And why I’m calling for the establishment of a long-term, cross-party approach to attracting internationally signficant events to New Zealand
40,112 football fans came through our gates on Sunday to watch Tottenham Hotspur play Auckland FC, setting a new attendance record for a senior men’s football match in New Zealand.
While this is a significant number, it does not fully capture what the event meant.
For many supporters, it was their first opportunity to see an English Premier League club play in New Zealand. Families travelled to Auckland, hotels accommodated visiting fans and the team, hospitality businesses benefited from increased activity and thousands of people worked across the event and surrounding economy.
It was also an event that would not have come to New Zealand without support from the Government’s Major Events and Tourism Package.
This is an important point because public funding for major events is sometimes described as a subsidy. I believe it is better understood as an investment.
The commercial return from an event is largely captured through tickets, hospitality, sponsorship and broadcast arrangements. The wider return is distributed across accommodation providers, airlines, restaurants, bars, retailers, transport operators, tourism businesses and the many people who are employed to deliver the event.
A significant part of the value created by a major event is therefore realised beyond the event itself.
This is why a well-designed, long-term major events fund is important. Its role is to bridge the gap between what may be commercially achievable for an event owner and what is economically valuable for the country.
While this approach is not unique to New Zealand, there is a key difference. Governments across Australia’s east coast treat events as part of their tourism and economic development strategies New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland all invest in attracting events that increase visitation, generate economic activity and strengthen their destination profiles.
These are markets New Zealand is competing with for international sports, concerts and cultural content.
n New South Wales, Destination NSW actively identifies and invests in events based on factors including domestic and international visitation, broadcast reach and wider strategic value. Queensland takes a similarly deliberate approach through Tourism and Events Queensland, assessing major events against their economic contribution, visitor attraction, destination profile and ability to generate community pride.
Victoria also has an established Major Events Fund, administered by Visit Victoria, to attract and deliver international and domestic events that increase visitation, generate economic impact and strengthen the state’s reputation as a leading events destination. Visit Victoria is responsible for attracting events and developing a diverse, year-round pipeline of major, regional and business events.
The significance is not simply that these states provide funding. Each has an established organisation, a long-term strategy and an assessment framework dedicated to securing events that support broader tourism and economic objectives.
While the Major Events and Tourism Package has already helped secure events that may otherwise have gone elsewhere, major events are rarely won through short-term decisions. They are often negotiated years in advance and depend on relationships with promoters, rights holders, teams and international sporting organisations that are developed over time.
When a promoter or international rights holder is deciding where to stage a match, concert or cultural production, they are comparing cities, venues, available dates, audience demand, logistical costs and government support.
New Zealand is not competing against an abstract international market. We are often competing directly with Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and other Australian destinations that have established funding programmes, specialist events agencies and clear mandates to secure content.
We also face additional challenges. New Zealand has a smaller population, greater freight costs and one more international border for an international touring production to cross. If we expect the market alone to overcome those disadvantages, we should not be surprised when events remain in Australia or bypass this part of the world altogether.
The Government’s Major Events and Tourism Package helped address that imbalance for a period. The Tottenham match demonstrated what this investment can make possible. It converted government support into an event people attended, businesses benefited from and football supporters will remember for years.
But establishing funding is only part of the answer. How the funding is administered also matters.
Major events are negotiated in a highly competitive and commercially sensitive environment. Promoters often work across several countries and may need decisions quickly as international schedules are developed. An effective framework therefore needs a clear mandate, specialist expertise and the ability to assess opportunities and respond within commercial timeframes.
It should also be disciplined. Funding decisions should consider the number of domestic and international visitors an event will attract, additional visitor nights, projected spending, national and international exposure, seasonality, community benefits and whether government support is genuinely necessary for the event to proceed in New Zealand.
There should be transparent criteria, appropriate due diligence and measurement of the benefits delivered. But transparency does not mean every commercial negotiation can take place publicly. The framework must protect commercially sensitive information while remaining accountable for the outcomes achieved.
Most importantly, it needs continuity.
A long-term, bipartisan funding framework would give New Zealand the ability to build a credible pipeline, strengthen relationships with international rights holders and negotiate with greater confidence. It would also send a clear message that New Zealand understands the value of major events and is prepared to compete consistently for the opportunities that provide the greatest national benefit.
Not every event should receive government support. Some will proceed without it, while others will not generate sufficient additional value to justify investment. The purpose of a major events fund is not to underwrite every fixture or performance. It is to identify opportunities where targeted support can unlock returns greater than the investment being made.
We have already seen what those returns can look like. Major events fill hotels, activate hospitality and transport networks, support employment, attract visitors and generate profile for Auckland and New Zealand. They also create shared experiences, strengthen civic pride and give New Zealanders access to occasions they might otherwise need to travel overseas to experience.
Sunday’s match was about much more than 90 minutes of football. It was an example of what happens when New Zealand chooses to compete for major content rather than simply hoping it comes here.
It is why major events funding matters. It is not a payment for one day on the calendar. It is an investment in visitation, economic activity, international relevance and the kind of country we want New Zealand to be.
