on consumer behavior as a percentage ofthe sample

My visit to South Africa has encouraged me to 1 2 3 4 5 M

Visit South Africa again 1.4 0.7 3.4 30.8 63.6 4.54Encourage others to visit South Africa 1.1 0.2 3.9 33.8 61 4.54Become friends with South African people 1.3 2.2 11.6 37.9 47.1 4.27Appreciate South African food, music, art and

dance0.9 3.4 14.7 35.7 45.3 4.21

Visit other African countries 5.5 2.9 20.4 32.4 38.8 3.96Return to South Africa to watch or participate

in sport events4.3 6.5 18 33.7 37.5 3.94

Pay more attention to news or media relatingto South Africa

3.8 4.8 25.5 34.6 31.2 3.85

Buy South African products more easily 9.4 8.8 27.7 36.6 17.5 3.44Do business or invest in South Africa 17.9 15.5 35.2 18.6 12.8 2.93Consider emigrating to South Africa 28.5 24.4 23.3 11.6 12.3 2.55

Note. N = 561. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = unsure, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

score in brackets): “visit South Africa again” (4.54) and “encourage othersto visit South Africa” (4.54). This was followed by fair levels of agreementwith the statement endings: “become friends with South African people”(4.27) and “appreciate South African food, music, art and dance” (4.21). Thelowest levels of agreement were with the statement endings: “buy SouthAfrican products more easily” (3.44), “do business or invest in South Africa”(2.93), and “consider emigrating to South Africa” (2.55), with the latter twoexhibiting a general disagreement with the statements.

Once again, there were significant differences between the followingresponses of respondents whose primary motivation for travel was to attendthe event compared to those for whom this was a secondary motivation(with percentage of respondents who strongly agreed with the statementsand the chi-square test of significance result in brackets): Secondary moti-vated respondents were more likely to: “encourage others to visit SouthAfrica” (72% compared to 57%, p = .001); “become friends with South Africanpeople” (61% compared to 42%, p = .001); “appreciate South African food,music, art, and dance” (59% compared to 41%, p = .000); “visit other Africannations” (58% compared to 32%, p = .000); “pay more attention to news ormedia related to South Africa” (43% compared to 28%, p = .000); and “emi-grate to South Africa” (18% compared to 11%, p = .002). Primary motivatedrespondents were only more likely to “return to South Africa to watch orparticipate in sport events” (75% compared to 58%, p = .000).

Confirming behavioral differences between first-time and repeat visitorsin previous studies (Usakli & Baloglu, 2011), repeat visitors responded signif-icantly more positively (i.e., p < .05) to all of the behavioral responses, apartfrom “buying South African products more easily” and “visit other Africannations.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

586 B. Knott et al.

These findings are now discussed in more detail and set in the contextof the literature reviewed.

DISCUSSION

Profiling the International Sport Tourists and Their Travel Behavior

From the profile of the respondents it appears that the sport tourists havea different profile from the regular visitors to a destination. In this case, thesport tourists tended to be relatively young and predominantly male. Thissupports the literature mentioned earlier (e.g., Standeven & De Knop, 1999;Turco et al., 2002; Getz, 2003). It is also consistent with the travel statisticsissued by Tourism South Africa (FIFA, 2010).

With many of the respondents originating from nontraditional touristmarkets for South Africa, such as the Far East, South America and otherAfrican nations, a study such as Kim and Morrison’s (2003) that surveyed vis-itors before and after the event may therefore have yielded a quite differentprofile of respondents.

It appears that the event was most effective in attracting first-time visitors(and from many nontraditional source markets as mentioned) as opposed torepeat visitors. The majority of the respondents traveled specifically for theevent (77%) and had never visited the nation previously (75%). For tourismdestinations, first-time and repeat visitors constitute two distinct market seg-ments. Usakli and Baloglu (2011) explained that while marketing principlessuggest that it is easier and less expensive to re-attract repeat visitors thanto acquire first-time visitors, both segments play a fundamental role in thesuccess of a destination. Although there was no literature found to sug-gest whether a sport mega-event would attract first-time or repeat visitors, itappears here that the mega-event may have been most successful in attract-ing first-time visitors. It should also be noted that this might have come atthe cost of “crowding out” potential repeat visitors during the event period.

The high number of first-time, primary-motivated visitors, combinedwith the fact that over a third of visitors had attended previous World Cupevents, leads to the suggestion that sport tourists may form a niche subset oftourists to a nation and that the profile and travel nature of mega-event sporttourists should be investigated further.

Nation-Brand Perceptions

Regarding the perceptions of the South African brand, it was interesting tonote that respondents held very few clear perceptions of the brand priorto traveling. While most of these perceptions related to positive aspectssuch as natural beauty and wildlife (the more common associations withAfrican nations), there were also negative perceptions, most notably those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 587

that related to crime/safety and security fears. This is consistent with a pre-vious study that revealed that more than a third of visitors to South Africawere worried about their safety before traveling to the country (Donaldson& Ferreira, 2009). There were other negative associations, such as with thenation’s oppressive apartheid past.

The generalist African associations with wildlife, natural beauty andcrime could also be attributed to the Brand Africa effect as described byAnholt (2007). Only the perception attribute of the apartheid past is dis-tinctly South African. However, the lack of clear perceptions prior to visitingthe country is to be expected, given that the nation could be considered anemerging/developing brand.

The perceptions of visitors prior to traveling to the nation were mostlyinfluenced by international media (37%) and event-specific news and media,including the Internet (29%). This highlights the role that international mediaplays in creating perceptions of nation brands. It also shows that for sporttourists in particular, event-specific media promotion (including the Internet)plays an important role in creating perceptions. Nation-brand stakeholdersshould therefore pay attention to and assist with providing content for suchmedia types.

With 74% of first-time visitors agreeing that their perceptions of thenation had changed, it appears that the event had an impact on visitorperceptions. However, with the most significant reasons given for thesechanges in perceptions being: “traveling in South Africa” and “interactingwith South Africans,” it is difficult to isolate the impact of the event inchanging perceptions, from the normal tourist experience of traveling in thecountry. It does however highlight the important role of tourist experiencesin the formation of nation brands, and mega-events do play an importantrole as part of this experience. The fact that respondents strongly agreedthat the event itself was successfully hosted may also have led to improvedperceptions of the nation, as Florek and Insch (2011) described through theimage transfer process from event to destination.

Relating to respondents’ current associations with the nation brand as aresult of being in the country during the FIFA World Cup, the unpromptedresponses were far more positive and minimized some of the negativeperceptions such as crime, poverty, and lack of development, while alsoadding or strengthening the positive associations such as natural beauty andfriendly/welcoming people. Similarly, the prompted factors scoring mosthighly were those that have been traditional brand strengths (e.g., naturalbeauty, friendly people, and good climate) and also those that are moreexperiential in nature for short-term visitors (i.e., factors related to people,culture, attractions, and facilities).

This is supported by other research that looked at the characteristicsof the sport tourists during the event, where it was found that the sporttourists participated in many other typical tourist activities unrelated to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

588 B. Knott et al.

sport event, with the three most popular activities being social and culturalones of an experiential nature, such as enjoying the nightlife; food and wine;and shopping (Swart, Knott, Stofberg, & Hardenburg, 2010). The factors thatscored less highly (such as those related to aspects of politics and leadership,business/investment opportunities, and social segregation) tended to consistof high “unsure” responses, illustrating a lack of knowledge or understand-ing related to these issues. These are perhaps more nuanced or complexfactors that would require greater information or learning to change or createstronger perceptions.

It was also interesting to note that although crime/safety and securityhad been mentioned as a negative prior perception, two thirds of respon-dents (67%) agreed or strongly agreed that the country is “a safe destinationto visit.” It is also interesting that the study by Becker (2011) also revealeda similar change in perceptions of safety and security among nontravelingGerman fans. Although this was not one of the top associations, the posi-tive improvement in the perception of this attribute could be regarded as asignificant impact of the event on the nation brand. However, once again,the diminished fears and perceptions of the severity of crime in the countryare consistent with the study by Donaldson and Ferreira (2009). It is there-fore difficult to know whether the improved perspectives were a result ofthe increased safety and security measures during the event or whether theywere more typical of the general tourist experience.

It appears that there may be some significant differences betweenperceptions of primary and secondary sport tourists. While the primary sporttourists had a more favorable perception of sport in the country, secondarysport tourists held generally more negative perceptions related to social divi-sions, political leaders and safety. These findings seem to question whethersecondary sport tourists perhaps have more informed or defined perceptionsof the host nation as it relates to a wider variety of factors, other than sport-or event-related factors.

Tourist Behavior Intention and the Nation-Brand

The results showed that respondents had a high intention to travel to SouthAfrica again and to encourage others to travel, which represents valuablefuture tourism income and word-of-mouth marketing. This is especially truein the case of repeat visitors. If indeed this turns out to be the case, it couldrepresent a significant tourism legacy for the nation. It will be interesting tonote whether the potential tourism legacy for South Africa also involves atourism legacy for other African nations, with respondents generally unsurewhether they would visit these destinations. This is in spite of the fact thatthe event was promoted as an “African” World Cup. The behavioral intent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 589

responses that scored most poorly were those that required the greatest per-sonal commitment, potential risk or behavior change, such as “immigration,”“investment,” and “business.”

Once again, it is interesting to note some significant differences betweenprimary and secondary motivated sport tourists in terms of their behavioralintent. Although primary motivated sport tourists were more likely to returnto the country to watch or participate in sport events, secondary sport touristsappeared significantly more likely to translate their travel experience intobehavioral actions, such as word of mouth promotion, befriending SouthAfrican people, appreciating South African food and culture, paying attentionto news of South Africa and even emigrating to the country. Although therewas little difference between the two in terms of repeat visitation to SouthAfrica, secondary tourists were far more likely to visit other African nations.

It is important to note a few limitations of this study before discussingthe conclusions. The most important limitation to the survey was the fact thatit is extremely difficult to determine prior perceptions once the respondentswere already in the country. Although reference was made to a previousstudy of perceptions of sport tourists in Beijing 2008 (Knott et al., 2009),it would have been ideal to assess perceptions of the visitors before theyarrived in the country. Further to this, it is also important to determine theperception changes by spectators of the event who did not travel to thecountry and to assess any potential change in perceptions. A limited surveyto this extent was conducted among German spectators by Becker (2011) anda comparison of these findings may be of value. Perceptions are not alwaysenduring or may be limited in duration or change over time. Therefore,in the context of legacy, it would be useful to note whether these largelypositive perceptions have remained after the event or if other factors mayhave influenced these perceptions to change again after the event. To thiseffect, the researchers are conducting a follow-up survey with the originalrespondents who agreed to participate in an e-mail interview 1 year after theevent. The questionnaires were printed in English only, and although theinterviewees were often able to speak a number of languages as mentioned,respondents were not always able to answer in their preferred language.However, despite these noted limitations, the following section sets out theconclusions that can be drawn from this study and the implications for futureresearch in this field.

CONCLUSIONS

Leading from the previous discussion, the conclusions provided next are setout as they relate to the three main areas of sport tourism, nation-brandinglegacy and the role of sport mega-events in nation brand development.Finally, a number of research implications are discussed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

590 B. Knott et al.

Sport Tourism

Sport tourists are a unique subset of tourists and should be treated as distinctfrom regular tourists to a destination. A mega-event may attract a distinctgroup of tourists to a destination that may never otherwise have traveledthere. Mega-events appear to be especially useful in terms of encouragingfirst-time visitors from potentially nontraditional or new markets. The demo-graphic profile of these tourists (mostly younger and more predominantlymale) may be significantly different from the traditional tourist profile formany nations.

Nation Branding and Legacy

The study appears to support the nation-branding literature, and in par-ticular, those scholars who promote the concept of the nation as a brand(e.g., Kotler & Gertner, 2002; Olins, 2002; Anholt, 2007). The findings showthat similar to conventional marketing theory, an improved brand image ofthe nation leads to an increased brand equity as it translates into positiveconsumer behavior intent (e.g., intention for repeat visitation and positiveword-of-mouth promotion). Should this intention become actual behavior,this presents significant legacy opportunities as the long-term benefit fromthe mega-event results in increased tourism to the region through repeat vis-itation, positive word-of-mouth promotion and the opportunity to reach newtourist markets.

With regard to the role of sport mega-events in nation-brand develop-ment, the perceptions of sport tourists were extremely positive and lead to asupport of the notion that mega-events can be effectively used as nation-branding tools (supporting the likes of Essex & Chalkley, 1998; Rein &Shields, 2006; Berkowitz et al., 2007; Gibson et al., 2008). The findings sug-gest that many visitors who did not have strong perceptions of South Africanow have strong, favorable perceptions. This indicates a positive impact onbrand image and an increase in the brand equity of the nation brand in thespecific context of tourism. Although it is acknowledged that it is difficult toisolate the effect that the World Cup event played in this process as opposedto the mere fact that the visitors were able to tour the country, it shouldalso be noted that if it were not for the mega-event, 77% of respondentsmight not have traveled to the country in the first place, a significant finding.In addition, the fact that most respondents held a highly positive view ofsuccessful hosting of the event may well have influenced perceptions morepositively.

The findings suggest that sport mega-events may promote certainaspects of the nation brand more than others. The attributes such as “people,”“culture and heritage” and “tourism” appear to be most influenced, with littleimpact on perceptions of “government,” “investment,” and “exports.” This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 591

may be a result of the experiential nature of sport tourism and perhaps rep-resents a lack of knowledge of other aspects of a nation’s society or activities.However, this may also be a reflection of and confirmation that the weakestaspects of South Africa’s brand appear to be aspects related to government,trade and investment, as mentioned earlier (Anholt-GfK Roper, 2008).

The findings support the literature in showing a link betweenperceptions and behavioral intent. An improved brand image appearsto have a positive impact on consumer behavior intent. The changes inperceptions have an influence in the types of behavior intent that theyinfluence. The “tourism” aspects are seen in the willingness to visit thenation again and to promote the nation to others, effectively acting as brandadvocates for the nation. “People” attributes are reflected in the willingnessto befriend South African people. “Culture and heritage” attributes arereflected in the appreciation of South African food, music, art and dance.The less-supported attributes of “exports” and “investment” are reflected inthe lesser likelihood that respondents intend to buy South African products,do more business with or invest in South Africa and would considerimmigrating to South Africa.

Research Implications

Further investigation into the specific characteristics, profile and travel behav-ior of mega-event sport tourists needs to be conducted in order to betterunderstand the impact of mega-events on short and long-term tourism for ahost nation. It would also be useful to compare the nation-brand impact ofthe event on traveling as well as nontraveling fans and perhaps to suggest apreferred methodology for the measurement of such impacts. The researcheralso intends to conduct a follow-up analysis of perceptions a year after theevent to limit any potential halo effects of the event on perceptions.

It is also recommended that further research be undertaken to deter-mine the degree to which the nation-branding legacy has been and will beleveraged by nation-brand and sport tourism stakeholders in South Africa,in order to assist stakeholders to maximize the benefits from such brandingopportunities. With a growing number of developing nations now stagingmega-events (e.g., future FIFA World Cup events in Brazil 2014, Russia 2018,and Qatar 2022) it would also be beneficial to investigate the impact ofmega-events for nations at different stages of brand development.

While this exploratory study has focused on one aspect of the demandside of the nation brand (the tourists), it is imperative that the supply side isalso investigated. The researcher intends to do so by assessing the actions,activities and experiences of key brand stakeholders during the event, andthe degree to which the opportunity has been leveraged. Although thesefurther studies still need to be conducted, from this initial exploratory studyit appears that the development of a positive and distinct South African

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

592 B. Knott et al.

brand has been accelerated through the effective hosting of the 2010 FIFAWorld Cup.

REFERENCES

Anholt, S. (2003). Brand new justice: The upside of global marketing. Oxford,England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Anholt-GfK Roper. (2010). Nation Brands Index: Global report for media reference.

New York, NY: GfK Roper.Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K.W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.

Annals of Tourism Research, 26 , 868–897.Becker, K. (2011). Imageveränderung Südafrikas durch die FIFA

Fußballweltmeisterschaft 2010—Eine in Deutschland vorgenommeneempirische Untersuchung des Aspekts Sicherheit/Kriminalität [How theFIFA World Cup 2010 changed South Africa’s image—An empirical study con-ducted in Germany regarding perceptions of security and crime] (Unpublishedmasters thesis). University of Mainz, Germany.

Berkowitz, P., Germano, G., Gomez, L., & Schafer, G. (2007). Brand China: Usingthe 2008 Olympic Games to enhance China’s image. Place Branding and PublicDiplomacy, 3(2), 164–178.

Bob, U., Cornelissen, S., & Swart, K. (2010). South Africa. In S. Chadwick, & S. Hamil(Eds.). Managing football: An international perspective (pp. 387–406). London,England: Elsevier.

Burgan, B., & Mules, T. (1992). Economic impact of sporting events. Annals ofTourism Research, 19, 700–710.

Cape Town Tourism. (2010, July 21). Tourism industry positive about the impact ofthe World Cup on future tourism growth for Cape Town. Cape Town Tourism.

Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for host community event lever-age. In B. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impactsand issues (pp. 226–252). Clevedon, England: Channel View.

Chalip, L., & Costa, C. A. (2005). Sport event tourism and the destination brand:Towards a general theory. Sport in Society, 8, 218–237.

Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist? A conceptual clarification. Sociological Review,22, 527–555.

Cornelissen, S. (2007). Crafting legacies: The changing political economy of globalsport and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Politikon, 34, 241–259.

Dickinson, J., & Shipway, R. (2007). Resource guide to the impact of events. TheHigher Education Academy.

Dinnie, K. (2003). Place branding: An overview of an emerging literature. Retrievedfrom http://centrefornationbranding.com/papers/Dinnie_PB_litreview.pdf

Donaldson, R., & Ferreira, S. (2009). (Re-)creating urban destination image: Opinionsof foreign visitors to South Africa on safety and security. Urban Forum, 20, 1–18.

Du Toit-Helmboldt, M. (2011, March 2). Talking tourism: The latest tourism figuresreflecting changing travel landscape. Cape Town Tourism E-Mail Newsletter.

Emmett, J. (2010). Africa arrives. Sportspro, 19, 43–46.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 593

Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: Catalyst of urban change. LeisureStudies, 17 , 187–206.

Fakeye, P., & Crompton, J. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first timeand repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research,30, 10–16.

FIFA. (2010). South Africa’s FIFA World Cup a success at home and abroad.Retrieved From http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/organisation/media/newsid=1305767/index.html

Florek, M., & Insch, A. (2011). When fit matters: Leveraging destination and eventimage congruence. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20,265–286.

Gammon, S., & Robinson, T. (1997). Sport and tourism: A conceptual framework.Journal of Sport and Tourism, 4(3), 11–18.

Gammon, S., & Robinson, T. (2004). A question of primary and secondary motives:Revisiting and applying the sport tourism framework. Journal of Sport andTourism, 9, 221–233.

Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image Formatiion process. Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing, 2(2/3), 191–215.

Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism. New York, NY: CognizantCommunication.

Getz, D. (2003). Sport event tourism: Planning, development and marketing. In S.Hudson (Ed.), Sport and adventure tourism (pp. 49–88). Binghampton, NY:Haworth.

Gibson, H. (2006). Sport tourism: Concepts and theories. New York, NY: Routledge.Gibson, H., Kang, S.-J., Walker, M., Kaplanidou, K., Thapa, B., Geldenhuys, S., &

Coetzee, W. (2011, September). Four sport tourist fan types: 2010 World Cup,flow-on tourism and other attributes. The 19th Conference of the EuropeanAssociation of Sport Management, Hotel Melia Castilla, Madrid.

Gibson, H., Qi, C., & Zhang, J. (2008). Destination image and intent to visitChina, and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management,22, 427–450.

Govers, R., & Go, F. (2009). Place branding—glocal, physical and virtual identitiesconstructed, imagined or experienced. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hall, C. M., & Hodges, J. (1998). The politics of place and identity in theSydney 2000 Olympics: Sharing the spirit of corporatism. In M. Roche (Ed.),Sport, popular culture and identity (pp. 166–183). Aachen, Germany: Meyer &Meyer.

Higham, J., & Hinch, T. (2009). Sport and tourism: Globalisation, mobility andidentity. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hinch, T. D., & Higham, J. E. S. (2001). Sport tourism: A framework for research.International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 45–58.

Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination person-ality. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(1),62–81.

Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., & Ali, S. (2003). Building events intodestination branding: Insights from experts. Event Management, 8, 3–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

594 B. Knott et al.

Jordaan, D. (2011, July). Legacy lessons learnt from the 2010 FIFA World CupSouth Africa. Sport Events and Tourism Exchange, Cape Town InternationalConvention Centre, Cape Town.

Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and manag-ing brand equity (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kersting, N. (2007). Sport and national identity: A comparison of the 2006 and2010 FIFA World Cups. Politikon, 34, 277–293.

Kim, S. S., & Morrison, A. M. (2003). Change of images of South Korea among foreigntourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26 , 233–247.

Knott, B., & Swart, K. (2011). Sport marketing in Africa. In G. Nufer & A.Buhler (Eds.) Marketing in sport (pp. 565–588). Berlin, Germany: Erich SchmidtVerlag.

Knott, B., Swart, K., Turco, D., & Bob, U. (2010, February). The Sport Tourism Legacyof Mega-Events: from Beijing 2008 to South Africa 2010. Tourism, Sport andMega-Events International Summit, Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg.

Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (2003). Marketing for hospitality and tourism(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: Aplace marketing and brand management perspective. Brand Management, 9,249–261.

Mendes, J., Oom Do Valle, P., & Guerreiro, M. (2011). Destination image and events:A structural model for the Algarve case. Journal of Hospitality Marketing andManagement, 20, 366–384.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2010). Destination branding: Creating theunique destination proposition (Rev. 2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Olins, W. (2002). Branding the nation—the historical context. Brand Management,9, 241–248.

Preuss, H. (2004). The economics of staging the Olympics—a comparison of the games1972–2000. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Preuss, H. (2007). The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport eventlegacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12, 207–228.

Rein, I., & Shields, B. (2006). Place branding sports: Strategies for differentiat-ing emerging, transitional, negatively viewed and newly industrialised nations.Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(1), 73–85.

Standeven, J., & De Knop, P. (1999). Sport tourism. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Swart, K., Daniels, T., Donaldson, R., & Cornelissen, S. (2008, February). Cape

Town Routes Unlimited 2010 FIFA World Cup Research report: Internationalfootball market profiles, experiences of previous hosts & Western Cape citizens’2010 expectations. Unpublished trade report.

Swart, K., Knott, B., Stofberg, Q., & Hardenburg, E. (2010, December). A profile ofthe international football tourist at the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Research Day,Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town.

Tasci, A., & Gertner, W. (2007). Destination image and its functional relationships.Journal of Travel Research, 45, 413–425.

Tasci, A., Gertner, W., & Tamer Cavusgil, S. (2007). Measurement of destination brandbias using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management, 28, 1529–1540.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Nation-Branding Legacy 595

Tomlinson, R., Bass, O., & Pillay, U. (2009). Introduction. In U. Pillay, R.Tomlinson, & O. Bass (Eds.), Development and dreams: The urban legacy of the2010 Football World Cup (pp. 3–17). Cape Town, South Africa: Human SciencesResearch Council.

Tomljenovic, R. (2010). Tourism and intercultural understanding or contact hypoth-esis revisited. In O. Moufakkir & A. Kelly (Eds), Tourism, progress and peace(pp. 17–34). Oxford, England: CABI.

Turco, D. M., Riley, R., & Swart, K. (2002). Sport tourism. Morgantown, WV: FitnessInformation Technologies.

Turco, D. M., Swart, K., Bob, U. M., & Tichawaa, T. (2011, September). Foreign visitorprofiles of FIFA World Cup 2010 fan park and match attendees: Preliminaryanalysis of a national survey. The 19th Conference of the European Associationof Sport Management, Hotel Melia Castilla, Madrid.

Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011, June). Destination brand personality and behaviouralintentions: A comparison of first-time and repeat visitors. In M. D. Alvarez, C. A.Genc, B. Hatipoglu, D. Salman, & D. Unalan (Eds.), Advances in hospitality andtourism marketing and management (pp. 269–274). Istanbul, Turkey: BogaziciUniversity.

Van Ham, P. (2001). The rise of the brand state: The postmodern politics of imageand reputation. Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 2–6.

Waitt, G. (2003). Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research,30, 194–215.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

10:

13 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014