Why ICCA Rankings Don’t Tell the Whole Story

For decades, ICCA rankings have been used as a benchmark to measure the success of destinations in the international congress sector. Cities proudly display their position on the list; countries reference it in promotional campaigns. But behind the allure of numbers lies a reality that’s far more complex—and often misunderstood.

The ICCA Methodology: A Narrow Lens

ICCA’s ranking system is based on a limited set of criteria: it includes only international events that rotate among at least three countries, recur on a regular basis, and involve a minimum number of participants. Moreover, much of the data is collected through self-reporting by ICCA members (such as CVBs, venues, and PCOs), which introduces variability and potential bias.

This methodology excludes:

• Specialized scientific congresses that do not rotate internationally.

• Ad-hoc or one-off high-level institutional events.

• Hybrid formats that have become central post-pandemic.

• Events not reported by ICCA members.

As a result, entire segments of the global congress market are left out of the picture.

The Data Illusion

The danger lies not in the data itself, but in how it is interpreted. Media outlets and public institutions often present ICCA rankings as a comprehensive indicator of global performance. But in truth, they represent only a fraction of the market, filtered through narrow criteria and a self-selecting network of contributors.

This creates a false sense of leadership or decline, depending on the country or city’s ability to align with ICCA’s standards—not necessarily their real-world congress activity or scientific relevance.

Structural Biases and Data Gaps

Territories with More Association Headquarters Are Overrepresented

Destinations hosting the legal headquarters of many international associations are automatically more present in the ranking—regardless of their actual congress appeal. This criterion artificially favors certain capitals (like Brussels or Geneva) and penalizes cities that are active in bidding for and organizing high-quality congresses.

Voluntary and Uneven Data Collection

ICCA's database depends largely on:

• voluntary reporting by ICCA members (Convention Bureaux, venues, PCOs)

• self-declared information from event promoters

This leads to geographic imbalances: destinations with structured reporting systems and ICCA membership appear more frequently, while others—even those hosting qualifying events—remain invisible.

Easily Manipulated Rankings

Because the rankings are based solely on the number of reported events, not on qualitative or economic indicators:

• some cities can climb the list by increasing reporting capacity

• others may fall due to organizational gaps—despite robust actual activity

This undermines the reliability of the ranking as an objective benchmark, turning it into a self-referential tool that measures reporting efficiency rather than real market competitiveness.

A Broader Perspective Is Needed

For those seeking a more accurate understanding of global congress dynamics, alternative sources such as UIA (Union of International Associations) offer a different lens. Unlike ICCA, UIA tracks the demand side—i.e., the activities of over 75,000 international organizations that actually plan and hold events.

While UIA’s methodology may be less “marketable,” it paints a richer, more analytical picture of long-term trends, knowledge flows, and sector maturity.

Conclusion:

The ICCA ranking can still be valuable as a sector-specific monitoring tool. However, it does not reflect a destination’s actual position in the congress market as a whole.

To assess true competitiveness, one must also consider:

• the total number of congresses (including national events)

• the scientific quality of the content

• the overall volume of participants and congress-days

• the direct and indirect economic impact

In short, stakeholders—especially those in public policy and destination management—should look beyond the allure of rankings and embrace a more comprehensive, demand-driven approach to congress intelligence.