Tottenham receive more negative coverage over its Olympic Stadium bid than West Ham

The Olympic Stadium bid has been a major talking point in UK news media, peaking towards the latter part of January. The main issue has been what legacy is left after London 2012 Olympics.

Tottenham Hotspur does not want to keep the running track around the ground and proposes to redevelop Crystal Palace as an elite athletics arena. It has large corporate backing from AEG (source: Sky News). West Ham proposes to keep the running track as part of the legacy agreement (the stadium was part of the bid being successful) and would utilise the ground not just for football, but also as a multi-sports stadium and as a concert venue. It has the backing of Newham Council for this.

Echo research focusing on tonality shows that recent online coverage centres around disapproval of the Tottenham bid, with Newham Council calling the bid "outrageous" (BBC Sport). Concerning coverage of Tottenham Hotspur, 45 per cent was negative, while just 17 per cent of coverage of West Ham was negative.

Arguments for and against Tottenham Hotspur’s proposal

Paul Sutton, head of social communications at agency Bottle PR, is in favour:

“Surely we should want what is best for London and the local community around the stadium, rather than what is best for athletics or football? Kelly Holmes has said that a running track has to be a lasting legacy of the 2012 stadium as ‘when the Olympics are gone we’ll remember the glory of what happened in that stadium‘. Admirable in principle, but when will we realistically ever see 80,000 people watching an athletics event again?

“What’s the point in keeping a running track inside a huge stadium that’ll have no atmosphere for athletics events? If Tottenham is proposing to redevelop Crystal Palace into a purpose-built and up-to-date athletics stadium as part of its bid to turn the 2012 stadium into a football venue, what’s the harm? It strikes me that this is the best solution for all concerned. And I say that as a Spurs fan who would far rather see the club staying in North London.”

Jeremy Walters, independent PR consultant, is against:

“The West Ham versus Tottenham debate should never have been allowed to happen and is a reflection of poor planning and terrible management. Lord Coe, in his Singapore speech before the final vote, talked about the athletics legacy of the games of which the Olympics Stadium is a key part. The UK, four years later, simply cannot renege on its original stadium proposal without seriously damaging its integrity and reputation. If the stadium does eventually go to Tottenham, Lord Coe should resign out of principle.

“The running track around the Olympic Stadium will be a hindrance to West Ham fans and dilute the atmosphere. However, In Rome the fans of Lazio and Roma share the same type of stadium so it’s hardly a world-first. The extra revenue and larger capacity that West Ham will gain should allow it to buy better players, thereby increasing attendance and creating more revenue, etc. It’s a virtuous circle. It can work, it’s just not optimal, that’s all.

“My view? Tottenham shouldn’t get it because scrapping the running track was not the original Olympic plan that was sold to the world.”

Methodology

Echo Sonar looked at all UK online sources to compare West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur’s coverage against coverage generated by the Olympic Stadium only. Metrics included share of voice, daily trend and tonality. The research period was 1 January to 31 January 2011. This week's research results were analysed by Paul Hammond.