Euro 2020 Held during the COVID-19 Period: Budapest Residents’ Perceptions

Abstract

Organising the 2020 European Football Championship was fraught with the uncertainties of the pandemic period. Budapest hosted its four allocated matches during the postponed event without stadium capacity restrictions. Drawing on both social exchange theory (SET) and social representation theory (SRT), the study aimed to investigate how the level of fear of COVID-19 before the start of Euro 2020 influenced the perception of the tournament among residents of Budapest. Data were collected by telephone interview during the five days preceding the event based on a representative sample of Budapest residents (n = 1003, adult population aged 18 years and over), accounting for gender, age and place of residence. Cluster analysis identified three groups of residents based on fear of coronavirus: concerned, neutral and unconcerned. Although our study only investigated the opinions of residents in one host city, the relevance of the research appears compelling in that it highlights the crucial role of COVID-19 in influencing responses to the expected impact of Euro 2020. Examining the views of local residents and understanding the factors that influence their opinions play a key role in more successful and sustainable delivery of sporting events.

1. Introduction

The first signs of COVID-19 emerged in late December 2019, with the pandemic spreading worldwide in early 2020. The disease is caused by a virus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the main source of spread is human-to-human transmission between closely related persons [1,2]). Policymakers around the world have responded by taking stringent measures to contain the proliferation of the virus. The pandemic has also had a significant effect on sport [3,4], generating a series of uncertainties in the organisation of sporting events [1,5,6]. Given that such occasions can become potential super spreader events, one specific intervention has been cancellation or postponement, as has happened with the Tokyo Olympics and the 2020 European Football Championship [6,7]. Mass events, be they musical, religious or sports-related, can undoubtedly contribute to the spread of infection [6,8,9]. When COVID-19 vaccines became available, vaccination programmes were launched, while new waves of the pandemic simultaneously spread throughout the world. Therefore, during the pandemic period, the organisation of sporting events, their effects and their sustainability were threatened by the virus. Fear of infection, uncertainty and concern about health are symptoms of the pandemic [10,11,12]. According to Vegara-Ferri et al. (2021) [13], all of these directly influence the decision to attend a sporting event and the perception of its impact. Analysing the opinions of local residents in cities hosting an international sporting event provides insights into the expected and perceived impacts of the event and into plans among the population to support future such events. The literature has shown that the support of local residents is key to the success of sporting events [14,15,16,17]. It has become increasingly important to study the impacts of large-scale events and analyse local residents’ perceptions [18,19], thus distinguishing between ‘real’ and ‘perceived’ event impacts [20]. Real impacts are objective and quantifiable; that is, they can be measured with data. For example, changes in tourist numbers and commercial expenditures are often examined to determine the success of sporting events [20]. Perceived impacts are personal and subjective; in studies of such events, the opinions of the inhabitants of the country/city where the event is being held are examined as a subcategory [18].

In 2010, the Hungarian government determined that sport is a strategic sector [21] and formed a sport strategy with the organisation of international sporting events as an aim. The number of international events organised in Hungary has grown rapidly, stimulated by financial support from the state [22,23]. In recent years, the numerous international, European and world events held in Hungary, with Budapest as one of the main venues, included the FINA World Championships (2017 and 2022), the Pentathlon and Laser Run World Championships (2019) and the European Football Association’s (UEFA) 2020 European Championship in men’s football (Euro 2020). Budapest hosted four matches as part of the postponed Euro 2020.

This research examines the anticipated impacts of Euro 2020 based on opinions among residents of Budapest, a host city. Through this analysis, both the existing literature on the opinions of local residents and new research on COVID-19 and sporting events are expanded with the limitations of previous research addressed as follows:

First, a number of studies have examined the relation between attendance at Euro 2020, which was postponed to June 2021, and a rise in the number of COVID-19-infected people, with the conclusion that the event contributed to the spread of the virus [8,24,25]. However, they have not investigated opinions among local residents of host cities on the impact of Euro 2020.

Second, despite the strong focus in the literature on exploring local residents’ perceptions of mega sporting events [18], such as the Olympic Games [19,26,27] and the FIFA World Cup [28,29,30,31,32,33], limited attention has been paid to the perceptions of residents of cities that host European Football Championship matches [34]—even though this Europe-wide football tournament is often regarded as the third largest sporting event globally [35,36,37].

Third, the sample sizes in studies on local residents’ perceptions are varied [18], with study participants selected based on convenience sampling in the general absence of an appropriate sampling framework [38]. In order to minimize bias, efforts have been made to collect respondents with different socio-demographic characteristics and to collect data in various locations [30,38]. However, the present study examines the views of host city residents in a representative sample.

Fourth, although some efforts have been made to consider a number of background variables that may influence opinions on expected impacts in an effort to understand such impacts immediately before a sporting event [39,40,41], only one study took into account the effects of residents’ fear of COVID-19 on their perceptions of the impacts of such events [13]. Vegara-Ferri and colleagues (2021) [13] reviewed the social impact of a professional cycling event on a local community, taking into account how fear of the virus influenced local residents’ perceptions. Thus, to date, there is limited literature on how fear of the virus influences the perceptions of local residents in a city hosting a particular sporting event. This study focuses on a well-known sporting event, Euro 2020, specifically, it examines the perceptions of a representative sample of the local residents in one of the host cities, Budapest, immediately before the start of the matches, taking into consideration how fear of the virus affects local perceptions.

This particular research is not directly related to the concepts of sustainability, sustainable development or sustainable sports tourism (e.g., [42,43,44,45]. Consequently, the main goal of the study is not to analyse the different dimensions of sustainability, but to reflect on the sustainability of future sporting events in general, taking the viewpoints of local residents into consideration. It is argued that how local residents react and how their perceptions are influenced by fear of COVID-19 play a critical role in the continuous and therefore sustainable staging of large international sporting events, such as Euro 2020, in the context of a health crisis.

The following six sections provide a brief literature review on local residents’ perceptions, followed by methodology, empirical results and our conclusions. The paper concludes with a discussion and remarks on limitations.

2. Background

2.1. Perceived Impacts and Residents’ Perceptions

Major international sporting events are known to affect the economic and social situation of the host country or city [17,27,46,47], with both positive and negative aspects [48]. In recent decades, the perception among local communities of sporting events in their cities has become a central issue in the scholarly community [15,49].

Perceived impacts have been measured before, during and after events or over several time periods [18], depending on the researcher’s decision [19]. In the present study, the authors focused on impacts anticipated before the event. In other words, residents can only predict their potential experiences before an event takes place because it has not yet occurred. Therefore, they can only express their expectations or speculate about the possible positive and negative impacts of the event. They thus judge the expected effects associated with the event based on what they think will happen, which consequently either influences their positive, negative or both attitudes towards it [50]. In the present study, the authors referred to the pre-event effects as ‘expected impacts’. According to Bull and Lovell (2007) [40] and Vetitnev and Bobina (2017) [51], the success of sporting events also requires an understanding of the opinions of local residents prior to the event, which involves collecting pre-event data at the planning stage. According to a number of researchers, such measurements can reduce or even prevent the impact of factors that may negatively influence the perceptions of locals during the event [26,39].

Although there is no universally accepted framework for analysing the perceived impacts of sporting events, a multidimensional, integrated approach is generally adopted, with both positive and negative elements examined [19,20,52].

There are certain common, recurring dimensions within which local residents’ perceptions are examined, such as economic and tourism benefits [16,31,53], which may potentially boost local businesses or tourism in the host city, for example [52]. Another common dimension is social benefits [19] generated by a sporting event and tied to such concepts as ‘psychic income’ (i.e., the ‘feel-good factor’) [28,54,55,56]; social capital (i.e., community connectedness) [28], national pride [57], community cohesion [58] and happiness [59]. In addition, the disorder and conflict dimension measures the extent to which an event disrupts residents’ daily lives [19], mainly in terms of traffic and parking problems caused by the event [52,53]. Further, the safety/security risk dimension focuses on people’s perception of safety/security or the lack of it [19], such as football hooliganism and the emergence of protests [33], as well as the threat of terrorism [52]. Some authors have looked for links between residents’ perceptions and support for a particular sporting event [14,26,29]. Questions about behavioural intentions tied to an event usually focus on support for the event and plans to host it in the future [13,53,60,61]. It is thus these commonly used constructs that serve as the basis for this study.

In their literature review, Polcsik and Perényi (2022) [18] provide an overview of the impacts already examined in previous literature on the positive and negative impacts of events on host local communities. The relevance of impacts varies depending on the context in which they are used (type of sporting event and host city characteristics).

In general, residents of cities hosting sporting events have positive views of the benefits of tourism development [51,52] and city marketing [30,53]. A positive image is commonly presented in relation to improvement in the image of the country/city [30,31,40]. Sporting events are also often perceived to showcase cultural heritage and enhance a sense of community pride and national identity [28,39,62]. Positive cross-cultural exchanges of values and experiences between (sports) tourists and locals have also been reported [27,33].

Negative perceived impacts in previous studies have included the consequences of increased vehicle traffic, congestion and parking problems due to the event [30,31,53]. Concerns about safety/security problems (hooliganism and terrorism) among local residents have also been reported [32,36,63]. Further, concerns have been expressed about increased investment costs [51], mainly related to publicly funded stadium improvements [33]. In addition to higher taxes, the maintenance costs of new facilities and the perception of low occupancy rates following an event have also raised concerns among residents of host cities [14,51].

Expected impacts are influenced by a number of factors. The literature points to differences in the opinions of various socio-demographic groups. Evaluations of impacts have often varied, with differences found for gender, age and education [64,65,66,67]. Different segments of the population therefore perceive impacts associated with sporting events differently [68]. In addition, interest in the event [69], participation in the tournament as a spectator [64] and involvement in sports [70] are also identified as influencing factors in residents’ perceptions. In the literature on the perceived impact of sporting events, cluster analysis has been used to identify and examine subgroups of residents with different perceptions of the impact of events [27,65,71,72,73,74]. Since the emergence of the pandemic, fear of COVID-19 has also emerged as an influencing factor in residents’ opinions of these events [13].

2.2. Social Exchange Theory and Social Representation Theory

Social exchange theory (SET; Ap, 1992; Emerson, 1976 [75,76]) and social representation theory (SRT; Moscovici, 1982 [77]) are often used to assess the social impacts of sporting events on local residents [30,46,64]. Ap (1992) [75] describes SET as ‘a general sociological theory concerned with understanding the exchange of resources between individuals and groups in an interaction situation’ (p. 668). The theory assumes that people are only willing to engage in an exchange if they believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages [76]. According to this theory, in the context of the impacts of events, people tend to support an event if they feel that its impacts will be beneficial [26,78]. When individuals perceive the impacts as positive, they are willing to engage in exchanges or supportive behaviours [52,79]. In contrast, when they perceive that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, they do not attempt to engage in any exchanges [54]. Concerns about COVID-19 and the likelihood of an increased number of infected individuals can be interpreted as a cost. In this sense, if residents are concerned, they will evaluate the costs of the event as being greater than the benefits. Conversely, if the level of concern is lower, the associated costs will be viewed as being lower and the expected benefits higher.

SRT is the other dominant theory in the literature [27]. Social representations are ‘systems of preconceptions, images and values that have their own cultural meanings and persist independently of individual experience’ (Moscovici, 1982, p. 122 [77]). Representations are mechanisms by which people seek to understand the world around them, drawing on their prior experiences and knowledge [80]. In the context of sporting events, a number of studies (e.g., [67,71,73]) have used SRT to explain similarities and differences within community subgroups in their perceptions of the impacts of these events. These studies identified subgroups within the host community. In this research, the population is segmented based on fear of COVID-19. Previous studies have found differences in fear of the virus across various socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender and education) within members of a community [2,11,81]. Based on previous research, we used SET in this study to investigate the perceptions of Euro 2020 among Budapest residents. We also drew on SRT in performing a cluster analysis, which makes it possible to categorise residents based on their concerns about COVID-19.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Context (Euro 2020 and Budapest)

In 2021, UEFA hosted Euro 2020 in eleven European countries with a geographically expansive and unique format [82]. Due to the virus situation, numerous sporting events around the world had to be cancelled or rescheduled [1,6], thus UEFA postponed Euro 2020 by one year and finally held it between 11 June and 11 July 2021. The dates of the four football matches in Budapest were: Hungary vs. Portugal on 15 June, Hungary vs. France on 19 June, France vs. Portugal on 23 June and Netherlands vs. Czech Republic on 27 June. All of them were played in the Puskás Arena, an outdoor stadium. Budapest was awarded the right to host Euro 2020 in 2014. The dates of the matches followed the end of the third wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Hungary, with the peak period lasting from February to April 2021. Prior to the matches in Budapest, the national seven-day incidence of COVID-19 showed a steady downward trend, with a seven-day average of 128 on 15 June. As the matches were played in eleven different cities, the COVID-19 rules on stadium attendance fell within the competence of the host government. The following requirements were thus set at Euro 2020 football matches in Budapest: a mobile match ticket, identity document, coronavirus wristband and mask. It was not mandatory to wear a mask inside the stadium, but it was strongly recommended. Hungarian visitors were only given a wristband if they could produce a Hungarian certificate of vaccination. For international supporters, a negative coronavirus PCR test (conducted within 72 h before the start of the match) or a certificate of vaccination was required. Body temperature was also taken on entry to the venue. Uniquely to Budapest, no restrictions were imposed on spectator capacity, with nearly 60,000 people attending each of the four matches.

3.2. Data Collection

Data collection for the survey was conducted by a Hungarian polling company with a telephone questionnaire survey. The data collection took place in June 2021, five days before the start of the Euro 2020 matches. Stratified sampling was performed based on demographic variables (place, gender and age) for Budapest from the census to establish a representative view of 1003 (n = 1003) local residents. Data were transmitted to the researchers without respondent identifiers. Budapest is the capital of Hungary, with a total population of 1,750,000 people, representing 18% of the total population of the country. Forty-five per cent of the respondents were male, and 55% were female. The mean age of the participants was M = 47.8 ± 0.56 years (SD = 17.78). In terms of educational attainment, most of the residents had only completed high school (65%). The majority of the survey participants were employed (63%) or economically inactive and retired (24%) (

Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.

Variables	N = 1003 N (%)
Gender
Male	448 (45%)
Female	555 (55%)
Education Level
Elementary School	177 (18%)
High School	657 (65%)
Graduated	169 (17%)
Age
18–29	196 (19.5%)
30–39	209 (21%)
40–49	146 (14.5%)
50–59	151 (15%)
60–69	147 (15%)
70+	154 (15%)
Occupation
Employed	631 (63%)
Self-employed	57 (6%)
Student	32 (3%)
Retired	246 (24%)
Others	37 (4%)
The intention of following the matches
Yes	540 (54%)
No	464 (46%)
Participation in sport
Yes	369 (37%)
No	634 (63%)
Football fan
Yes	483 (48%)
No	520 (52%)

). Comparing the Hungarian Central Statistical Office polling data with the sample data, we found statistically insignificant, marginal differences. For example, 1% differences were detected and accepted for the purposes of the analysis in some age groups and for the female population.

3.3. Measurements

An integrated approach was used to develop the questionnaire, for which instruments involved in international research [19,30,32,34,52] were adapted to the Hungarian context. The 22 items (ten positive statements, nine negative statements and three items related to support) were measured (

Table 2. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis and reliability.

Variables	λ	M	SD	α	CR	AVE
Economic and tourism benefits		3.88	0.99	0.91	0.88	0.59
The event will enhance the image of Budapest.	0.844	3.93	1.15
The event will enable Budapest to become more well-known wordwide.	0.842	3.95	1.13
The event will enable Budapest to introduce its cultural values.	0.826	3.90	1.14
The event will improve the hospitality of the residents.	0.705	3.67	1.26
The event will be beneficial for local businesses.	0.609	3.98	1.15
Social interactions		3.56	1.11	0.92	0.88	0.60
The event will strengthen my sense of belonging in the community.	0.795	3.54	1.28
The event will increase my feelings of national pride.	0.778	3.67	1.20
The collective participation/celebration will strengthen my feeling of belonging to the community.	0.777	3.63	1.23
The event will provide me opportunities to meet new people.	0.773	3.32	1.41
The participation of my national team will enhance the pride I feel for my country.	0.761	3.63	1.23
Support for the sporting event		3.27	1.28	0.94	0.91	0.77
I support that Budapest hosts other major sporting events in the future.	0.902	3.23	1.34
I would like Budapest to host football European Chanpionships in the future.	0.900	3.28	1.35
All in all I support that Budapest hosts football European Championships.	0.832	3.23	1.37
Traffic problems		3.97	1.00	0.91	0.93	0.81
I will experience increased hardship for finding parking spaces.	0.904	3.99	1.07
I will experience that the event will cause traffic congestions.	0.904	3.99	1.08
I will experience increased road closures.	0.895	3.93	1.11
Security risks		2.62	1.23	0.88	0.92	0.78
I will be concerned about my safety (vandalism, theft, burglary).	0.899	2.54	1.34
I will feel unsafe because of potential terrorist attacks due to the event.	0.897	2.50	1.42
I will experience hooliganism.	0.860	2.80	1.34
Economic costs		3.99	0.88	0.64	0.77	0.53
The event will have increased costs.	0.795	4.07	1.11
The stadium will be out of use after the event.	0.737	3.84	1.22
The event will bring along increased prices (rent fees, services).	0.649	4.01	1.42

Note: λ = Factor loading; α = Cronbach’s Alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

) on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). They represent six constructs described in the literature review: economic and tourism benefits (five items), social interactions (five items), traffic problems (three items), safety/security risks (three items), economic risks (three items) and sporting event support (three items). On this scale, where relevant and applicable (as regards social interactions, traffic problems and safety/security risks), all the items were phrased in terms of either ‘I’, ‘me’ or in combination [19]. Event support was measured with three items drawn from previous studies [26,29,53]. The questionnaire also included basic demographic data, such as gender, age, education and occupation, and measured variables relevant to the research, such as sports participation (yes–no), football fandom (yes–no) and plans to follow the event (yes–no). The scale was completed with two statements related to concerns about COVID-19 and fear of increased infection: ‘How concerned are you about the COVID-19 outbreak?’ and ‘To what extent are you concerned that the event will increase the number of people infected with COVID-19?’. These items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Since the data collection took place five days before the start of Euro 2020, the survey text was written in the future tense to capture the expected impact before the event.

3.4. Data Analysis

A principal component factor (PCA) analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to examine the underlying dimensions. Cronbach’s α was employed for reliability analysis to confirm the internal consistency of the resulting factors. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to verify the structure and reliability of the scale. Convergent and discriminant validities were evaluated with composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). Following Hu and Bentler (1999) [83] and Kline (2015) [84], we evaluated the goodness of fit with the comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.90), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI ≥ 0.90), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08). Discriminant validity was also assessed by comparing whether the square root of AVE for each construct was greater than the correlation coefficients between the respective factors [85].

A cluster analysis was conducted to identify possible groups of residents with similar views as regards concerns about COVID-19 and an increase in the number of infected people associated with the event. Following previous studies (e.g., [13,27]), we used a non-hierarchical K-means method to provide a more ideal analysis of the results [86]. Chi-square tests were used for qualitative variables and a MANOVA test for continuous variables; effect size [87] was also calculated. Preliminary analyses were conducted to check conditions for MANOVA. Assumptions of normality, linearity and homogeneity of variance were satisfied. The means of the cumulative variables for the expected impact dimensions were compared using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test, as none of these variables were normally distributed, as confirmed by the significant results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. The significance level was established at a value of p ≤ 0.05.

4. Results

4.1. Result of Factor Analysis (PCA and CFA)

The sample was adequate to perform factor analysis procedures, as indicated by both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value for sample adequacy (0.899) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BTS) (χ²/df = 15,159 (231); p < 0.001). Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation resulted in the identification of six factors with 22 elements, which explained 78.6% of the variance. Table 2 shows the factor structure, the factor loadings of the items and Cronbach’s α as an indicator of internal consistency. The factor loadings exceeded the threshold of 0.5 and ranged from 0.609 to 0.904, which is an acceptable value [86]. The CR and AVE values calculated for the six constructs indicated reliability and convergent validity, with the CR values ranging from 0.77 to 0.93 and the AVE values ranging from 0.53 to 0.81 [86,88] (Table 2 and

Table 3. Discriminant validity and correlations.

Dimensions	1 (r2)	2 (r2)	3 (r3)	4 (r4)	5(r5)	6 (r6)
(1) ETB	0.771
(2) SI	0.055	0.777
(3) SUP	0.176	0.202	0.878
(4) TP	0.118	0.032	0.045	0.901
(5) SR	0.182	0.032	0.141	0.257	0.886
(6) EC	0.164	0.130	0.063	0.105	0.110	0.729

Note: ETB = Economic and tourism benefits; SI = Social interactions; SUP = Support for the sporting event; TP =Traffic problems; SR = Security risks; EC= Economic costs. Diagonal: AVE. r²: squared correlation.

). Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 935 (194), p < 0.001, CFI = 0.951, TLI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.064, SRMR = 0.054).

4.2. Descriptive Results

The vast majority of respondents (87.6%) knew that there would be several football matches organised in Budapest, while 53.8% indicated that they would be involved in some way with the event itself. A total of 32% of the locals planned to follow the event on television at home, while various community venues, such as bars and restaurants, fan zones and the stadium were also considered; 5.4% of respondents, however, expressed their intention to attend the event at the stadium. The degree of fear of COVID-19 influenced plans to follow the tournament, particularly in relation to watching matches at community venues with greater risk in terms of COVID-19, as well as having a significant deterrent effect, with 11% of the total sample indicating that they planned to avoid watching matches at the venue or in community spaces because of the virus.

The distributions of responses to the expected impacts are shown in

Table 4. Results from impact statements.

	Frequencies (%)
Variables	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Economic and tourism benefits
The event will enhance the image of Budapest.	6.1	5.6	16.3	33.3	38.8
The event will enable Budapest to become more well-known wordwide.	5.5	5.8	15.5	34.7	38.6
The event will enable Budapest to introduce its cultural values.	6.0	6.1	16.5	35.1	36.4
The event will improve the hospitality of the residents.	8.7	8.8	21.2	29.1	32.1
The event will be beneficial for local businesses.	5.7	5.5	16.1	30.6	42.1
Social interactions
The event will strengthen my sense of belonging in the community.	9.5	12.1	21.9	27.6	28.9
The event will increase my feelings of national pride.	8.4	7.7	22.9	30.6	30.4
The collective participation/celebration will strengthen my feeling of belonging to the community.	8.3	10.2	22.2	31.0	28.3
The event will provide me opportunities to meet new people.	17.4	10.2	21.0	25.8	25.5
The participation of my national team will enhance the pride I feel for my country.	8.6	8.7	23.6	29.5	29.6
Support for the sporting event
I support that Budapest hosts other major sporting events in the future.	14.2	13.9	25	23.6	23.4
I would like Budapest to host football European Championships in the future.	14.4	13.7	24.4	24.0	23.5
Overall I support that Budapest hosts football European Championships.	15.5	14.5	24.8	21.3	23.8
Traffic problems
I will experience increased hardship for finding parking spaces.	3.4	6.1	19.3	30.8	40.4
I will experience that the event will cause traffic congestions.	4.0	5.0	19.3	31.6	40.1
I will experience increased road closures.	4.5	6.5	19.3	31.2	38.5
Security risks
I will be concerned about my safety (vandalism, theft, burglary).	31.3	19.1	24.2	15.4	10.0
I will feel unsafe because of potential terrorist attacks due to the event.	24.4	17.2	24.4	22.1	11.8
I will experience hooliganism.	37.0	15.8	19.4	16.0	11.8
Economic cost
The event will have increased costs.	3.7	5.5	18.3	24.8	47.6
The stadium will be out of use after the event.	6.3	8.9	19	26.5	39.3
The event will bring along increased prices (rent fees, services).	6.1	4.4	14.9	31.6	43.0

Note: All items were assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

. In the economic and tourism benefits factor, 73.3% of respondents ‘mostly’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the event would provide an opportunity to raise the international profile of Budapest and showcase its cultural heritage (71.5%), thus building a positive image of the city (72.5%). The majority of respondents believed that the event would benefit Euro 2020 business partners, with 72.7% of respondents ‘mostly’ or ‘strongly agreeing’ that the event would bring advantages (financial gains and publicity) to local businesses.

In terms of social interactions, more than half of local residents surveyed believed that the European Championship would help bring local communities together (56.5% mostly or strongly agree) and promote a sense of national pride (61% mostly or strongly agree).

The perception of statements on traffic problems was very strong compared to other sets of questions. In response to these three statements, more than 70% of respondents ‘mostly’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the event would have negative impacts, for example, on traffic or road closures.

Respondents conveyed no negative views on statements measuring perceptions of safety/security risks, with surprisingly only 10–12% of participants expressing concerns.

Prior to the event, residents believed that Euro 2020 would bring significant benefits to the city, but, at the same time, they considered the costs of organising the event to be high, with over 70% of respondents ‘mostly’ or ‘strongly agreeing’ that there would be excessive expenditures associated with preparations for the event. They also expected a similar increase in prices. As regards the future use of the infrastructure involved, most respondents expected the stadium to remain unused after the event (65.8% ‘mostly’ or ‘strongly agree’). It is important to underline that the economic costs were rated significantly greater overall than the economic and tourism benefits (p ≤ 0.001) (

Table 5. Comparison of the cumulative average values of the dimensions.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
(1)ETB		p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p = 0.005	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
(2)SI	11.868		p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
(3)SUP	14.039	7.387		p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
(4)TP	2.817	8.047	12.182		p < 0.001	p = 0.768
(5)SR	18.643	14.78	9.979	22.142		p < 0.001
(6)EC	3.356	9.062	13.245	0.295	20.46

Note: ETB = Economic and tourism benefits; SI = Social interactions; SUP = Support for the sporting event; TP =Traffic problems; SR = Security risks; EC = Economic costs. Under the diagonal: values of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Standardized Test Statistic. Over the diagonal: significance values; the significance level was established at a value of p ≤ 0.05.

).

In response to statements on support for hosting Euro 2020 and future European and world events in Budapest, participants were supportive of the football championship and future events tied to both football (47.5%) and other sports (47%).

4.3. Results of the Cluster Analysis; Identification and Profiling of Groups

The cluster analysis was based on fear of COVID-19 and concerns about the spread of infection.

The K-means function separated the groups in a statistically significant way (Pillai’s trace: 0.261, F = 22.61, p ≤ 0.001; Wilks’ lambda: 0.749, F = 23.45; p ≤ 0.001). Cluster 1, labelled ‘concerned’, accounted for 41.1% of the sample and represented residents who were most concerned about the virus and the growing number of COVID-19 cases (M = 4.56 ± 0.25); cluster 2 was referred to as ‘neutral’ for the level of indifferent concern (M = 3.06 ± 0.18) and was characteristic of 32.3% of the sample; and cluster 3 was categorised as ‘unconcerned’ and was representative of 26.6% of residents, with members showing the least concern about the virus (M = 1.49 ± 0.41).

Table 6. Cluster analysis on the differences among the groups.

	Frequencies (%)
Gender (χ2(2) = 25.16; p = 0.001; C2 = 0.160)	Concerned	Neutral	Unconcerned
Male	38.9	41.4	57.8
Female	61.1	58.6	42.2
Age (χ2(10) = 25.18; p = 0.05; C2 = 0.113)
18–29	17.5	18.8	24.3
30–39	20.0	18.5	24.0
40–49	11.1	16.3	17.5
50–59	16.0	15.0	14.1
60–69	17.0	16.0	9.9
70+	18.5	15.4	10.3
Education Level (χ2(4) = 54.52; p = 0.001; C2 = 0.166)
Elementary School	28.1	11.6	9.9
High School	59.1	71.5	66.9
Graduated	12.8	16.9	23.2
Occupation (χ2(8) = 32.19; p = 0.001; C2 = 0.128)
Employed	62.3	63.0	65.8
Self-employed	2.5	5.0	9.5
Student	2.2	2.8	5.3
Retired	29.3	24.8	16.7
Others	3.7	4.4	2.7
The intention of following the matches (χ2(2) = 19.6; p = 0.001; C2 = 0.238)
Yes	43.4	51.7	72.6
No	56.7	48.3	27.4
Participation in sport (χ2(2) = 10.58; p = 0.005; C2 = 0.104)
Yes	33.3	34.5	45.0
No	66.7	65.5	55.0
Football fan (χ2(2) = 42.15; p = 0.001; C2 = 0.207)
Yes	39.2	46.4	64.6
No	60.8	53.6	35.4

Note: C²: Cramér’s V.

shows the socio-demographic profile of residents according to the cluster they fall within. The unconcerned group has a significantly higher proportion of males than the other two, with 37% more males than females. In terms of age composition, it is significantly the youngest (mean age = 43.9 years; SD = 17.8), with almost half in the 18–29 and 30–39 age groups. The cluster has a higher-than-average share of university-educated members (23.2%), but the majority have only completed high school. Almost two-thirds are employed, but a higher-than-average proportion are also self-employed and students. They are significantly the most open to sport and to following the Euro 2020 events. Forty-five per cent of the group play sport, and almost 40% indicated that they plan to watch the Euro 2020 matches as part of some kind of community (at a venue, in the fun zone or at a bar or restaurant) despite the pandemic.

The concerned cluster is dominated by women, accounting for 61.1% of the group. The average age is 49.8 years (SD = 18.1). Compared to the other groups, this is the cluster with the lowest educational attainment, and, although the majority has only completed high school, the group has a significantly higher-than-average proportion of people with only a primary education (28.1%) and a lower-than-average proportion of university graduates (12.8%). It is the least interested in Euro 2020. More than half of the members (56.7%) have no interest in the event at all, and only less than a tenth indicated that they would like to watch the matches as part of some kind of community.

The neutral cluster showed a profile similar to the concerned group in terms of gender, age, sporting habits and attachment to football. A total of 71.5% of the cluster had only completed high school, and 16.9% had a university degree. Their plans to follow Euro 2020 matches fall below those of the unconcerned group, but they are more open to following the event than the concerned cluster. A fifth of the group indicated that they plan to watch the matches at a venue or as part of some kind of community.

The MANOVA test showed that the independent variable ‘COVID-19 fear level’ had a statistically significant effect on residents’ views in terms of their perceptions of expected impacts and support for sporting events (Pillai’s trace: 0.261; F = 22.61, p ≤ 0.001; Wilks’ lambda: 0.749; F = 23.45; p ≤ 0.001). There were significant differences between clusters in the dimensions of expected impacts and support, such as economic and tourism benefits (F = 18.31; p ≤ 0.001), social interactions (F = 21.23; p ≤ 0.001), traffic problems (F = 30.16; p ≤ 0.001), safety/security risks (F = 41.32; p ≤ 0.001) and economic costs (F = 10.73; p ≤ 0.001), as well as support for the sporting event (F = 4.21; p = 0.015) (

Table 7. Cluster analysis of Budapest residents.

	1.Concerned (41.1%)		2. Neutral (32.3%)		3. Unconcerned (26.6%)		F	p Value	n2
Dimensions	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Economic and tourism benefits	3.63	1.24	3.84	1.08	4.25	1.12	18.3	0.000 •••	0.39
Social interactions	3.19	1.31	3.61	1.17	4.05	1.17	21.2	0.000 •••	0.45
Support for the sporting event	2.97	1.45	3.20	1.22	3.66	1.24	4.20	0.000 •••	0.09
Traffic problems	4.27	1.01	3.92	1.02	3.52	1.17	30.2	0.000 •••	0.62
Security risks	2.84	1.48	2.89	1.18	1.94	1.16	41.3	0.000 ••	0.83
Economic costs	4.11	1.12	3.83	1.12	4.00	1.19	10.7	0.000 •	0.23

Note: ••• Differences between all groups; •• GGroup 3 is different from group 1 and 2; • Group 2 is different from group 1 and 3. η²: Partial eta squared. Effect size 0.01 (small), 0.06 (medium), 0.14 (large) by Cohen (1988).

).

The values for the expected positive impacts (economic and tourism benefits and social interactions) as regards the sporting event support and traffic problems factors were significantly different for all three clusters. In each case, the unconcerned cluster had the most positive attitudes, while the concerned cluster had the most significantly negative expectations as regards the impacts of the event. Safety/security risks were also perceived most positively by the unconcerned group, while the concerned and neutral groups shared similar views on this issue. Importantly, Euro 2020-related expenditures were regarded with equal negativity by both the concerned and unconcerned groups. On this issue, the opinion among members of the neutral group is significantly more favourable than that of the other two clusters.

Compared to the other clusters, members of the unconcerned group responded most favourably to both the positive impact and negative impact statements, with the exception of the economic costs of the event factor. They had significantly more positive expectations for economic and tourism impacts than for traffic and safety/security risks and the level of costs associated with the event.

Members of the concerned cluster had the most unfavourable expectations out of all the clusters for all the groups of impacts. Members of this cluster are the least supportive of organising similar events in Budapest. They rate the risk of traffic problems and the excessive costs of the event significantly higher than the expected economic and tourism benefits and positive social interactions.

Expectations among members of the neutral cluster are close to the average opinion of the whole sample in five of the six groups of impacts. Only for event-related costs did they have significantly more positive expectations than the other two clusters.

5. Discussion

There is growing research interest in the perceived effects of mega sporting events; however, studies on the European Football Championship remain scarce. The main objective of this research was to fill that gap and to explore the opinions of local residents on the expected impacts of Euro 2020 held in Budapest in June 2021. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate the opinions of local residents in relation to European Championship matches both prior to the event among residents of the host city and on a representative sample, taking into account the role of fear of COVID-19 in influencing their perceptions of the expected impact.

The questionnaire and factor structure of the present research were certified, consistent with scales developed by previous researchers, adapted to the Hungarian context and specified for the residents of the Euro 2020 host city. The results of the fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that confirm the structure of the questionnaire showed a good fit. Most of the values reached the ideal goodness-of-fit values established in the literature.

Plans among local residents to attend these events are noteworthy given the limited capacity of the stadium and the fact that it was only possible to go to matches with a certificate of vaccination or negative COVID test results (<72 h). Budapest residents primarily planned to watch the matches on television, similarly to residents of Warsaw, Poland, one of the host cities for Euro 2012 [34].

The overwhelming majority of Budapest residents believed that the event could benefit the city; the main reason provided was promotion of the city and the opportunity to showcase its cultural heritage. They also expected the event to generate revenue for local businesses. The findings of previous research are consistent with our results, where a similar trend in economic and tourism benefits is observed in research on other tournaments and football events in particular. Consistent with the results of our present study, the image building and branding benefits for host cities are certainly an expected and perceived benefit even in studies where authors point out locals’ concerns about high hosting costs [30,33,34,47].

There is also a range of significant expected social benefits in terms of national pride and providing a community experience. Sociocultural perceptions scored similarly, and several authors have reported on important social and cultural benefits expected and perceived by residents during the FIFA World Cup and Euro 2012, among other events [28,29,30,34].

Budapest residents in the survey expected inconvenience in terms of traffic jams and road closures; this is the factor that residents perceived as the most negative, which is consistent with findings tied to the Tour de France [53] and the Olympic Games [26]. Residents were more concerned about negative effects as the start of the event approached, especially when statements were worded with either ‘I’, ‘me’ or in combination, as suggested by Taks et al. (2020) [19]. Traffic restrictions due to fans marching in connection with football matches have also been reported [30,31,33]. According to the Hungarian Football Association, the Puskás Arena in Budapest welcomed around 60,000 fans during each match, generating additional vehicular and significant pedestrian traffic in addition to the city’s normal vehicle traffic. As a result, public transport capacity was increased, and access to the stadium was coordinated with road closures and a police presence.

Our results showed that a significant proportion of Budapest residents were not concerned about the threat of terrorism or hooliganism at all. We suspect that this is explained by the fact that the public discourse before the matches was dominated by the pandemic situation, overshadowing news about migration and the terrorist threat, nor has research on the perceptions of local residents identified safety/security risks tied to sporting events as a critical issue [27,89]. At the same time, a lack of confidence in guaranteeing safety/security at large-scale events has been observed [90]. Klauser (2013) [36] and Ludvigsen (2020) [63] emphasise the importance of safety/security threats and preventive measures in organising mega sporting events.

Public spending to finance infrastructure construction can lead to resources being diverted from other areas [49], thus often prompting local residents to make their voices heard, even in the form of protests [33]. In the case of Budapest, central funding has been used to rebuild the Puskás Arena. With its new facility, the historic stadium can host the world’s most prestigious (sporting) events in the near future and satisfy event management needs. At the same time, our empirical results show that Budapest residents have significant concerns about the construction and organisation costs and future use of the facility. Despite the fact that, according to Ludvigsen (2019) [82], the new Euro 2020 event management strategy represents a significantly lower financial burden and risk not only for host cities, but also in terms of stadium projects, Budapest was subject to quite different planning requirements than host countries and cities in previous years, as the matches were mostly held in existing sports facilities. For Euro 2012, for example, co-hosting countries had to comply with the then strict UEFA standards with four stadiums in Poland and four in Ukraine [91].

Nearly half of the respondents expressed support for staging Euro 2020 and other European and world events in Hungary. Presumably, the expected benefits had a positive impact on residents’ support for Euro 2020 and their willingness to host future events, which is consistent with the findings of Balduck et al. (2011) [53] and Ma and Kaplanidou (2017) [92] that local residents’ support for events is strongly dependent on their expected and perceived benefits.

An important additional contribution of the research is that it analyses differences in residents’ perceptions by cluster and highlights the role of fear of COVID-19 in influencing residents’ perceptions. The cluster analysis divided the Budapest residents into ‘concerned’, ‘neutral’ and ‘unconcerned’, based on SRT. The MANOVA test showed that the level of fear of COVID-19 influenced residents’ perceptions within dimensions of expected impacts as well as in their support for the event. Statistically significant differences were found between the clusters formed. Responses to all of the dimensions of impact presented above were influenced by the degree of fear of COVID-19 and the individuals’ cluster membership. The perception of the expected benefits of the event is highest among those who are not concerned about the virus. Similar differences of opinion were found for the expected negative effects. Among members of the local community, those who are less concerned about COVID-19 are less likely to expect the event to have negative effects. In contrast, the less concerned group expected positive impacts, while they showed greater agreement with statements about negative impacts. The results of the differences in opinion between the clusters with three different profiles are consistent with findings by Vegara-Ferri and colleagues (2021) [13]. SET may explain the results of our research, as more people believe that the sporting event may be beneficial for themselves and their city. Further, if the costs of the event are unacceptable (e.g., a new increase in the number of infected people), then their perception of the social exchange is positive.

In the responses tied to fear of COVID-19, we find differences in gender, age and education. The gender differences in particular are striking; women, for example, showed significantly more fear of COVID-19 than men. In contrast, younger individuals were relatively unafraid compared to older age groups, while those with less education demonstrated greater fear than those with more. Similar results have been reported in other studies, specifically those that focus in detail on assessing fear during the COVID-19 epidemic [2,11,81].

6. Conclusions

It was certainly difficult to plan sporting events due to the outbreak of the coronavirus. Indeed, the pandemic changed the way major sporting events were organised, managed and secured, with their sustainability also being called into question. In the light of our results, it seems that the level of fear of the virus influences the expected impact of the event among local residents. Despite the pandemic, the majority of respondents believed that the expected impacts of Euro 2020 for the economy, tourism and society would benefit the (host) community in the city and therefore had a positive perception of the associated social exchange. It seems that with security measures put in place and enforced (e.g., proof of vaccination or negative coronavirus test results), a sense of fear of COVID-19 could be handled.

Since our findings show that negative perceptions of a sporting event are formed by residents when the perceived benefits are dwarfed by the perceived costs (e.g., fear of the virus), it is worth emphasising the expected positive effects and preventive measures of the event in the communication put out by host cities and organising committees in order to reflect on or reduce the potential fear from the pandemic. The identified different groups with opinions based on fear of COVID-19 through cluster analysis may allow event organisers and policy makers to understand different segments of the community and to develop communication strategies that address all segments of society, taking into account their interests and needs.

As Budapest was one of the Euro 2020 host cities, where, in contrast to the other ten host cities, no spectator/fan restrictions were imposed on the four matches held there, it may become a model in implementing COVID-19 event regulations and in dealing with levels of fear of COVID-19 among future host cities of large international sporting events. The lessons learned from exploring the expected impact of Euro 2020 during the pandemic period may provide valuable insights into planning sporting events under similar conditions in the future. Decision-makers can make use of these findings to strategically plan risk management for such occasions in pandemic situations. In our case, the results may be used to predict the organisation of future European and world events in Budapest, in particular the 2023 World Athletics Championships.

7. Limitations and Recommendations

The limitations of this study proceed from the country-specific nature of the survey. Despite the fact that the survey of the residents of the city under examination was methodologically complete, it should be pointed out that the event itself (Euro 2020) took place in eleven European cities. Thus, the results of our study can only be interpreted in the Hungarian social context and thus have a country-specific character. First, the study was limited to Budapest residents. Second, the design and wording of the questionnaire items were adapted to the Hungarian cultural context and the type of sporting event. Although our study characterises residents’ opinions on the expected impacts of the event and their support and fears related to the COVID-19 pandemic, in future it will be worth exploring attitudes towards the factors under investigation after the event. Such an approach takes into account the thesis that local residents’ perceptions and attitudes change over time [30,64]. Specifically, therefore, future studies may consider methods that include both pre- and post-event measurements. Future research may also benefit from the use of qualitative and mixed methods to achieve methodological diversity and a more in-depth understanding of impacts. The use of qualitative methods may provide a richer knowledge of observed effects and a better insight into differences of opinion.

Due to the global changes caused by the coronavirus pandemic, it will be interesting to monitor the perceptions of the local population following the matches in Budapest. Finally, future research could examine the opinions of residents of other host cities on the perceived impacts of the event and link them to the results of this study.

Vegara-Ferri and colleagues (2021) [13] were the first to investigate the topic; however, the context of this study differs, since it examines a particular type of sporting event (a mega sporting event, Euro 2020) and Hungarian society, in the context of an event in a European capital. For example, the present study examines the expected impacts of the event immediately beforehand during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, when vaccines were already available. However, we can clearly confirm the results of Vegara-Ferri and colleagues (2021) [13] despite the fact that our study recorded data from a different event, in a different cultural context and with a different methodology and sampling method. Furthermore, we wish to stress the importance of—and encourage—future studies in this budding area of research on the perceived impacts of sporting events in the context of COVID-19.