Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review of public health interventions to curb respiratory infections at sporting mass gatheringsHow Sports Events Can Stop Virus Spread

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider multilayered, context-specific intervention packages when planning respiratory disease mitigation at sporting mass gatherings.

This systematic review evaluated the type and effectiveness of public health interventions implemented at sporting mass gatherings (MGs) to mitigate respiratory infectious disease spread, alongside feasibility and acceptability of implementation. Searches spanned Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health, Epistemonikos, Global Index Medicus, WHO Library, WHO IRIS, IOC and FIFA in June 2023 and July 2025. Publications before 2000, predictive modeling studies, commentaries, editorials, literature reviews, pre-prints, and studies not retrospectively discussing official sporting events were excluded.

Thirty-four articles assessing 37 sporting MGs were included, with the Olympic Games (n = 10) being the most frequently represented. Almost all articles described multi-layered intervention packages that combined bubble approaches, routine testing, country entry screening, masking, physical distancing, and/or isolation and quarantine. Applying an effectiveness framework developed for this review, 23 articles described effective intervention packages, three described non-effective packages, and six were indeterminate.

Feasibility concerns were prominent for MGs with many spectators and were linked to scalability issues. Acceptability was likely shaped by perceptions of increased work burden, compliance levels, and stakeholder engagement. The abstract does not report effect sizes, transmission rates, or safety outcomes, and findings reflect heterogeneous event contexts rather than controlled comparisons.

Clinical and public health relevance is restrained: the review offers the first comprehensive mapping of pre-pandemic and pandemic-era planning for sporting MGs, supporting multilayered, context-specific intervention packages as a plausible way to meaningfully reduce respiratory disease spread. Conclusions rest on retrospective event reports, and the included evidence base was not designed to quantify comparative effectiveness.

The Stadium Problem

Imagine a massive stadium packed with 80,000 people cheering for their team. Everyone is close together. They are breathing hard. This creates a perfect storm for germs to fly through the air.

Respiratory viruses, like the flu or common cold, love these crowded places. They spread easily when people talk, shout, or breathe near each other. For athletes, a cold can ruin a career. For fans, it means missing out on the game they love.

We have seen how fast viruses move during global events. The world faced a huge challenge recently with the pandemic. Many events had to cancel or move online.

But life is moving forward. People want to play sports again. They want to gather in person. The question is how to do this safely. We need plans that work for huge crowds, not just small local games.

The Old Way vs. The New Way

In the past, organizers relied on luck. They hoped people would wash their hands or stay home if they felt sick. This often wasn't enough. Viruses still spread quickly.

But here is the twist. New research shows we can do better. We don't need just one trick. We need a whole team of safety steps working together. Think of it like a shield made of many layers.

Scientists looked at many different safety tools. Some tools stop germs from entering the stadium. Others stop them from moving around inside.

Imagine a security checkpoint at an airport. You show your ID, and you get a scan. Now imagine that same idea for health. People get checked before they enter. They might wear masks. They might get tested.

Another tool is the "bubble" approach. This means keeping athletes in a separate area. They only interact with other team members. This stops germs from jumping from the public to the players.

Researchers looked at 34 different reports. These reports covered 37 major sporting events. The most famous ones were the Olympic Games. They checked what happened before the pandemic and during it.

They asked two main questions. First, did these safety steps actually stop the virus? Second, was it easy for organizers to use them? They studied everything from entry checks to quarantine rules.

The good news is clear. Multi-layered plans work. When organizers used many tools together, they saw fewer sick people. Tools like entry screening and routine testing were very helpful.

However, not every plan worked the same way. Some events had packages that did not work well. Others were unclear because the data was mixed. The best results came when teams combined several methods.

But there is a catch. Even when the science works, real life is messy. Organizers found it hard to scale these plans.

The Real-World Hurdles

Feasibility was a big challenge. Events with many spectators were the hardest to manage. It is one thing to test a few athletes. It is another to manage thousands of fans.

Acceptability was also an issue. Staff felt the work burden was too heavy. They worried about compliance. Would fans actually wear masks? Would they follow the rules? If people do not agree with the plan, they will not follow it.

The study authors say these plans must fit the specific context. A plan for the Olympics is different from a plan for a local soccer match. You cannot copy and paste one solution for every event.

They emphasize that trust is key. If fans and staff trust the organizers, they are more likely to follow the rules. Engagement with all stakeholders is necessary for success.

If you are a fan, know that organizers are thinking about your safety. They are using science to keep events safe. If you are an organizer, talk to your team about layered defenses.

Do not rely on just one rule. Combine testing, masking, and distancing. Talk to your staff about the extra work. Make sure they feel supported.

This review has some limits. It looked at studies from before and during the pandemic. Some data was not perfect. We do not know exactly how these plans will work with new virus variants yet.

More research is needed to refine these plans. Scientists will look at new data as events happen. We may see better ways to handle large crowds.

The goal is to keep sports alive and safe. We can host big events without fear. It takes smart planning and teamwork. The future of sports depends on balancing fun with safety.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
To determine the type and effectiveness of public health interventions implemented at sporting mass gatherings to mitigate respiratory infectious disease spread and understand how feasible and acceptable the interventions were to implement. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health, Epistemonikos, Global Index Medicus, WHO Library, WHO IRIS, IOC and FIFA were search in June 2023 and July 2025. Studies that assessed public health strategies for sporting mass gatherings aiming to reduced respiratory infections were included. Publications prior to 2000, predictive modeling studies, commentaries, editorials, literature reviews, pre-prints and studies that did not retrospectively discuss official sporting events were excluded. Thirty-four articles assessing 37 sporting MGs were included. The most common MGs assessed were the Olympic Games (n = 10). Almost all articles described multi-layered intervention packages including bubble approaches, routine testing, country entry screening, masking, physical distancing and/or isolation and quarantine. Based on an effectiveness framework developed for this study, 23 articles described effective intervention packages, three described non-effective packages and six were indeterminate. Feasibility concerns appeared a challenge for MGs with many spectators and linked to scalability issues. Acceptability factors were likely influenced by perceptions of increased work burden, compliance levels and stakeholder engagement. This systematic review provides the first opportunity to comprehensively map pre-pandemic and pandemic-era planning for sporting MGs and underscores the importance of multilayered, context-specific intervention packages which may meaningfully reduce the risk of respiratory disease spread.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.