Many of us will still remember the general excitement in July 2012 when Danny Boyle’s magical Opening Ceremony played out on our screens, and the Queen parachuted out of a helicopter, accompanied by James Bond, to officially open the 2012 London Olympics. The ceremony and the ensuing games would bring the biggest ever medal haul for Team GB, and much joy to the public.

The other thing they brought much of was consultation. The preparation for the games reshaped large parts of London, and after the games, many of the facilities have themselves been adapted into new spaces and communities. Both involved considerable (and not always uncontroversial) consultation processes.

This summer sees the opening of the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, and like their Olympic forebear, the organising committee have been keen to emphasise that community engagement lies at the heart of the process. It’s not always been entirely plain sailing, though for the scale of the event we have perhaps seen less controversy than we might usually expect to.

At the last hurdle however, a problem may have arisen. A new report commissioned by the Birmingham Race Impact Group has criticised the organising committee over an alleged lack of engagement with the diverse communities around game sites. The lack of engagement has, it’s claimed placed at risk the claim to be a “Games for Everyone”. The organising committee dispute the characterisation, though have promised to look at the recommendations made in the report.

Major sporting events, particularly those with aspirations beyond sport, usually around community enhancement and wider social improvement often find themselves at the sharp end of criticisms about their consultation and engagement processes. The biggest sinner on this has always been the Olympics, where huge changes are made, often with an eye to some sort of Olympic legacy, with usually fails to materialise in any sort of long-term way.

The report from BRIG highlights one of the key reasons that these sorts of events are at particularly high risk of challenge and disagreement. When cities bid for such events, more often than not it’s pitched as an opportunity to redevelop a deprived area of their locality. For London 2012, this was areas of East London, which had long suffered from underinvestment, and generally followed the same pattern set by other Olympic events across the world.

Many of the sites then tend to be inhabited by minority or other disadvantaged groups, who have less political power and fall broadly under what we would call ‘seldom heard’ parts of society. Whilst plans and documents published before events usually place significant emphasis on special efforts to engage these communities, putting this into practice can be significantly more difficult, especially if planning is being led by businesspeople, rather than those with direct experience of community engagement and transformation.

A lack of political power is not the sole reason that sporting events often sail on troubled waters. Any project of the scale that international events must operate at is necessarily going to involve a significant amount of disruption and change to work. This challenge finds a particularly keen expression when there is a need to build not only directly related buildings such as stadiums and arenas, but also the support facilities, media centres and athletes’ villages required to properly host. This focus means there is more likely to be controversy, something focused even more by the third factor.

The third factor is simple. Not everyone is a sportsperson, or even a fan of sports. If you’re not, then it might not be entirely unreasonable to ask why all the disruption is necessary, and if it’s worth it (particularly if, as usually happens, the always planned ‘legacy’ does not subsequently deliver post-event). Whilst for events like the Olympics, which carry a degree of national prestige with them, and can become somewhat all-consuming in the media, can soften even the hardest of anti-sporting hearts, less prominent events don’t necessarily have the same draw and might be more prone to criticism.

The solution, naturally, is to ensure that you’re getting your consultation and engagement right throughout the whole process- not only just clearing legal requirements but reaching full best practice standards. Not only is this the right thing to do, but it’s also likely to avoid the negative publicity that can be generated if criticism becomes particularly pointed. Amplify this by the prospect of it being played out on the international stage, and you could have a real problem on your hands.

Particularly where organising committees have an eye on leaving a lasting community legacy, extra care should be taken. Remember that while your sporting event might be very good for the image of your area, it will also be causing disruption to a huge number of lives, often those least able to respond to it. Don’t take the benefits as a given and be prepared to continuously monitor and modify plans and proposals to take account of community views.

Sporting (and other international) events can be immense fun when organised well but be sure not to fall into the same traps as usually happen. You might never be able to please all the people all of the time, but with a robust and continuous consultation and engagement process, you might just be on to a winner!