Events and Festivals as Strategic Tools for Understanding and Assessing the Symbolic Reconfiguration of the World Urban System

Abstract

The growing importance of the symbolic dimension in urban globalisation has led cities to compete not only in economic terms, but also in cultural and symbolic arenas. In this context, events and festivals have emerged as strategic tools for building reputation, attracting global audiences, and projecting soft power. This study introduces an updated version of the Synthetic Index of Events and Festivals (SIEF), which evaluates the positioning of 150 cities based on their capacity to host significant cultural and sporting events. Using a multi-methodological approach that combines an extensive literature review with a statistical analysis of data from various international organisations, the findings reveal a complex urban hierarchy. Globally multifunctional cities coexist with secondary or globalising ones that gain symbolic visibility through thematic specialisation. This study also identifies synergies between different event types and provides evidence of thematic clusters within the global urban network. The results underscore the importance of incorporating cultural indicators into global urban studies and position events as a privileged lens through which to examine the symbolic reconfiguration of the contemporary urban system.

1. Introduction

In a world shaped by globalisation, the tertiarisation of the economy, and the digitalisation of urban life [1,2], cities have acquired a strategic role in articulating economic, cultural, and symbolic dynamics. Leisure, creativity, and symbolic consumption—far from occupying a peripheral role—have become central pillars in the construction of urban identity and the formulation of territorial development policies [3,4]. Within this context, culture emerges as a key resource for competitive differentiation, talent attraction, tourism, investment, and the social and economic valorisation of urban spaces [5,6].

Among the most frequently employed mechanisms for projecting this cultural centrality are cultural events, festivals, and mega sporting events. These have become essential instruments for gaining international visibility and symbolic positioning [7]. While these phenomena are especially prevalent in major metropolitan areas, they are becoming increasingly present in globalising cities seeking to integrate into international circuits of cultural consumption [6,8].

This article addresses the symbolic reconfiguration of the world urban system through the lens of the “culturalisation of urban development” [9], understood as a defining logic of contemporary cognitive capitalism [6]. In contrast to reductionist approaches based solely on economic–productive indicators, this study proposes a multifunctional, relational, and multi-scalar perspective that enables a more comprehensive assessment of cultural expressions in the construction of alternative urban hierarchies [10,11].

Within this analytical framework, events and festivals are proposed as quantifiable cultural indicators for analysing the global dynamics of competition, cooperation, and symbolic positioning among cities. These cultural manifestations serve as catalysts for identity formation, economic development, and political expression, while also reflecting the inherent tensions of contemporary urban development—between the global and the local, the authentic and the themed, and the inclusive and the exclusionary [12,13].

Based on these premises, the study pursues the following five core objectives: (i) to propose an updated version of the Synthetic Index of Events and Festivals (SIEF) as a revision of its 2017 predecessor [14], incorporating recent transformations such as the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing geopolitical tensions; (ii) to compare SIEF 2024 with the 2017 edition in order to detect continuities and shifts in the global distribution of cultural and sporting events; (iii) to identify differentiated patterns of specialisation in event organisation based on cities’ positions in SIEF 2024, thereby elucidating the competitive logic of the global event market; (iv) to contrast SIEF with other economically oriented indices, such as the GaWC ranking, to explore divergences and convergences in urban trajectories; and (v) to analyse networks of inter-event relations, highlighting thematic synergies, spatial co-occurrences, and potential strategies for collaboration, diversification, or specialisation.

In this regard, the article proposes understanding events as cultural observables that offer insight into the new symbolic geographies of the world urban system. The study of these phenomena enriches our understanding of globalisation dynamics while offering valuable tools for the design of public policies focused on territorial development and the international projection of cities.

2. Urban Events, Symbolic Power, and New Geographies of Cultural Globalisation

The academic literature on urban globalisation has traditionally focused on economic dimensions, particularly the analysis of financial, corporate, or innovation flows [1,15]. However, the increasing convergence of economy and culture—described as “cognitive capitalism” or “cultural capitalism” [6,16]—has brought creativity, cultural consumption, and experiential leisure to the forefront of urban development and global competitiveness. As noted by Peck [9] and De Frantz [17], we are witnessing a process of “culturalisation of urban development”, whereby cities compete not only for investment, but also for cultural capital, reputation, and symbolic prestige [18].

This intensifying competition has fuelled the rise of city branding and urban marketing strategies. These approaches aim to construct distinctive urban identities, enhance territorial brand value [19], and attract diverse audiences—such as tourists, investors, and creative professionals—by offering unique cultural experiences [20,21].

Within this strategic framework, cultural events, festivals, and sporting occasions play a key role. Although not originally designed as marketing tools and often linked to geopolitical interests, these events are frequently used to strengthen symbolic imagery and reposition cities [22]. This phenomenon, described as “urban festivalisation” [23], reveals an experiential logic embedded in contemporary urban planning. Concepts such as the “playful city” [24], “entertainment city” [25], “fantasy city” [26], and “creative urbanism” [20] illustrate how spectacle and experience have become central forces in the transformation of public space [27,28].

Event typologies vary widely, ranging from global mega-events—such as the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, and Universal Expositions—to smaller fairs and regional festivals. While major cities compete for the former, smaller cities increasingly attempt to avoid marginalisation by organising medium- and small-scale events. These initiatives not only offer more sustainable and participatory formats, but also enable lower-tier cities to enter global networks through cultural specialisation [29,30].

Events contribute to diversifying tourism and modernising urban infrastructure—especially transport, accommodation, and cultural venues [31]. Scholars have also highlighted their ability to reshape urban narratives by articulating collective identities, imaginaries, and emotional attachments [7]. As such, events catalyse the thematisation and aestheticisation of the urban landscape [32].

Their role in enhancing international visibility is equally notable. High-profile events can temporarily project host cities as “cultural capitals of the world” [33]. Their impact often extends beyond the event itself, producing long-term effects on spatial, economic, and symbolic configurations [34,35].

Nonetheless, this model is not without critique. Scholars have raised concerns about cultural commodification [12], the instrumentalisation of space, and the subordination of culture to global capital [13,36]. Issues such as cultural gentrification, the marginalisation of local practices, and the banalisation of heritage have been widely discussed. These processes often prioritise affluent global audiences over local communities [9,37]. Moreover, the model’s environmental sustainability is contested due to resource overuse, carbon emissions, and pressure on urban services [8]. Poorly planned events may also result in underused infrastructure, corruption, or social tensions [37,38].

Some scholars have cautioned against over-reliance on events. While “event-led development” can promote urban regeneration and global visibility [7], excessive programming may generate diminishing returns, cultural homogenisation, and symbolic fatigue [32,37]. This tension between strategic deployment and unsustainable spectacle calls for a more nuanced understanding of urban event systems, especially in mid-sized and resource-constrained cities.

In response, recent scholarship advocates for regenerative models of cultural programming. These approaches seek to deliver long-term impact, foster social cohesion, and promote more inclusive governance. Participatory and decentralised strategies—such as neighbourhood festivals, hybrid events, and community-led initiatives—are gaining prominence as mechanisms for linking identity, sustainability, and spatial justice [39,40].

The COVID-19 pandemic further reshaped these dynamics, exposing vulnerabilities in cultural infrastructure and forcing cities to adapt their event strategies. In many parts of the Global South, local governments responded with digital festivals and grassroots initiatives that combined resilience with inclusion [8,29]. These shifts require a reassessment of cultural policy and future preparedness.

Beyond their immediate function, events also operate as cultural indicators from a methodological standpoint. Their frequency, distribution, and typology provide insights into the symbolic positioning of cities [11]. Although events do not directly measure “culture”, they reflect forms of visibility associated with cultural capitalism [6]. Despite biases—such as Western centrism and standardisation—event data is increasingly used by international institutions such as UNESCO, Eurostat, and the World Cities Culture Forum to assess cultural vitality.

Recent frameworks—such as UN-Habitat’s Culture 2030 Indicators and the WCCD—have incorporated cultural metrics into sustainability assessments. These initiatives underscore culture’s growing institutionalisation within the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDGs 11.4 and 8.3. While often geared toward policy and budgetary planning, these tools enable cross-city comparisons of cultural intensity [41,42].

This study aligns with those frameworks by introducing an updated edition of the Synthetic Index of Events and Festivals (SIEF 2024). The index offers a relational perspective on how events can be used to map geographies of soft power, symbolic capital, and cultural connectivity. Events, we argue, are not merely spectacles that legitimise narratives or expose social tensions—they are strategic tools for capturing the symbolic architecture of the world urban system, with all its tensions, contradictions, and opportunities.

3. Methodology

This research presents a revised SIEF to evaluate the symbolic role of cities within the world urban system through their event portfolios. It builds on Díez-Pisonero’s [14] earlier version, with notable advances in coverage, accuracy, and indicator design. SIEF 2024 expands the sample to the 150 most globalised cities, incorporates new event categories, and updates its databases with recent, verified data. Key methodological updates include the addition of award ceremonies, a greater representation of sports since 2010, and a more detailed classification of musical genres [43].

Events are recorded at the metropolitan level and grouped into the following seven categories: (i) international mega-events, (ii) music concerts, (iii) sports competitions, (iv) film festivals, (v) art exhibitions, (vi) international conferences, and (vii) award ceremonies. For each category, specific indicators—validated by sources like UNESCO, Eurostat, Statista, and the World Cities Culture Forum—are selected, normalised, and weighted based on their symbolic influence and global visibility. While this study presents a single aggregate score per city, the index structure also allows for the construction of sub-indices by thematic area (e.g., music, sport, and conferences), which may be explored in future research to provide more nuanced insights into domain-specific specialisation.

To enable cross-city comparability, all indicators undergo min–max normalisation. This approach standardises raw data on a [0, 1] scale while maintaining proportional relationships. The final score for each city is computed using a weighted additive aggregation method, whereby each normalised indicator is multiplied by its assigned weight and then summed to produce a composite score. This approach is consistent with common practices in synthetic indicator construction [44,45], and is chosen for its simplicity, transparency, and comparability with the 2017 edition. While alternative methods such as PCA or geometric means may yield slightly different results, the additive method is particularly suitable when indicators are not strongly interdependent and where interpretability across categories is a priority.

The weighting structure reflects the symbolic hierarchy of event types based on the following three primary factors: recurrence frequency, estimated global audience reach, and symbolic relevance in international circuits. These coefficients draw on earlier classifications [14] and are calibrated iteratively to balance representativeness and symbolic visibility. Mega-events (e.g., the Olympics and World Expositions) receive the highest weight (30%). Music concerts and major sports events follow with 20% each. Film festivals are assigned 10%, while exhibitions, congresses, and award ceremonies receive weights between 5% and 10% depending on their frequency, visibility, and symbolic resonance. The higher weight assigned to mega-events (30%)—despite their occasional nature—is justified by their disproportionate impact on global city branding, infrastructure transformation, and symbolic visibility [23,34]. Unlike more frequent events, these generate intense international media coverage, catalyse long-term urban development, and are often remembered as defining moments in a city’s global trajectory.

These weights are based on both theoretical grounding e.g., [7,23] and internal consistency with the 2017 edition. While not derived from formal modelling, they balance symbolic impact and ensure longitudinal comparability.

SIEF 2024 draws from consolidated datasets, including UNESCO, Eurostat, Statista, open-access event repositories, and official municipal portals. Emphasis is placed on data completeness and global coherence. In cases of missing or inconsistent records, conservative imputation techniques—such as regional averages—are applied to preserve the diversity of the sample without compromising analytical integrity. The comparatively greater representation of European cities may reflect, in part, stronger data availability and institutional transparency, rather than an inherent symbolic advantage. Although efforts are made to promote regional balance, data coverage remains uneven across world regions, posing a structural limitation to global comparability.

Although the index was finalised in early 2024, it draws on a dataset compiled over multiple years, depending on the type and recurrence of each event category. For recurring international circuits—such as the ATP Tour, the UEFA Champions League, and major art biennials—the time frame extends from 2010 to 2023. In contrast, the most recent cycles (2022–2024) are prioritised for concerts and music tours. Legacy mega-events such as the Olympic Games and World Expositions include host and candidate cities from 1945 onwards. This multi-temporal design, reflecting the uneven frequency and symbolic lifespan of events, aligns with best practices for composite indicators in urban and cultural geography, where long-term engagement is essential to assess symbolic capital [7,44]. Accordingly, the index adopts a multi-year cumulative approach to ensure that cities are evaluated based on both the scale and persistence of their symbolic activity.

Appendix A lists all indicators, sources, units of measurement, weights, and temporal coverage to ensure methodological transparency and facilitate replication. The aggregated results support the construction of a global urban hierarchy based on the number, diversity, and symbolic relevance of hosted events. This classification is also presented cartographically in Appendix B, which offers a comparative visualisation of the current edition in relation to the 2017 version.

The second stage of the analysis focuses on identifying differentiated patterns of specialisation in event organisation. A heatmap is created to display the relative weights of each event category, based on the ranking achieved by cities in the SIEF. This approach allows for the identification of strategic orientations related to diversification, thematic segmentation, and varying degrees of dependence on specific types of events.

Subsequently, the SIEF 2024 is compared with an economically oriented benchmark: the city ranking developed by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC). The goal is to explore the extent of overlap between the symbolic and economic–functional roles of cities, as well as to identify divergent trajectories—those cities excelling in cultural activity without occupying a central economic position, and vice versa [15,46].

We assign the value 151 to cities not present in either of the two rankings to ensure comparability. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient is then applied to assess the relationship between the two ordinal variables. This is followed by a hierarchical cluster analysis to group cities with similar patterns across both indices. Specifically, Ward’s method is employed with Euclidean distance as the dissimilarity metric, a widely used approach in urban typologies that minimises intra-cluster variance. The optimal number of clusters is determined by analysing the dendrogram and applying the elbow method, which identifies six distinct groupings. These clusters reflect different profiles of symbolic urban capacity, ranging from consolidated cultural capitals to emerging nodes of event-based projection. As a complementary visual tool, a scatterplot is created in which the X-axis represents the SIEF position and the Y-axis represents the GaWC position, enabling the visual detection of synergies, divergences, and alignments between both dimensions.

Finally, to analyse thematic connections between event types, we conduct a bivariate correlation analysis using Pearson’s r. This method measures the degree of association between event categories within the same city, helping to identify potential synergies and shared symbolic patterns. A significance threshold of p < 0.01 is applied to ensure statistical robustness. Correlation values are interpreted as strong to moderate (r ≥ 0.3) and weak (r < 0.3). The results are presented through three networks. The first shows the overall correlation matrix for the seven event categories analysed. The other two focus on internal connections within sports and music events, respectively. These networks are visualised using circular diagrams, where line thickness and colour reflect the strength of the relationships.

All statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Statistics 25.8, while cartographic and visual outputs were created using ArcGIS Pro 3.1.2 and Adobe Illustrator CS6.

4. Results

4.1. Geographical Transformations in the Global Urban Hierarchy of Events (2017–2024)

The comparison between the 2017 and 2024 editions of the SIEF reveals several structural changes in the global geography of events. While major metropolises—such as Paris, London, and New York—continue to occupy leading positions, there is a discernible trend towards regional diversification, decentralisation through the rise of intermediate cities, and the consolidation of new strategies for symbolic specialisation. This process reflects both broader structural transformations in the global system (such as the pandemic, geopolitical tensions, and digitalisation) and specific territorial dynamics linked to local policies aimed at attracting events and repositioning cities within global circuits.

Table 1. Significant changes in city rankings between the 2017 and 2024 editions of the SIEF.

SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS	Category	Cities	SIEF 2017	SIEF 2024	Change in Rank (2017–2024)	SIGNIFICANT DECLINES	Category	Cities	SIEF 2017	SIEF 2024	Change in Rank (2017–2024)
	Cities not listed in the 2017 ranking now appearing in the Top 50	Cologne	151	30	+121		Cities in the Top 15 in 2017 that have dropped in rank	Berlin	4	19	−15
		Doha	151	32	+119			Rome	10	23	−13
		Jakarta	151	50	+101			Melbourne	12	18	−6
	Cities previously relegated in 2017 now within the Top 50	Lima	141	49	+92			São Paulo	16	22	−6
		Manchester	122	40	+82			Stockholm	15	20	−5
		Phoenix	112	45	+67			New York	3	8	−5
		Dallas	90	26	+64			Montreal	9	11	−2
		Dublin	95	43	+52			Rio de Janeiro	13	15	−2
		Philadelphia	93	41	+52			Tokyo	7	9	−2
		Glasgow	96	44	+52			Amsterdam	6	10	−4
		Zurich	69	25	+44			Barcelona	8	12	−4
		Hamburg	63	34	+29		Cities that have left the Top 25	Bern	11	144	−133
		Santiago de Chile	52	28	+24			Shanghai	25	58	−33
		Seattle	65	42	+23			Nice	21	72	−51
	Cities entering the Top 20	Milan	36	5	+31			Vienna	14	38	−24
		Mexico City	27	7	+20			Helsinki	24	46	−22
		Buenos Aires	22	6	+16			Sydney	19	24	−5
		Madrid	20	4	+16		Cities that have left the Top 50	New Orleans	29	133	−104
		Munich	17	13	+4			Seoul	34	108	−74
		Vancouver	32	14	+18			San Diego	40	101	−61
	Cities not listed in the 2017 ranking now appearing in the Top 100	Asunción	151	52	+99			Gothenburg	44	79	−35
		Bristol	151	57	+94			Athens	39	67	−28
		Auckland	151	63	+88			Hong Kong	41	70	−29
		Saitama	151	68	+83			Istanbul	43	66	−23
		Monterrey	151	69	+82			Prague	48	64	−16
		Falun	151	71	+80			Beijing	35	48	−13
		Riyadh	151	76	+75			Osaka	45	54	−9
		Lyon	151	80	+71			Atlanta	46	56	−10
		Bogotá	151	81	+70		Secondary cities listed in 2017 now excluded from the ranking	Valencia	37	151	−114
		Sacramento	151	84	+67			Daejeon	76	151	−75
		San José (CR)	151	85	+66			New Delhi	72	151	−79
		Santo Domingo	151	86	+65			Venice	64	151	−87
		Curitiba	151	87	+64			San Sebastián	62	151	−89
		Naples	151	88	+63			Taipei	61	151	−90
		Winnipeg	151	89	+62			Genoa	60	151	−91
		Porto Alegre	151	91	+60			Daegu	58	151	−93
		Medellín	151	92	+59			Stuttgart	55	151	−96
		Charlotte	151	94	+57			Marrakesh	54	151	−97
		Manila	151	96	+55			Plovdiv	77	151	−74

Source: research findings.

summarises some of the most relevant shifts and continuities observed during this period. To gain a more nuanced understanding of the global event landscape, the results are presented by major world regions, followed by an analysis of differentiated event organisation patterns according to cities’ positions within the SIEF. The regional focus also underscores variations in event typology and scale, offering a more granular understanding of symbolic decentralisation trends across the world urban system.

Figure 1 offers a concise visual comparison of regional representation in the SIEF between 2017 and 2024, highlighting both the absolute number of cities per region and the net change over time. Alongside

Table 2. Regional variation in the number of cities included in the SIEF (2017–2024).

Region	Number of Cities SIEF 2017	Number of Cities SIEF 2024	Difference in Number of Cities (2017–2024)	Variation Rate (2017–2024; %)
Africa	3	3	0	0
Asia	23	16	−7	−30,43
Europe	69	59	−10	−14,49
Latin America	7	21	14	200
Middle East	4	3	−1	−25
North America	39	41	2	5,13
Oceania	4	6	2	50
TOTAL	150	150	-	-

Source: research findings.

, it illustrates the shifting symbolic geography and the evolving spatial balance of world regions within the global events system. This visual aid reinforces the broader narrative of emerging centres of symbolic influence and cultural diversification.

Europe continues to be the continent with the greatest representation in the SIEF, although the number of cities included has declined (Table 2). Paris (#1) consolidates its position at the top of the system, owing to its leadership in hosting high-profile events (e.g., the Olympic Games, Roland Garros, the Louvre, and Fashion Week). London (#2) drops one place, arguably as a result of Brexit, which has complicated the organisation of international congresses and events and generated uncertainty regarding foreign investment. Nevertheless, it continues to host prestigious events such as the Wimbledon finals, the BAFTA awards, and numerous internationally impactful music festivals.

Other cities, such as Madrid (#4) and Milan (#5), have risen significantly. Madrid has strengthened its position by hosting the Champions League final, expanding FITUR, and consolidating music festivals such as Mad Cool [47]. Milan has successfully repositioned itself thanks to events like the Salone del Mobile, Fashion Week, and the post-pandemic revitalisation of its cultural scene [48].

In contrast, traditionally strong cities such as Berlin (#19), Rome (#23), and Amsterdam (#10) have seen their rankings decline. In Berlin’s case, this may be due to increasing competition from Southern European cities; in Rome’s, to the lack of infrastructure modernisation or the reduced dynamism of its cultural programming. Simultaneously, new regional capitals have emerged—Lisbon (#29), Zurich (#25), and Munich (#13)—all of which have invested in image building, connectivity, and the attraction of international events [49,50]. Other cities, including Cologne (#30), Bristol (#57), Lyon (#80), and Naples (#88), appear in the index for the first time, largely due to the consolidation of trade fairs, film festivals, and sporting events [51,52].

In North America, Los Angeles (#3) and New York (#8) remain key reference points, though they have been surpassed by several European cities amid growing global competition and shifting perceptions regarding costs and post-COVID-19 restrictions. Cities such as Vancouver (#14), Miami (#16), Toronto (#17), and San Francisco (#27) have modestly improved their rankings, while Dallas (#26), Philadelphia (#41), Seattle (#42), and Phoenix (#45) have registered notable ascents, moving from peripheral positions in the 2017 SIEF to within the Top 50 in 2024. The expansion of the cultural scene in these cities suggests an internal redistribution within the North American system, where dynamism is no longer confined to the largest metropolises [53].

Latin America is the region that has experienced the most significant growth in terms of cities represented, increasing from 7 to 21 (Table 2). This expansion reflects both improved cultural infrastructure and connectivity and the strategic repositioning of cities such as Buenos Aires (#6), Mexico City (#7), and Santiago de Chile (#28). These cities combine major music festivals (e.g., Lollapalooza and Vive Latino) with high-profile sporting events (e.g., Copa Libertadores and Formula 1) and cultural policies aimed at articulating local identity with international outreach [54]. Rio de Janeiro (#15) and São Paulo (#22), despite their established prominence, have slightly declined due to the rise of other cities in the region, such as Asunción (#52), Bogotá (#81), and Medellín (#92), which enter the ranking for the first time, reflecting cultural diversification and improved event infrastructure.

By contrast, Asia has experienced a relative decline in representation (Table 2). While Tokyo (#9) and Singapore (#36) maintain strong positions, cities such as Beijing (#48), Shanghai (#58), and Hong Kong (#70) have lost ground, partly due to international restrictions and partly to the absence of event-driven strategies for global projection [55]. This reveals a paradox: although the economic axis of globalisation is shifting towards the Asia–Pacific region, the cultural strategies of many cities in the region have not kept pace, exposing a disconnect between economic centrality and symbolic projection [46].

Oceania and the Middle East have maintained a relatively stable presence (Table 2). Cities such as Melbourne (#18), Brisbane (#47), and Auckland (#63) have enhanced their roles through the hosting of sporting events and film festivals. However, the region continues to face challenges related to geographic isolation and competition from more accessible Asian destinations [56]. In the Middle East, Doha (#32) stands out due to the legacy of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, while Dubai (#95) remains notable for its hosting of international congresses and trade fairs. Riyadh (#76), meanwhile, enters the index for the first time, reflecting its recent cultural diversification strategy as part of the Vision 2030 initiative [57].

Africa remains underrepresented, with only the following three cities included: Johannesburg (#77), Cairo (#138), and Cape Town (#146). Structural limitations related to connectivity, funding, and international visibility continue to hinder the continent’s fuller integration into the global events market [58].

Beyond the changes and continuities observed between the two editions, the results illustrated in Figure 2 also underscore the persistence of a pyramidal structure in the global urban hierarchy of event specialisation. Cities ranked in the Top 20 of the SIEF 2024 tend to exhibit a highly diversified offering, with a significant presence across nearly all event categories, including mega sporting events, universal expositions, congresses, concerts, and cultural festivals. These cities—such as Paris, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, and New York—not only concentrate material resources and large-scale infrastructure, but have also succeeded in consolidating strong urban narratives, projecting a recognisable image in the global imagination.

The second tier of the ranking (positions 20–50) comprises Rome, San Francisco, Doha, and Brisbane, among others, which tend to adopt thematic specialisation strategies, particularly in areas such as music festivals, film events, and medium-scale sporting competitions without directly competing with the major global nodes. Their integration into the event system follows a strategic logic rather than one based purely on scale.

The final tier of the ranking (positions 50–150) consists of cities with lower international visibility, yet which have identified niches for specialisation or have begun integrating into regional cultural networks. Notable examples include Asunción, Bristol, Auckland, and Nice, whose inclusion in the index reflects recent policies promoting cultural investment, urban transformation, and the attraction of festivals. Although their influence in the global hierarchy remains limited, they represent a trend towards the symbolic inclusion of peripheral territories. However, symbolic inclusion does not imply structural parity. Rather, it refers to the visibility achieved by these cities through participation in recognised cultural circuits. In practice, it can be inferred through their entry into global rankings such as the SIEF, the hosting of internationally publicised events, and the development of cultural narratives with external reach. While these metrics are indirect, they offer observable traces of symbolic integration and soft power projection [42,59].

In our view, this hierarchical pattern in event organisation reflects the underlying dynamics of competition and specialisation within the global market: while higher-ranked cities consolidate their dominance through diversified and large-scale offerings, intermediate cities seek a competitive advantage through specific cultural or sporting segments. In contrast, those in lower tiers face greater challenges in integrating into a globalised system where visibility and resources play decisive roles.

Broadly speaking, the 2024 edition of the SIEF reveals a dual trend: on the one hand, the persistent concentration of events in the highest-income regions. According to the applied methodology, this reflects the continued hegemony of Western and Anglo-Saxon cultural dynamics in shaping the global events landscape, thereby contributing to the consolidation of internationally oriented cultural practices. On the other hand, there is a progressive symbolic decentralisation, marked by the rise of secondary cities, which, through greater specialisation and visibility, manage to integrate into global circuits via culture, entertainment, and urban soft power.

These shifts highlight the capacity of events to trigger processes of hierarchical reconfiguration, enabling certain cities to claim symbolic spaces within the world urban system. Although not all manage to retain their positions over time, their presence in the index suggests that the logic of cultural globalisation is more dynamic, multipolar, and open than traditional models have proposed.

4.2. SIEF vs. GaWC: Divergences and Convergences in the Global Functionality of Cities

The intersection between the Synthetic Index of Events and Festivals (2024 edition) and the Global Cities ranking produced by the GaWC (Globalization and World Cities Research Network) allows for a comparison of the following two complementary approaches to understanding urban centrality: one grounded in economic–productive functionality, linked to corporate networks and advanced services [15], and the other of a symbolic–cultural nature, associated with event hosting, international visibility, and soft power positioning [23].

The comparative analysis of both indices reveals moderate levels of correlation: 0.59 for the top 20, 0.55 for the top 50, and 0.44 for the total sample of 150 cities. This limited correspondence suggests that many cities prominent for their cultural activity do not necessarily occupy leading positions in global economic rankings, and vice versa. In our view, this dissociation may be attributed to the more political and strategic nature of decisions regarding event organisation, which often do not depend on established agglomeration economies, but rather on public policies aimed at constructing identity, attracting future investment, or facilitating urban repositioning.

Furthermore, the joint analysis of both rankings reveals the existence of distinct clusters of cities, enabling a nuanced interpretation of symbolic versus economic urban centrality (Figure 3). The most relevant, according to the initial hypotheses of this research, are as follows.

(a)

Cluster 1: Multifunctional global cities

The first cluster comprises cities ranking within the top 40 of both indices, evidencing consolidated multifunctionality in both the economic–productive and symbolic–cultural domains. These are genuine global cities—such as Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, and Tokyo [1,47]—that combine advanced infrastructure, financial centrality, and a diverse array of global events. The globalisation of these urban centres is, thus, conceived as multifunctional, explaining the relatively limited variance in their positions across the two indices, aside from specific cases that may be interpreted as “urban inflections” [60].

Within this group, certain cities perform better in the SIEF, suggesting a strategic investment in events as a means of symbolic consolidation. Notable examples include Munich (+30 positions relative to GaWC), Berlin (+27), Buenos Aires (+27), Los Angeles (+23), and Stockholm (+19). These cities have explicitly embraced culture as a driver of international projection, hosting high-impact events such as Oktoberfest, the Berlinale, the Buenos Aires International Book Fair, the Grammy Awards, and the Nobel Prize ceremony.

Conversely, other cities demonstrate stronger economic than symbolic prominence, such as Chicago (−18), Sydney (−14), São Paulo (−5), and Toronto (−4), indicating that their global profiles are shaped primarily by corporate integration rather than cultural visibility.

(b)

Cluster 2: Regional powers with symbolic aspirations

This group comprises cities of significant international relevance whose global influence remains incipient compared to the leading metropolises in Cluster 1. Generally, these are urban nodes with regional prominence that display an upward trajectory in globalisation indices, suggesting a strong potential for future consolidation across both the economic–productive and cultural–event domains. Of particular interest are those cities ranking highly in the SIEF (#1–#50) but modestly in the GaWC index (#91–#151).

These cities have adopted a functional strategy in organising cultural events, using them not only to stimulate local economic growth, but also to consolidate their place within the global urban hierarchy by leveraging heritage, connectivity, and tourism dynamism. The most prominent cases are those that appear in the top 50 of the SIEF and display a difference of more than 30 positions relative to their GaWC ranking—exceeding 50 positions in several instances. Examples include Rio de Janeiro (+92 positions), Vancouver (+88), Helsinki (+64), Seattle (+61), Montreal (+57), Manchester (+64), and Barcelona (+52), among others.

Conversely, this cluster also includes cities with a strong economic function but limited presence in the global symbolic ecosystem. Examples include Seoul (−97), Dubai (−87), Shanghai (−52), and Bangkok (−37), which, although prominent in terms of advanced services and financial flows, have yet to develop robust cultural strategies to project themselves as event cities.

These discrepancies between symbolic visibility and economic functionality invite reflection on urban policy implications. Cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Vancouver, and Helsinki—despite lacking strong corporate networks—have succeeded in positioning themselves symbolically through targeted event strategies. This indicates that cultural programming can operate as a compensatory mechanism for economic marginality, enabling peripheral cities to enhance their international projection. Therefore, policy frameworks prioritising soft power investments, cultural infrastructure, and event diversification may offer alternative pathways to global relevance for cities outside the economic core.

(c)

Cluster 3: Cities specialised in events

The third group consists of cities exhibiting a high degree of specialisation in organising sporting and/or cultural events as a strategy for dynamisation and global positioning. Unlike Cluster 2, these cities show an even more pronounced functional specialisation, as reflected in the considerable disparities between their rankings in the two indices.

The most representative cities in this cluster are those with a gap of over 50 positions between their rankings and that hold a privileged position in the SIEF. These include Cologne (#30), Moscow (#31), Philadelphia (#41), Glasgow (#44), Phoenix (#45), Asunción (#52), Osaka (#54), Bristol (#57), Minneapolis (#61), Detroit (#65), and Nice (#72), among others.

In our view, what renders Cluster 3 particularly significant in the study of globalisation is its capacity to highlight territories that are often overlooked in conventional urban rankings, which typically prioritise economic–productive criteria. Their exclusion does not denote a lack of global relevance; rather, it invites a rethinking of analytical frameworks and a move towards broader, multidimensional perspectives.

(d)

Additional insights

Clusters 4 and 5 reflect functional specialisation in favour of financial activities, while Cluster 6 comprises cities relegated in both indices, thus occupying a clearly subordinate position within global circuits. In this regard, the first three clusters are particularly instructive in testing our research hypotheses. Cluster 1 exemplifies the versatility of major global cities, which combine economic competitiveness with cultural prominence. Clusters 2 and 3, in contrast, demonstrate how less prominent cities may integrate into global networks by prioritising cultural programming and event production.

In summary, this comparative analysis of the two indices advocates for a broader understanding of urban globalisation, one that incorporates cultural indicators as a fundamental dimension of global city studies. In our view, symbolic projection, narrative capacity, and the ability to engage in cultural networks are becoming increasingly central to the exercise of urban power in the twenty-first century.

4.3. Interrelations Among Major Categories of Urban Events: A Cross-Sectional Perspective

Moving beyond hierarchical rankings, Figure 4 introduces a correlation network that explores the internal relationships among the various types of events hosted by cities. Through bivariate Pearson correlation analysis, the figure visualises thematic synergies and structural complementarities, distinguishing the following three major relational spheres: (i) sporting events, (ii) cultural events, and (iii) cross-cutting hybrid events. These interconnections provide valuable insights into co-organisation strategies and the multifunctional nature of urban cultural ecosystems.

(a)

Convergence among major sporting events

Large-scale sporting events—such as the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup—display a strong mutual correlation (r = 0.73), primarily due to their shared infrastructural demands, including stadiums, transport systems, and accommodation facilities, as well as the significant organisational capacities they require. Cities such as Paris, Los Angeles, and Rio de Janeiro stand out as recurrent hosts of both competitions.

In addition, a notable correlation is observed between other sporting events (e.g., tennis tournaments, Formula 1 races, and world athletics championships) and large-scale music concerts (r = 0.65), suggesting a shared logic of intensive spatial use and mass audience mobilisation. This pattern is particularly evident in cities equipped with multi-purpose venues—such as Madrid, Melbourne, and London—where stadiums and arenas routinely host both major sporting fixtures and international music tours.

(b)

Synergies among culture, music, and exhibitions

In the cultural domain, the correlation between music concerts and international conferences is especially high (r = 0.72). This association stems from the versatility of venues such as convention centres, auditoria, and stadiums, which are frequently adapted for both major business events and musical performances. Las Vegas, Berlin, and Barcelona exemplify this synergy, combining technological innovation, cultural programming, and business tourism. Las Vegas, for instance, hosts flagship technological conventions such as the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), while also staging long-term musical residencies by globally renowned artists like Adele or U2. Barcelona integrates the Mobile World Congress with large-scale performances at venues such as the Palau Sant Jordi or the Olympic Stadium. Berlin, meanwhile, boasts a vibrant music scene and ranks among Europe’s principal hubs for international conventions.

A positive correlation is also observed between film festivals and art exhibitions (r = 0.49), reflecting a concentration of high-prestige cultural activities in cities seeking diversified and symbolically rich offerings. Cannes and Venice are emblematic in this respect: both are globally recognised for their film festivals and also host major artistic events such as the Venice Biennale and the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. Similarly, in New York, the Tribeca Film Festival coincides with dynamic artistic programming at venues such as Broadway, the MoMA, and the MET.

(c)

The transversal role of conferences and conventions

International conferences show moderate correlations with several event categories, underscoring their transversal role within the world urban system. This versatility reflects the rise of business tourism and the increasing professionalisation of cultural destinations. For instance, the correlation between conferences and art exhibitions stands at 0.49, pointing to a trend among certain cities to position themselves as hubs of cultural and intellectual capital. Singapore, Dubai, and Geneva, among others, exemplify this model by combining scientific, technological, and corporate events with festivals and cultural performances, thereby cultivating a hybrid profile of high strategic value.

Moreover, the infrastructure required to host international conferences—hotels, transport connectivity, and logistics—enables these cities to attract a diverse range of events, reinforcing their functional versatility and integration within global urban networks.

(d)

Award ceremonies: an isolated pattern

One of the most striking findings of this analysis is the low correlation between cultural award ceremonies and other event categories. For instance, their relationship with the Olympic Games is virtually non-existent (r = −0.04), highlighting the exclusive, media-centric, and symbolically charged character of such ceremonies, which typically target specific audiences and are held in tightly controlled settings.

This thematic isolation suggests that cities hosting major cultural awards—such as Los Angeles with the Oscars or Stockholm with the Nobel Prizes—have developed a distinctive form of reputational capital, grounded in prestige rather than in the scale or frequency of events. While this specificity may constitute a strategic advantage, it may also limit these cities’ integration into other segments of the global urban event system.

4.4. Thematic Specialisation and Cultural Convergences: Sport and Music in the Global Urban Network

Beyond the general analysis of correlations between event categories, this study delves into the specific interrelationships between certain subtypes of sporting events and musical genres. This more granular approach enables the identification of thematic specialisation strategies, revealing the dynamics of symbolic positioning and cultural differentiation within the world urban system.

4.4.1. Sporting Events: Regional and Functional Convergences

The sports-related correlation matrix presented in Figure 5 highlights the particularly strong ties between American football, basketball, and baseball (r ≥ 0.7). These correlations are especially evident in North American metropolises—such as New York, Los Angeles, and Miami—where these sports coexist with major professional leagues, multipurpose stadiums, and large-scale audiences. This convergence may be attributed to shared infrastructure, corporate sponsorship, and the complementary seasonality of competitions, including the NFL, NBA, and MLB.

A similarly high correlation is observed between tennis and badminton (r = 0.86), two racquet sports with comparable logistical requirements and compatible competition formats. Moreover, certain tournaments incorporate both disciplines within large-scale multisport events—including the Asian Games and other regional competitions. Notably, cities like London (home to Wimbledon and the All England Open Badminton Championships), Paris (which hosts Roland Garros and badminton events at the Stade Pierre de Coubertin), and Singapore have emerged as prominent venues for both, reflecting a strategy grounded in organisational efficiency and technical excellence.

Other sports demonstrate lower correlations, suggesting selective specialisation based on regional context or sporting tradition. For example, the correlation between cycling and Formula 1 (r = 0.27) is more pronounced in cities whose urban layout accommodates both types of events. Notable examples include Monaco, which hosts both the Formula 1 Grand Prix and the Paris–Nice cycling race; Barcelona, which stages the Spanish Grand Prix and the Volta a Catalunya; and Abu Dhabi, where F1 races and cycling competitions are held at the Yas Marina Circuit. By contrast, sports such as tennis and cycling show a weaker association (r = 0.24), although this may be explained by their popularity in European countries such as Spain, France, and Germany, where both disciplines enjoy strong traditions.

Finally, certain sports exhibit minimal correlations with others, indicating a high degree of specialisation and distinct audience appeal. This low association can be attributed to exclusive infrastructural requirements or unique fan bases. Examples include Formula 1 and badminton (r = −0.08), cycling and American football (r = −0.07), and athletics and baseball (r = −0.03).

This constellation of patterns suggests that cities tend to structure their sporting calendars around strategically related disciplines, influenced by historical legacy, organisational capacity, technical infrastructure, demographic profiles, and positioning strategies. Such thematic specialisation not only shapes the types of events that a city hosts, but also determines its integration into international sporting circuits, reinforcing its identity as a competitive and culturally distinctive destination.

4.4.2. Musical Genres: Stylistic Convergences and Shared Audiences

Figure 6 presents a correlation analysis of musical genres, offering insights into how cities construct and project their cultural identities through the strategic configuration of artistic programming. Pop music emerges as the most interconnected genre, showing significant correlations with indie (r = 0.448), R&B (r = 0.436), rock (r = 0.350), and even electronic music (r = 0.222) and opera (r = 0.233). This broad connectivity reflects pop’s mass appeal and commercial versatility, positioning it as a core component of most music programmes, capable of bridging genres and attracting diverse audiences. Cities with a strong pop music scene, including Los Angeles and London, often host a wide array of genre-crossing events. This is due to the broad appeal of pop and its frequent stylistic crossovers—illustrated by pop rock (exemplified by bands like Maroon 5), Latin pop (with artists like Shakira), and indie pop (reflected in the sound of Lana del Rey). The notable correlation with R&B can be explained by mutual artistic influences, as seen in the music of The Weeknd, while the connection to electronic music likely reflects the popularity of dance pop and EDM, exemplified by artists like Dua Lipa and Calvin Harris.

R&B also functions as a bridging genre, displaying notable correlations with pop, rock (r = 0.374), electronic music (r = 0.375), and indie (r = 0.336). This versatility reflects its contemporary evolution and adaptability to new formats and collaborations (e.g., The Weeknd and Beyoncé). In the alternative music scene, the relationship between indie and electronic music (r = 0.303) signals a convergence within innovative festival circuits—notably Primavera Sound (Barcelona) and Coachella (California). These line-ups, tailored to young and creative audiences, reinforce the image of these cities as experimental cultural hubs aligned with global trends.

Conversely, Latin music displays only moderate correlations with indie (r = 0.218) and electronic music (r = 0.176) and weak or negligible associations with rock (r = 0.022) and hip hop (r = −0.080). This segmentation reflects the existence of distinct cultural circuits defined by audience profiles, market structures, and musical geopolitics, with epicentres including Mexico City, Miami, and Buenos Aires for Latin genres and Atlanta and New York for hip hop. The link with indie may stem from the rise of Latin indie music, with acts such as Café Tacvba or Mon Laferte gaining international recognition. The connection with electronic genres may be attributed to the growth of electronic reggaetón, where artists like J Balvin have incorporated synthetic textures and digital beats. In contrast, the low correlation with rock and hip hop suggests that these genres typically cater to more distinct audiences and are featured in separate concert circuits.

Some genres show low integration within the broader musical landscape, suggesting more segmented audiences. Opera, in particular, emerges as a highly specialised genre with a limited correlation to other categories. This is explained by its programming in exclusive venues—notably historic theatres and auditoriums—its comparatively smaller (though more selective) audience base, and its deep roots in cities with strong classical traditions, such as Vienna, Milan, New York, and London. Opera rarely overlaps with contemporary popular music, except in rare cases of crossover or fusion (e.g., Andrea Bocelli’s collaborations with pop artists). A similar pattern is observed with hip hop, which shows moderate integration only with electronic music (r = 0.172), likely due to shared electronic production elements and the genre’s ongoing experimentation with digital aesthetics (e.g., Travis Scott and Kanye West).

Ultimately, these findings demonstrate that cultural and sporting events are not distributed randomly, but follow patterns of thematic affinity, infrastructural logic, historical continuity, and strategic orientation. Cities that succeed in combining multiple genres or disciplines build a more versatile and resilient image, while those that pursue thematic specialisation reinforce their symbolic identity within targeted circuits. In both cases, these decisions give rise to networks of cities interconnected by cultural affinities, allowing us to conceptualise a symbolic topology within the world urban system—a network structured not only by hierarchy, but also by stylistic proximity, inter-urban collaboration, and thematic differentiation.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study shed new light on the symbolic dimension of global urban processes by demonstrating the analytical potential of events and festivals as cultural indicators. Based on the premise that urban globalisation is not exclusively driven by economic functions, this research shows how cities strategically mobilise cultural programming to generate symbolic capital and project distinct identities within global circuits. The revised SIEF reflects these dynamics by offering an alternative framework for interpreting urban positioning and inter-urban relations in the twenty-first century.

Our results support the idea of a dual spatial logic in globalisation processes: first, a vertical, hierarchical logic that reflects a pyramidal structure of symbolic power—where top-tier cities maintain dominance through diversification and high-volume event programming, and second, a horizontal, networked logic shaped by thematic specialisation, cultural affinities, and participation in global cultural circuits. This coexistence of hierarchical and relational structures confirms previous analyses on the multiplex nature of urban globalisation [11,16] and provides empirical evidence for the increasingly diverse mechanisms through which cities acquire symbolic relevance.

Moreover, the comparison between the SIEF and GaWC rankings further supports the argument that symbolic capital and economic functionality do not always align. While multifunctional cities (e.g., London, Paris, New York, and Tokyo) remain highly ranked in both indices, many mid-level or peripheral cities (e.g., Doha, Rio de Janeiro, and Nice) have embraced culture as an alternative pathway to global visibility. This insight opens new avenues for research into the interplay between urban policy, symbolic projection, and soft power.

The correlation analyses between event categories also reveal programming patterns that transcend administrative and regional boundaries. Thematic clusters in sport and music highlight functional logics and cultural preferences that shape urban specialisation. These findings align with recent scholarship on the growing role of experiential culture and hybrid event formats in shaping urban competitiveness [18,31].

However, the pursuit of symbolic capital through event programming entails certain risks. As highlighted in previous studies, an overreliance on large-scale events may lead to commodification, socio-spatial exclusion, and environmental strain [8,37]. The key challenge is to develop symbolic strategies that are inclusive, sustainable, and culturally coherent—especially for cities located in lower tiers of the global urban hierarchy [30,40].

Despite its methodological rigour, this study also faces limitations. First, the use of a weighted additive method—while transparent and easily replicable—may oversimplify the complex interdependencies between event types. Alternative approaches, such as geometric aggregation or multicriteria decision analysis, could be explored in future editions to evaluate the impact of methodological choices [44,45]. Second, data availability remains uneven across world regions, especially in the Global South, which may affect the representation and ranking of certain cities. Although conservative imputation techniques were used, this structural asymmetry still affects global comparability. Third, the index presents a static picture as of 2024, which limits its ability to reflect the evolving dynamics in symbolic urban competition, particularly in response to disruptions such as pandemics, digital transformations, or political changes.

Additionally, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 include full correlation matrices to support visual comparisons across all event categories and to facilitate the understanding of symbolic synergies for non-specialist readers. While this enhances analytical transparency, future editions might consider alternative visualisations—such as upper-triangle matrices or filtered displays—to improve clarity without compromising interpretive depth. Furthermore, the relatively high representation of European cities may reflect stronger institutional transparency and better data availability, rather than a genuinely higher symbolic profile. This imbalance should be acknowledged when interpreting global rankings and addressed in future efforts to harmonise cultural data collection.

Despite these limitations, the main contribution of the SIEF lies in its potential to serve as a flexible and evolving analytical tool. Rather than offering a definitive ranking, the index provides a replicable and adaptable framework to track symbolic trajectories across cities over time. Future updates could incorporate qualitative variables—such as perception surveys or narrative analysis—expand regional representation, or integrate digital and hybrid event formats, thereby enhancing the index’s capacity to capture emerging cultural trends and the shifting geographies of symbolic power.

6. Conclusions

This article shows that events and festivals function not only as cultural expressions, but also as strategic tools for understanding and assessing the symbolic reconfiguration of the world urban system. By constructing the updated Synthetic Index of Events and Festivals (SIEF), the study introduces a new metric for evaluating the cultural positioning of cities beyond traditional economic frameworks.

First, the comparison between the 2017 and 2024 editions of the SIEF reveals significant changes in the global distribution of events. While major metropolises retain their hegemonic positions, an increasing number of intermediate and regional cities have emerged as competitive players through thematic specialisation and targeted cultural investment. This decentralisation suggests that symbolic capital is becoming more accessible to cities that align their cultural strategies with global narratives.

Second, the divergence between SIEF and GaWC rankings highlights the importance of adopting multidimensional approaches to urban global analysis. Cities with limited economic centrality may nonetheless exert substantial symbolic influence by hosting high-profile events, contributing to a broader and more inclusive understanding of urban power and visibility.

Third, the correlation analyses confirm that cultural and sporting events often follow patterns of synergy and complementarity. Cities that successfully integrate diverse event categories—ranging from international conferences to music festivals and sports tournaments—enhance their symbolic resilience and demonstrate versatility on the global stage.

The thematic analyses further reveal differentiated urban specialisation strategies, where specific sports or musical genres become key elements in identity-building and international projection. These findings underscore the cultural complexity of global urbanisation and the value of examining symbolic infrastructures alongside material ones.

From a policy perspective, the results encourage local governments to reconceptualise event programming not merely as a tool for economic development or tourism promotion, but as a platform for inclusive cultural production, narrative construction, and strategic internationalisation. Instruments such as the SIEF can support the design of data-driven, sustainable, and legacy-oriented urban strategies.

Ultimately, this study calls for a renewed focus on the symbolic geographies of cities. By placing culture and events at the core of global urban analysis, we gain a richer understanding of how cities narrate themselves, negotiate their positions within global hierarchies, and build meaningful relationships with diverse publics. In this sense, events emerge as both mirrors and makers of the world urban system.