Literature review of impacts of mega-sport global events on destination sustainability and sustainability marketing—Reflection on Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qatar FIFA 2022 was the first FIFA Football World Cup to be hosted by an Arab state and was predicted by some to fail. However, it did not only succeed but also showed a new display of destination sustainability upon hosting mega-sport events and linked tourism. Yet, some impacts tend to be long-term and need further analysis. The study aims to understand both positive and negative impacts on destination sustainability resulting from hosting mega-sport events, using bibliometric analysis of published literature during the last forty-seven years, and reflecting on the recent World Cup 2022 tournament in Qatar. A total of 2519 sources containing 665 open-access articles with 10,523 citations were found using the keywords “sport tourism” and “mega-sport”. The study found various literature researching the economic impacts in-depth, less on environmental impacts, and much less on social and cultural impacts on host communities. Debates exist in the literature concerning presumed economic benefits and motivations for hosting, and less on actual results achieved. Although World Cup 2022 is considered the most expensive among previous versions, destination sustainability seems to have benefited from the event’s hosting. Socio-cultural impacts of hosting mega-sport events seem to be addressed to an extent in the Qatar version of the World Cup, as well as environmental impacts while creating a unique image for FIFA 2022 and the destination itself. FIFA showcased this as using carbon-neutral technologies to create the micro-climate including perforated walls in the eight state-of-the-art stadiums, with the incorporation of a circular modular design for energy and water efficiency and zero-waste deconstruction post-event. The global event also drew attention and respect to the local community and underprivileged groups such as people with disabilities. Further research is needed to understand the demand-side perspective including the local community of Qatar and the event’s participants, and to analyze the long-term impacts and lessons learned from the Qatari experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".