REBUILDING TRUST IN EVENTS, ONE COMMUNITY AT A TIME

Without resident trust, events fail. This article re-imagines major event success through transparency, inclusion, strategic fit, and everyday legacy.

Dr Martin Schnitzer (University of Innsbruck, Austria).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Public trust is the new currency for hosting major events — and it’s in short supply. Without it, bids fail, and events face opposition from the ground up.

  • Mega-events often stumble when residents see them as “transactional” spectacles rather than “transformational” opportunities for long-term benefit.

  • Over-eventing breeds fatigue. Without clear coordination and strategy, even the most well-intentioned event portfolios risk backlash from overwhelmed communities.

  • Narrative matters. Residents need to understand the “why” behind hosting — how it fits into broader goals, what success looks like, and how they benefit.

  • A shift is underway. From top-down imposition to bottom-up alignment, cities must now co-create bids with their communities or risk being left out of the global event game.

Why are people turning against major events? In the past decade, a silent rebellion has been brewing in picturesque cities like Innsbruck — a city with Olympic history etched into its mountainsides and sport stitched into its cultural fabric. Despite this proud legacy, residents have voted not once, not twice, but three times to reject new Olympic bids (Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024; Gamper et al., 2025; Schnitzer et al., 2020). Why?

As Martin explains, it’s not that people hate sport. Far from it. It’s that people have grown weary — weary of broken promises, escalating costs, and event organizers failing to deliver benefits that outlast the closing ceremony (Roth et al., 2025). The bid book may promise legacy, but locals are increasingly asking, “Legacy for who?”

INTRODUCTION

This article explores a profound yet under-acknowledged truth: that community trust is no longer a “nice to have” in event planning — it’s the bedrock (Roth et al., 2025; Schnitzer et al., 2017a) . Drawing on Schnitzer’s work in Innsbruck and beyond, we uncover how resident support for major events has become the decisive factor in whether an event gets off the ground at all — and why transparent, co-created, and long-term strategies are the only way forward (e.g. Schnitzer et al., 2017b; Schnitzer et al., 2021).

“Community trust is no longer a ‘nice to have’...it’s the bedrock.”

Major events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup were once seen as indisputable opportunities for host cities — engines of economic growth, global prestige, and civic pride. But today, many of those same cities are hitting the brakes. Referendums in places like Innsbruck, Calgary, and Hamburg reveal a growing public skepticism toward the value of mega-events, even in destinations with deep sporting heritage and high tourism demand (Schnitzer et al., 2021; Schnitzer & Haizinger, 2019; Schnitzer et al., 2019).

THE PROBLEM AND/OR OPPORTUNITY

The problem is twofold. First, there’s a credibility crisis: residents no longer trust that promised legacies will materialize. Instead, they anticipate disruption, spiralling costs, and minimal returns (Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024). Second, there’s a strategic vacuum: many cities continue to pursue events in isolation, without clearly explaining how each one fits into a longer-term portfolio or contributes to local goals — whether economic diversification, cultural vibrancy, or environmental sustainability (Schnitzer et al, 2017a; Schnitzer et al, 2017b).

The opportunity? To rebuild trust by making resident support a core metric of success, not an afterthought. This means clear communication, shared planning, transparent trade-offs, and a strategic approach to event hosting that shows people how each event contributes to their everyday lives — not just the global spotlight (Roth & Schnitzer, 2025; Schnitzer et al, 2017a; Schnitzer et al, 2017b).

“There’s a credibility crisis: residents no longer trust that promised legacies will materialise”

WHY DOES THIS MATTER NOW?

Resident resistance to major events is no longer a fringe concern — it’s a decisive force shaping the global events landscape. From the cancellation of the 2026 Winter Olympic bid in Innsbruck to the recent withdrawal of Victoria, Australia from hosting the Commonwealth Games, communities are speaking up — and organisers are being forced to listen.

At a time of fiscal austerity, housing shortages, and pressure on public services, the idea of spending millions if not billions on temporary sporting infrastructure is facing intense scrutiny. Citizens are increasingly asking: What’s in it for us? And if those answers aren’t compelling, bids fail and events go elsewhere (Schnitzer et al, 2017a; Schnitzer et al, 2017b).

At the same time, international governing bodies like the IOC and FIFA are trying to clean up their image and win back trust (Roth et al, 2025). The IOC’s “Agenda 2020” and the rise of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as bid criteria represent a sea change in how events are justified — no longer just economically, but socially and environmentally too (Bazzanella et al., 2022; Feilhauer et al, 2024; Schnitzer & Haizinger, 2019).

All of this means cities must now prove, not just promise, that events will deliver long-term public value. And that starts by embedding resident voices and perspectives at the heart of event design, delivery, and evaluation — not just in hindsight, but from the very beginning (Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024; Gamper et al., 2025).

HOW DOES THIS ADD TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW?

While much of the existing literature on major events focuses on economic impact assessments or branding benefits, this article foregrounds resident perception as a decisive factor in event viability — not just a peripheral stakeholder concern. It extends prior work on legacy and impact by emphasising the growing strategic importance of resident trust, emotional engagement, and perceived return on investment (e.g. Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024; Gamper et al., 2025; Roth et al., 2025).

It also challenges the traditional assumption that major events inherently deliver positive outcomes if well-managed. Instead, it argues that without clear, transparent communication, a long-term portfolio strategy, and visible social benefits, even well-run events risk failure at the ballot box or through public protest (Schnitzer et al, 2019; Schnitzer & Hainzinger, 2019; Schnitzer et al, 2017a; Schnitzer et al, 2017b).

“...resident perception...a decisive factor in event viability”

WHAT IDEAS DRIVE THIS ARTICLE?

Martin’s work bridges event studies, tourism research, and public policy analysis, particularly emphasizing community sentiment analysis, referenda case studies, and portfolio strategy development.

Key conceptual frameworks include:

  • Resident Support Theory: Understanding public approval as a dynamic influenced by both tangible (infrastructure, spending) and intangible (trust, identity) factors (e.g. Roth & Schnitzer, 2025; Schnitzer et al, 2021).

  • Event Portfolio Thinking: The idea that events should not be seen in isolation but as interconnected components of a broader strategic and social vision for a destination (Roth & Schnitzer, 2025; Schnitzer et al, 2017b).

  • Trust and Transparency in Bidding: Highlighting how skepticism toward institutions (e.g. IOC, FIFA) and perceptions of hidden agendas can undermine even well-designed bids (Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024; Roth et al, 2025).

  • ‘Over-eventism’: A novel term proposed by Schnitzer, describing the fatigue and opposition generated by perceived event oversaturation in popular tourist regions (Roth & Schnitzer, 2025; Schnitzer et al, 2021).

These concepts are grounded in both qualitative case-based observations and longitudinal tracking of regional event planning patterns. The article situates these insights within broader debates on the future legitimacy, sustainability, and public value of major events.

KEY ARGUMENTS

  • Innsbruck’s repeated rejection of Olympic bids despite its Olympic legacy underscores a critical truth: public trust is non-negotiable. Residents are no longer content with glossy bid books and vague promises. They want transparency, accountability, and meaningful involvement. In Tyrol, distrust toward the IOC and skepticism about cost overruns and hidden agendas led to three failed referenda in three decades. This distrust isn’t irrational — it’s informed by high-profile controversies from Sochi to Rio to Qatar, where public funds, human rights, and local priorities were seen as secondary (Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024; Roth et al, 2025; Schnitzer & Haizinger, 2019).

    Event owners and policymakers must learn that public support isn’t a given — it’s earned through proactive communication, openness about risks, and a demonstrable long-term vision that aligns with local values (Schnitzer et al., 2017a)

  • For many citizens, the mega-event equation is simple: if the benefits don’t clearly outweigh the burdens, it’s a “no.” Schnitzer's research shows residents weigh tangible impacts (e.g. traffic, security concerns, disrupted routines) against long-term gains (e.g. upgraded infrastructure, enhanced global visibility, job creation). And if the legacy is unclear or seems disproportionately aimed at tourists or elites, support collapses (Feilhauer et al., 2023; Feilhauer et al., 2024; Schnitzer et al, 2017a)

    The 2017 Tyrol referendum against the 2026 Winter Olympics exemplifies this dynamic (Schnitzer et al, 2021). Residents didn’t oppose sport or culture — they opposed vague promises. Organizers failed to articulate how investment in venues, mobility, or urban development would serve them long after the medals were handed out.

  • Tyrol hosts approximately 250 sports events annually — five per week. While this vibrant calendar showcases regional vitality, it can also lead to “event fatigue.” Schnitzer coined the term over-eventism to capture the tipping point at which saturation breeds resentment. If communities feel they’re constantly disrupted but seldom directly benefiting — or worse, being excluded — enthusiasm can sour (Roth & Schnitzer, 2025; Schnitzer et al, 2021).

    Moreover, without a strategic calendar that balances event scales and ensures infrastructure reuse, even high-profile events become disjointed exercises in logistical excess (Roth & Schnitzer, 2025; Schnitzer et al., 2017b). Residents rightly ask: why host three world championships in six months if they don’t build toward a shared vision?

  • Too often, the race to secure hosting rights overshadows the longer game: community alignment. Schnitzer argues for a mindset shift — one where cities and regions view bids as opportunities to shape long-term development, not just secure a moment of global attention.

    This means investing in a "win-win or don’t bid" approach, where benefits are distributed and meaningful regardless of the bid outcome. Cities should learn from failures and successes alike, using the bid process to clarify community goals, infrastructure needs, and social values — not just impress the judging panel (Gamper et al., 2025).

  • Major events don’t operate in a vacuum — and they shouldn’t be planned that way. One-off events may deliver bursts of attention, but without integration into a long-term portfolio, they struggle to leave lasting legacies. Schnitzer’s current work with local government in Tyrol centers on developing a coordinated event strategy that weaves together small, medium, and large-scale events into a coherent narrative (Schnitzer & Hainzinger, 2019; Schnitzer et al, 2017b).

    The aim? Ensure that every event, from grassroots festivals to international championships, contributes to shared goals like community cohesion, sustainable tourism, youth participation, or environmental responsibility. Residents are more likely to support events when they see how they’re stitched into a broader strategy — one that builds over time, not just burns bright and disappears (e.g. Schnitzer et al., 2017a).

THE RESIDENT SUPPORT NETWORK

A four-pillar framework to strategically earn, build, and sustain resident support for events of any scale.

1. Transparency

What it means: Clearly communicate all aspects of the event — financial, logistical, environmental, and social.

  • What it looks like: Publish detailed public budgets, open consultations, impact assessments (both positive and negative).

  • Why it matters: Trust is built when citizens are treated as equal partners, not just passive spectators or taxpayers.

Example: When Innsbruck residents rejected the Winter Olympics bid, a common complaint was lack of clarity around long-term costs. Transparency from day one could have helped neutralize fears.

2. Tangible Legacy

  • What it means: Demonstrate how the event will create lasting benefits for residents — beyond the final whistle or closing ceremony.

  • What it looks like: Upgraded public transport that remains useful post-Games, community facilities, year-round use of venues.

  • Why it matters: People support events when they clearly improve their quality of life — not just tourist satisfaction.

Example: In Paris 2024, planners have emphasized legacy through urban development in Seine-Saint-Denis — a strategy that directly targets resident benefit.

3. Strategic Fit

  • What it means: Ensure events align with a long-term, regionally relevant strategy — not one-off spectacle.

  • What it looks like: A well-articulated event portfolio where small and mega events serve complementary roles (e.g. tourism, youth development, international branding).

  • Why it matters: Without strategic fit, events feel random or opportunistic, which fuels scepticism.

Example: Martin Schnitzer’s work in Tyrol aims to build a long-term portfolio to prevent “over-eventism” and make each event count.

4. Inclusive Process

  • What it means: Residents must feel like co-authors, not bystanders, in event planning.

  • What it looks like: Citizen forums, participatory budgeting, local hiring policies, and community benefit agreements.

  • Why it matters: When people are part of the story, they’re more likely to believe in it — and defend it.

Example: The lack of participatory mechanisms in failed Olympic bids (like in Innsbruck or Sion) shows what happens when people feel left out of decisions.

Resident Support Formula (RSF) = Transparency + Tangible Legacy + Strategic Fit + Inclusive Process

This framework helps policymakers and organizers evaluate whether they are setting themselves up for support — or resistance. It’s a tool for building trust, legitimacy, and long-term value — for residents first, and everyone else second.

CONCLUSIONS

Public support for major events is not a given — it's earned. From cancelled Olympic bids in Innsbruck to the collapse of the Victoria Commonwealth Games, we’re witnessing a global reckoning with how events are imagined, funded, and delivered. Residents are pushing back not because they’re anti-fun or anti-sport, but because they’re demanding fairness, transparency, and lasting benefit.

If events are to thrive in the 2020s and beyond, they must do more than entertain. They must convince, include, and transform. The Resident Support Formula (RSF) shows us how: by being honest, strategic, rooted in place, and built with people, not just for them.

Cities can no longer afford to gamble millions on speculative benefits or ignore the power of local voices. Winning hearts and minds — not just international bids — is now the defining factor of a successful event. The clock is ticking for planners, organizers, and policymakers to reimagine how they engage with residents.

Because without them, there is no event.

“Public support for major events is not a given — it’s earned”

PRACTICAL ACTIONS

1. Co-create the Event Vision with Residents

  • Involve residents early in the process — not just during consultation windows but during conceptualisation.

  • Use deliberative forums, citizens’ juries, or participatory planning methods to build trust and gather meaningful feedback.

  • Ensure local communities can shape the event’s purpose, legacy goals, and use of public funds.

2. Be Honest About Trade-offs and Limits

  • Acknowledge that events come with both benefits and disruptions — don’t overpromise.

  • Be transparent about what the event can realistically achieve and where there is uncertainty.

  • Share both financial opportunities and risks, particularly around cost overruns or long-term maintenance of infrastructure.

3. Invest in Long-Term Narrative Building

  • Develop a clear and public-facing “Event Story” — what the event is for, how it fits into local development plans, and who benefits.

  • Stitch together small, medium, and major events into a coherent portfolio that contributes to place identity, social cohesion, and economic goals.

  • Use storytelling to position the event as one chapter in a broader journey of transformation.

4. Prioritise ‘Everyday Legacies’ Over ‘Iconic Legacies’

  • Focus on outcomes that matter to everyday residents: improved public transport, accessible spaces, skills training, social programmes.

  • Build infrastructure with long-term community use in mind, not just for athletes or visitors.

  • Make legacy measurable and tangible — not vague promises.

5. Measure What Residents Actually Value

  • Go beyond traditional economic impact assessments — incorporate wellbeing, belonging, inclusion, and local pride.

  • Use mixed methods: rapid surveys, citizen ethnographies, social media listening, and focus groups to get nuanced insights.

  • Track changes before, during, and long after the event.

6. Create a Balanced Event Portfolio

  • Don’t overload cities with back-to-back events — especially if they’re not strategically connected.

  • Use smaller, community-rooted events to maintain public trust and build momentum for larger bids.

  • Make each event play a clear role in the overall portfolio: cultural cohesion, international branding, youth engagement, economic development, etc.

7. Rebuild Credibility Through Accountability

  • Publish open-access evaluations of past events — including what didn’t work.

  • Set up independent resident advisory panels with power to influence decision-making.

  • Be willing to walk away from events that don’t align with your place’s long-term vision or social license to operate.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

1. Power Asymmetries Between Event Owners and Hosts

  • Event owners (like the IOC or FIFA) often hold more negotiating power, limiting a host city’s ability to push back on costs, timelines, or required infrastructure.

  • Local governments may feel pressure to comply, even when resident concerns go unaddressed.

2. Short Political Cycles vs. Long-Term Planning

  • Politicians operate within short election cycles, making it risky to back long-term investments that won’t pay off immediately.

  • Resident trust can erode when strategic plans are reversed or abandoned after leadership changes.

3. Difficulty Measuring Intangible Social Outcomes

  • Social cohesion, pride, belonging, and trust are complex, context-dependent, and hard to quantify with traditional metrics.

  • This makes them easier to deprioritise in favour of more visible economic wins.

4. Risk of Consultation Fatigue or Tokenism

  • Repeated consultation processes can exhaust communities — especially when feedback isn’t acted on.

  • There’s a risk of box-ticking exercises that simulate participation but don’t redistribute any real decision-making power.

5. Media and Political Narratives Can Shift Quickly

  • Even well-planned events can suffer from a sudden loss of public support due to a single scandal, budget overrun, or media exposé.

  • Organisers must work continuously to manage the narrative and expectations.

6. Limited Capacity in Smaller Municipalities

  • Smaller or mid-sized cities may lack the internal expertise, financial resources, or data capabilities to deliver truly integrated evaluation or storytelling strategies.

  • External support or capacity building may be needed but can be costly or inconsistent.

REFERENCES

Bazzanella, F; Bichler, B; Schnitzer, M (2022): Collaboration and meta-organisation in event tourism – Effects of the Olympic Agenda 2020 on planning the 2026 Winter Olympics. Tourism Management Perspectives 41, No. 100939. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1016​/j.tmp.2022.100939

Feilhauer, E; Schnitzer, M; Walde, J; Tappeiner, G (2023): What residents of potential Olympic cities want: using conjoint analysis to deal with dominant and heterogeneous preferences. Current Issues in Tourism 26/13, S. 2101 - 2114. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1080​/13683500.2022.2067030

Feilhauer, E; Schnitzer, M; Walde, J; Tappeiner, G (2024): Olympic Games Reloaded: can the Olympic Agenda 2020 push residents' support for the mega-event? European Sport Management Quarterly 24/1, S. 266 - 285. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1080​/16184742.2022.2099924

Gamper, N; Romanelli, M; Bocarro, J; Schnitzer, M (2025): Bidding beyond the game: the legacies of (un)successful sports event bids on host locations. International Journal of Event and Festival Management. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1108​/IJEFM-04-2024-0038

Roth, J; Schnitzer, M (2025): Mega Events Only? Exploring the Importance of Investigating the Impact of Major Sports Events and Residents’ Support for Smaller Events. Event Management. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.3727​/152599525X17385344274568

Roth, J; Schnitzer, M; Winner, H (2025): Outsourcing the Games – measuring resident support for hosting an outsourced Olympic event. Current Issues in Tourism. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1080​/13683500.2025.2456967

Schnitzer, M; Scheiber, S; Kornexl, E; Thöni, E (2017a): Politicians’ perspective on the community-related impacts of major sports events – a case study for Innsbruck-Tyrol. Sport in Society 20/7, S. 880 - 904. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1080​/17430437.2016.1274552

Schnitzer, M; Schlemmer, P; Kristiansen, E (2017b): Youth multi-sport events in Austria: tourism strategy or just a coincidence? Journal of Sport & Tourism 21/3, S. 179 - 199. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1080​/14775085.2017.1300102

Schnitzer, M; Walde, J; Scheiber, S; Nagiller, R; Tappeiner, G (2019): Does the young resident's experience with the Youth Olympic Games influence the support for staging the Olympic Games? Tourism Management Perspectives 30, S. 220 - 231. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1016​/j.tmp.2019.03.002

Schnitzer, M; Haizinger, L (2019): Does the Olympic Agenda 2020 Have the Power to Creat a New Olympic Heritage? An Analysis for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games Bid. Sustainability 11/2, No. 442.
http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.3390​/su11020442 

Schnitzer, M; Kössler, C; Schlemmer, P; Peters, M (2021): Influence of Event and Place Image on Residents' Attitudes toward and support for Events. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 45/7, S. 1260 - 1281. http:​/​/dx.doi.org​/10.1177​/1096348020919502

Schnitzer, M; Winner, H; Tappeiner, G (2021): Overtourism and support for mega sport events. Annals of Tourism Research 88, No. 103065 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103065

AUTHOR(S)

Professor, University of Innsbruck (Austria).

Martin Schnitzer is a professor of sports science specialising in sports economics at the Department of Sports Science at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, which he currently heads.

Martin started his university career in a roundabout way. He worked for many years as a practitioner in the bidding and management of major sporting events, for example on the organising committee of the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin and in the host city management of the UEFA EURO 2008 (TM) in Innsbruck-Tyrol. His research focuses on analysing resident support for major sporting events and their effects. He also observes the extent to which sporting events as projects affect the long-term strategic development of regions and destinations. Further research work is related to sports development and sports tourism.

Disclaimer
The views and insights expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and reflect their research and professional expertise. They do not represent the views of the Centre for Events & Festivals CIC or its partners.