Large-scale event planning is often governed by strict formalities—legal mandates, sponsor agreements, regulatory frameworks—that favour global actors. These formalities are designed to minimise risk, ensure consistency, and satisfy powerful stakeholders such as international federations and top sponsors. 

But in doing so, they frequently shut out local actors who lack the capital, resources, or political leverage to compete. Formal advertising zones, strict vendor licensing, and securitised event perimeters are justified on grounds of efficiency and control, yet they effectively exclude local businesses and communities from meaningful participation.

Take the London 2012 Olympics, where strict branding regulations and the ring-fencing of Olympic zones meant that small traders in East London were blocked from operating in their own neighbourhoods. Despite being sold as a community-based regeneration project, the Games replicated the very inequalities it claimed to address. These exclusionary practices often go unnoticed until tensions erupt, leading to community resistance, reputational damage, or even protest.

Rather than perpetuating these rigid structures, organisers must recognise that formality is not neutral—it reflects and reinforces power. By loosening formal boundaries and incorporating informal, context-specific mechanisms, organisers can shift from exclusion to accommodation. A street vendor given access to an event zone, a local artist commissioned for cultural programming, or an enforcement officer allowed discretionary flexibility can all represent small but significant moves toward more inclusive event delivery. 

Ultimately, challenging the dominance of formality is the first step to rebalancing global–local relations in event planning.

In contrast to formal rules that entrench global dominance, informal approaches open new pathways for inclusive innovation. Organisational informality—defined by Misztal (2000) as a flexible interpretation of formal roles—can empower managers to adapt rules in real time and tailor solutions to local needs. This isn’t about lawlessness, but about using discretion and improvisation to rebalance the event ecosystem.

For example, during London 2012, managers quietly instructed enforcement officers to exercise leniency when small businesses technically infringed trading regulations. Though official policy was strict, discretion created room for coexistence. Likewise, at Buenos Aires 2018, opening ceremonies were held in a public boulevard rather than an exclusive stadium—enabling 215,000 residents to participate freely. These decisions were not mandated by formal guidelines but emerged from locally grounded, adaptive reasoning.

Informality also fosters trust. When communities see organisers bending rigid rules to accommodate their realities, it signals respect and recognition. This trust is essential for gaining social licence, encouraging participation, and enhancing the authenticity of the event experience.

Importantly, informality is not a silver bullet. It requires careful management to avoid inconsistency or bias. But when used deliberately, it enables local actors to reassert agency within global frameworks. Informality invites managers to move beyond compliance and towards connection—blending universal standards with grounded, place-based responsiveness. It’s this flexibility that allows the paradox to be accommodated, rather than overridden.

IMega-events are often designed to channel spectators along controlled, linear paths—from hotel to venue to fan zone—minimising unscripted interaction with the city and its residents. These transit zones are logistical tools, but they also sanitise the host environment and isolate global guests from local communities. As a result, the potential for cultural exchange, mutual benefit, and local economic gain is lost.

Yet, research shows that liminal spaces—those transitional areas between official and unofficial domains—can serve as powerful connectors. Duignan et al. (2020) describe how the creation of liminoidal zones, such as pop-up food markets or cultural installations along fan routes, fosters serendipitous encounters between locals and visitors. These spaces offer informal, hybridised experiences that are not wholly global or local, but both.

During Rio 2016, for instance, community groups in Vila Autódromo established alternative cultural zones just outside the Olympic Park. These spaces celebrated local identity while engaging global visitors, challenging the dominant narrative of erasure and exclusion. While not officially sanctioned, they reflected the very spirit of Olympism—connection, dialogue, diversity.

Event planners must proactively design for such encounters. This could mean loosening crowd flow restrictions, offering cultural walking tours through non-touristic districts, or co-producing programming with grassroots partners. These small interventions help accommodate the paradox by creating shared spaces—physical and symbolic—where global spectacle and local substance can coexist.

One of the most persistent problems in mega-event planning is the overuse of vague, universal rhetoric. Bids often promise inclusive legacies and global prestige in the same breath, without acknowledging the tension between these goals. The result is misaligned expectations. Local communities expect social investment; global sponsors expect brand exposure. When both are disappointed, trust collapses.

Andriopoulos and Lewis (2013) propose “mixed messaging” as a way to navigate paradox. Instead of masking tension, managers should make it explicit—clearly articulating what each stakeholder group stands to gain, and how those benefits are sequenced or distributed. For example, benefit statements could distinguish between short-term promotional goals for sponsors and long-term development objectives for communities.

In Olympic contexts, this might mean separate communication tracks for local and global audiences. Promotional materials targeting international visitors could highlight global entertainment and brand experiences, while local campaigns emphasise job creation, urban improvements, and cultural celebration. Tokyo 2020 made strides in this direction by developing parallel branding campaigns for domestic and international audiences—acknowledging different priorities without trying to please everyone with the same message.

Dual messaging does not dilute impact; it clarifies intent. When managed well, it reduces cynicism and sets realistic expectations. Importantly, it acknowledges that stakeholder interests are not always reconcilable, but they are always worthy of recognition. Through transparency and segmentation, messaging becomes a tool not of obfuscation, but of trust-building.

The final and most transformative strategy is to shift from zero-sum logic to synergistic thinking. Paradox management requires not just compromise but integration—identifying how opposing forces can reinforce rather than undermine each other. This “both/and” logic can unlock value for global and local stakeholders simultaneously.

For instance, sourcing local food vendors for Olympic fan zones can meet both sustainability goals (UN SDG 12) and support small businesses. Similarly, involving local artists in branding campaigns can enrich cultural authenticity for global media while fostering community pride. These are not mere token gestures—they are design decisions that embed synergy into delivery.

Jay (2013) argues that paradoxes, when embraced, can be catalysts for innovation. But this requires reframing tensions as creative opportunities rather than constraints. IOC’s alignment with the SDGs is a step in this direction, offering a framework through which synergistic solutions can be structured and justified.

Table 2 in Duignan et al.’s (2023) work offers practical tools: using “linguistic hooks” to reframe tensions, clarifying dual timelines of benefit, and sequencing priorities across space and time. These techniques do not eliminate the paradox—but they manage its effects in ways that are context-sensitive and politically intelligent.

For event managers, this mindset shift is critical. It moves us beyond damage control and toward design thinking—where tension becomes a resource for innovation, and the paradox itself becomes a guiding principle for better, fairer events.