Major events often speak about “the volunteers” as if they are a single workforce. Training sessions are shared, recognition ceremonies are collective, and management strategies are standardised. This approach is efficient, but it rests on an assumption: that volunteers derive value from the event in broadly similar ways.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

General volunteers typically value social interaction, atmosphere, and the excitement of proximity to a major occasion. Roles such as event services, transport support, spectator assistance, or accreditation introduce them to new environments and new skills. For many, the experience itself is the reward.

Medical volunteers enter a fundamentally different exchange.

They are not learning a new activity. They are applying an advanced professional skillset acquired over years of training. They are licensed practitioners working in high-stakes environments where decisions affect athlete health and competition outcomes. Their contribution is not supplementary; it is operationally essential. An event may continue if merchandise sales falter, but competition cannot safely begin without appropriate medical coverage.

Because of this, the meaning of participation changes. For a general volunteer, the event is an extraordinary experience. For a medical practitioner, the event is closer to a temporary professional placement.

This distinction becomes visible in how benefits are interpreted. Many volunteers value meeting people and being part of something memorable. Medical volunteers valued working with other clinicians and interacting with athletes, but these experiences were framed through professional identity rather than social enjoyment. Networking with fellow practitioners, observing different treatment approaches, and sharing expertise were more meaningful than ceremonies, uniforms, or behind-the-scenes access.

A short example illustrates the difference. A transport volunteer might describe the highlight of the event as helping visiting teams navigate the city and feeling part of the atmosphere. A physiotherapist, in contrast, might describe the highlight as discussing rehabilitation protocols with colleagues from another region or managing a complex injury scenario in a polyclinic environment. Both describe positive experiences, but they are fundamentally different types of value.

The management implication is significant. When organisers design a volunteer programme centred only on appreciation, celebration, and belonging, it aligns with many volunteers but not with specialised professionals. If these practitioners feel treated as generic volunteers rather than respected contributors with professional expectations, the event risks offering an experience that is pleasant but not worthwhile.

The findings therefore dismantle a common operational assumption: that improving the overall volunteer experience automatically improves retention across all volunteer categories. Instead, retention depends on whether the experience matches the value system of the specific group. For medical volunteers, the relevant currency is professional exchange, not event excitement.

Recognising this distinction shifts volunteer management from hospitality to workforce strategy.

At first glance, it seems obvious why a medical practitioner would volunteer at a major sporting event: to practise sports medicine in a unique environment. Organisers therefore often assume that providing access to athletes and clinical responsibility is itself the primary reward.

The evidence shows the opposite.

Medical volunteers reported a strong sense of professional identification when supporting athletes. They valued using their expertise, making return-to-play decisions, and contributing directly to performance and safety. Yet this experience — the core task organisers depend on — did not increase their likelihood of volunteering again. In some cases, it reduced it.

The reason lies in how the experience is evaluated. Providing medical care at the event closely resembles their everyday professional work. It is demanding, time-pressured, and carries responsibility. When volunteering feels like unpaid employment rather than a distinctive opportunity, the exchange becomes unbalanced. The practitioner incurs substantial personal cost — time away from work and family — without receiving something meaningfully different in return.

What did encourage future participation was professional development.

When volunteers perceived that they learned new techniques, encountered unfamiliar cases, gained exposure to different treatment systems, or deepened their understanding of sport medicine practice, their willingness to return increased significantly. The event became valuable not because of the athletes alone, but because it expanded their professional competence.

Consider a hypothetical but typical scenario. A physiotherapist who spends the week repeating routine taping and minor injury management may feel useful but unchanged by the experience. Another practitioner who rotates through multiple venues, works alongside senior clinicians, and observes high-performance medical protocols acquires knowledge that informs future clinical practice. The second experience creates professional growth; the first replicates work.

This distinction explains the paradox: performing medical duties is necessary for the event but insufficient for volunteer retention.

It also reframes the organiser’s responsibility. Volunteer management is not simply about allocating shifts and ensuring coverage. For specialised volunteers, it involves designing an experience that contains learning. Mentoring opportunities, exposure to varied cases, and structured skill development transform the event from service provision into professional enrichment.

In practical terms, the event must offer something the practitioner cannot easily obtain in their normal workplace. Without that, volunteering becomes a charitable act. With it, volunteering becomes an investment — and investments are repeated.

Volunteer programmes often prioritise recognition. Thank-you ceremonies, uniforms, commemorative pins, and public celebration are intended to reward contribution and encourage return participation. These mechanisms are effective for many volunteers because they acknowledge effort and reinforce belonging.

For medical volunteers, recognition operates differently.

The most influential positive experience was not appreciation from organisers but connection with other practitioners. Working alongside clinicians from different regions, specializations, and levels of experience created opportunities rarely available in everyday practice. The event functioned as a temporary professional community — a concentrated environment where knowledge, practice styles, and clinical judgement could be compared and exchanged.

This explains why networking was a strong predictor of future international volunteering. Returning was not simply about revisiting the event; it was about re-entering a professional network. Practitioners valued reunions with colleagues they had previously worked with and the chance to collaborate with unfamiliar specialists. In effect, the event became a professional forum embedded within a sporting competition.

The distinction is subtle but important. Recognition rewards past effort. Networking creates future value.

A clinician who leaves the event with a certificate and a photograph has received appreciation. A clinician who leaves with new contacts, clinical insights, and collaborative relationships has received professional capital. The latter influences behaviour because it affects future career development and learning opportunities.

This also clarifies why typical volunteer appreciation initiatives can have limited impact on retention for specialised groups. A formal thank-you reception may be welcomed but does not change professional practice. By contrast, a structured clinical discussion session, a shared case review, or even scheduled informal meeting time between practitioners can be far more influential.

The management implication is that organisers should think less about celebrating volunteers and more about connecting them. Events already bring together practitioners who would not normally meet. Without intentional facilitation, however, busy schedules and dispersed venues prevent meaningful interaction. When structured networking opportunities are created — such as designated meeting periods, collaborative briefings, or interdisciplinary exchanges — the event becomes professionally valuable.

In this sense, networking functions as a form of non-financial compensation. Volunteers do not receive payment, but they receive access — to knowledge, colleagues, and experience. For professionals, access can be more valuable than gratitude.

Volunteering at a major multi-sport event requires significant personal sacrifice. Medical practitioners reported time away from clinical practice, disruption to family life, and the use of vacation leave as the most noticeable drawbacks of participation. In many cases, volunteering can mean temporarily reducing income or rescheduling patients. From a traditional management perspective, these appear to be serious barriers to retention.

Surprisingly, they were not.

Although personal inconvenience was the most commonly experienced cost, it did not meaningfully influence whether practitioners intended to volunteer again. The decision to return was shaped far more by the benefits they experienced than by the sacrifices they made.

This reveals an important behavioural pattern. The practitioners were not ignoring the costs; they were accepting them as part of the exchange. They expected that participation would require effort and disruption. What they evaluated was whether the experience justified those sacrifices.

A simple comparison illustrates this logic. Two clinicians each take two weeks away from their practice. One gains new knowledge, meets respected colleagues, and leaves with professional insights applicable to their career. The other performs routine duties similar to everyday work and returns with little professional change. Both incurred the same personal cost, yet only one perceives the exchange as worthwhile.

For organisers, this reframes a common managerial instinct. Event teams often attempt to minimise volunteer inconvenience by adjusting schedules, offering small stipends, or improving amenities. While these actions are positive, they may not significantly affect retention among specialised volunteers. Reducing costs slightly does not compensate for an experience that lacks professional value.

The findings suggest a different priority. Instead of concentrating primarily on removing inconvenience, organisers should concentrate on increasing meaningful benefits. When the professional return is strong, volunteers tolerate the personal cost. When the professional return is weak, even minor inconvenience becomes decisive.

In other words, retention is not determined by how easy volunteering is, but by how worthwhile it feels.