Does the legacy governance of major sporting events affect urban development? The stakeholder's perspectives on the Taipei 2017 Universiade

PurposeMajor sporting events (MSEs) have always contributed to sustainable change. Many owners and organizers of MSEs have gradually institutionalized the governance of sporting events legacies. International sports organizations and past studies currently have a vision for sporting event legacies. However, a specific legacy governance system has not been developed. Thus, this study explores stakeholder's perspectives of post-event effects and the legacy governance strategies for Taipei 2017 Universiade (TU).Design/methodology/approachThe representatives of the various stakeholders of the TU are selected and an in-depth interview approach employed. Archival material, including official organizing documents and information from the TU website, is used to increases the reliability of the results.FindingsThe benefits of MSEs are not always long-lasting. The TU has created a significant breakthrough for Taipei City, and its successful hosting has raised the image of the city and strengthened its infrastructure and national identity. Thus, the TU must leave sustainable legacies to benefit society and urban development.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the study has revealed diverse perspectives from the representatives of stakeholder groups and highlighted the uniqueness and future directions of legacy governance that the TU has produced and learned, the findings may not be fully applicable or replicated in other cities or small countries, especially given Taiwan's international political status. For further study, a systematic model can be constructed to more accurately analyze the interconnected relationship to determine the extent to which various MSE legacies are regarded as “successful” governance, and other significant aspects should be incorporated into the model as a basis for comparing traditional legacy assessment.Practical implicationsThis study developed a theoretical account of legacies and their relevance to MSEs, thus emphasizing that, in addition to “hard legacies” (concrete infrastructure or athletes' village), hosting the TU has established “soft legacies” (memories enshrined in the public's consciousness). Regarding the Taipei city government, the sustainable strategies of legacy governance after learning from the hosting experience are probably more complex. Nonetheless, hosting MSEs has been regarded as a crucial medium for urban development across the globe. It would be helpful to further this line of inquiry via the TU stakeholder perspectives regarding legacy governance concerns.Originality/valueThe study contributes to the literature by proposing feasible directions of legacy governance for a host city. As Taiwanese are concerned, the political legacy has the most profound influence among all types of the legacies generated by the TU. The followed is the infrastructure legacy, which can be utilized as the core of the sustainable development strategies of the legacy governance, thereby expanding the post-event governance of various legacies.