survey of sports clubs 2009 - amazon web...
TRANSCRIPT
SURVEY OF SPORTS CLUBS 2009
November 2009
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Submitted to:
Lindsay Sutherland and Andrew Hanson
CCPR
4th Floor Burwood House
14-16 Caxton Street
London
SW1H 0QT
Submitted by:
Peter Taylor and David Barrett
Sport Industry Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University
and
Geoff Nichols
School of Management
University of Sheffield
Tel: +44 (0)114 225 5922
Fax: +44 (0)114 225 4341
Email: [email protected]
3
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
4
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report provides information for CCPR on the state of sports clubs in the UK; in terms of finances, facilities, membership, volunteering and the challenges they face.
2. A sample of sports clubs responded to an online questionnaire promoted through governing bodies of sport. 2,991clubs provided responses to basic questions and 1,975 clubs provided full details on questions about members,volunteers, income and expenditure, for 2008 and 2007.
3. The timing of the survey in 2009 allows an impression to be gained of clubs as they enter the economic recession,which started in the second half of 2008. On the one hand, the average surplus made by clubs is small, suggestingthat clubs are less vulnerable to recession because most are not reliant on large surpluses. Furthermore, a slightlyhigher percentage of clubs made profits in 2008. On the other hand, average profits fell by a third in 2007-08; and over a quarter of clubs made a financial loss in 2008 - higher than in 2007.
4. Membership numbers confirm the importance of clubs in providing opportunities for sports participation for adultsand juniors - average club size is 117 adults and 107 juniors, although this is probably influenced by sample biasin favour of larger clubs.
5. Clubs are very reliant on volunteers (21 per club on average). The small numbers of paid staff are used mainly for bar and catering, maintenance and grounds, and coaching.
6. Most clubs (68%) are reliant on relationships with other organisations for playing facilities. Thus clubs aresusceptible to changes in hire charges, facility availability and quality. While the highest proportion of average club income (nearly 30%) is provided by membership subscriptions, income from bar, catering and hospitality isthe second highest proportion - clubs which own or lease their own social facilities are most likely to be able to benefit from this.
7. A majority of clubs acknowledge that their NGBs are value for money, although 23% disagree. One of the most common complaints is that NGBs are too focussed at the national level and ignore grass roots sport.
8. Sports clubs are economically resilient but they are also sensitive to changes in the policies of organisations theywork with and the legislative framework provided by government. The survey findings give direction to, and confirmthe value of, the CCPR’s role of representation and advocacy.
5
SURVEY OF SPORTS CLUBS 2009
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
CONTENTS
Pages
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHODS2.1 Sampling 2.2 Weighting2.3 Measuring change
3. RESULTS3.1 Facilities3.2 Membership
Subscription fees3.3 Volunteers and paid staff3.4 Finances
IncomeExpenditureProfit and loss
3.5 Challenges and opportunities3.6 National Governing Bodies
4. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Appendix 1 Survey questionnaire Appendix 2 List of challenges Appendix 3 List of opportunities
6
7
8888
911192528313136414648
51
53
546364
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
1. INTRODUCTION
This survey provides information on the state of sports clubs run by their members in the UKin terms of finances, facilities, membership, volunteering and the challenges they face.
Sports clubs run by volunteers are a critical part of the sporting infrastructure in the UK. They provide the opportunity fora large proportion of sports participation, with its associated benefits to individuals and the community. They provideopportunities for the expression of active citizenship through volunteering, and are more important than any other type ofsporting organisation in this respect (1, 2). Further, they provide the opportunities for social interaction that enriches localcommunities. In the broadest sense the ability of volunteers to come together and create something reflecting their sharedvalues - in this case, their passion for sport - is a reflection of a society in which free expression of collective values ispossible and encouraged, as a positive contribution to society (3).
Voluntary sector sports clubs, within their national governing body (NGB) structure, have developed in the UK since thelatter half of the 19th century. Sports clubs and NGBs have a long tradition of independence; however they have developedin parallel to commercial sport and sports opportunities provided by local and central government, and continue to do so.Thus while the structure of voluntary sector sport in the UK may appear very resilient, it has to adapt to change and thechallenges this brings (4). These challenges include: attracting, managing and retaining volunteers; attracting and retainingmembers; reacting to pressures to ‘professionalise’ in terms of emulating the management practices of the other sectors;reacting to the policy priorities of local and national government; and reacting to changes in legislation (5, 6, 7). Thesechallenges are not unique to the UK (8) and recently have also included the need to react to the downturn in the economy.
This survey was commissioned by CCPR to provide a sound basis for its work of supporting, representing and lobbying forthe voluntary sector in sport.
While it is anticipated that repeating the survey will allow an identification of trends, the present survey is not comparablewith previous work (9) because of differences in sampling, weighting procedures and questions. In particular, the presentsurvey has asked more details about clubs’ volunteers, income and expenditure - the financial questions are particularlyimportant in the present economic climate.
7
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
2. METHODS
2.1 Sampling
The sample of sports clubs was collected by response to an online questionnaire.
Governing bodies of sport facilitated this by either alerting club secretaries directly to the questionnaire or by a generalpromotion of it on the governing body website. In addition, some County Sport Partnerships were contacted directly topromote the survey to clubs in their County.
2,991 clubs provided responses up to and including question 8, the start of Section 2 (see Appendix 1). 1,975 clubsprovided a complete set of responses, including full details of the more complex questions on income and expenditure forthis year and the previous year. Thus the base figure for the output in the report varies according to how many clubscompleted each individual question. Clubs from 73 sports completed the whole questionnaire, and 24 sports achievedresponses from over 30 of their clubs.
The sample over-represents CASCs (Community Amateur Sports Clubs) (17% of the sample) and clubs that have achievedClubmark status (40% of the sample). If there are approximately 150,000 clubs in the UK, then both CASC and Clubmarkclubs are about 4% each of the total. Therefore, the sample probably over-represents the more formally organised clubs,which tend to be larger. One reason for the over-representation of this type of club is because the requirements ofaccreditation will mean they have easier access to financial and other records. The presentation of results allows acomparison of CASC clubs, clubs that have Clubmark status, clubs that are registered charities, and clubs which are noneof these. Thus the sample has not been weighted for these characteristics.
2.2 Weighting
The sample has been weighted to make it representative of the number of clubs in individual sports.
This was achieved by contacting the national governing bodies of sport directly to find out how many clubs were affiliatedto each one. Thus it was possible to estimate the proportion of all clubs in the UK in each sport represented in the survey.These proportions were then used to weight the responses from the sports.
While this procedure was carried out to increase the representativeness of the sample, it is limited by any differences theremay be in the definition of ‘a club’ and the differing proportions of clubs between sports that are unaffiliated to the NGBs.
2.3 Measuring change
When asked about 'this year', 2008 was commonly the year for which details were provided.
'Last year' was therefore 2007. Changes between 2007 and 2008 were estimated by asking clubs for figures in bothyears. The same respondents have given responses for both years.
8
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3. RESULTS
All the results that follow are weighted, except where individual sports are identified.
In many of the figures that follow, the total results are presented alongside three breakdowns which allow the following comparisons:
• clubs with CASC, Clubmark, Charitable status, and none of these - NB there is some duplication in the CASC,Clubmark, and Charitable categories because some clubs belong to more than one of these;
• clubs which are facility-owning, and not facility-owning - these categories are mutually exclusive;• clubs which are non-profit, profit-making, informal and other (including works teams, school clubs, university
clubs and some Industrial and Provident Societies) - these categories are also mutually exclusive. Question 4 in Appendix 1 gives the definitions of these categories.
Figure 1 presents the proportions of clubs in these different categories. Clear majorities are not facility-owning; and non-profit; whilst 36% are not CASC, Clubmark or charitable. Nevertheless the figures allow comparisons between thesedifferent types.
In addition, key findings will be shown by individual sports, utilising the results of the 24 sports that achieved 30 or morecomplete responses in the survey, along with four others which were close to 30 complete responses, and ‘other sports’as a category, which is a mixture of all other responding sports. The individual sports results are not weighted.
9
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
10
17%
9%
40%
35%
23%
75%
93%
2%2%
2%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
Ow
ning
Non
-Ow
ning
.N
on-p
rofi
t clu
bP
rofi
t mak
ing
Info
rmal
Oth
er
Percentage of Clubs in Survey Sample
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
1 -
Stru
ctu
re o
f Sur
vey
Sam
ple
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3.1 Facilities
Figure 2 shows the different arrangements clubs use to obtain facilities.
These sum to more than 100% because some clubs use different facilities to play.
For those clubs which hire a facility, half hire from a local authority; a quarter from a school, college or university; one inten from a private organisation; 6% from a charity/trust; and one in ten from another type of provider.
Figures 3-6 show the percentages of clubs owning, leasing, hiring or using public space facilities to play, for individualsports with the most responses in the survey. It is clear that the percentages vary considerably between sports, with:
• high proportions of clubs in golf, rowing, rugby union, sailing and tennis owning their own facilities; • relatively high proportions of clubs in bowls, cricket, rugby union, rugby league and sailing leasing facilities; • over 90% of clubs in basketball, hockey and swimming hiring facilities; and • over three quarters of clubs in athletics, climbing/mountaineering, cycling, rowing and sailing using public space
facilities.
Figure 7 shows the average length of lease for the 28% of clubs which lease facilities. Over the total, weighted sample,the average lease is 20 years, but it is longer for Clubmark clubs and facility-owning clubs.
In terms of social facilities, Figure 8 shows where the club members socialise. As we shall see later, ownership or lease ofsocial facilities has significant financial implications.
11
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
12
23%
29%
68%
33%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Q8a
Doe
s you
r cl
ub o
wn
a fa
cilit
y at
whi
ch to
pl
ay /
part
icip
ate
/ tra
in?
Q8b
Doe
s you
r cl
ub le
ase
a fa
cilit
y at
whi
ch to
pl
ay /
part
icip
ate
/ tra
in?
Q8c
Doe
s you
r cl
ub h
ire
a fa
cilit
y at
whi
ch to
pl
ay /
part
icip
ate
/ tra
in?
Q8e
Doe
s you
r cl
ub u
se p
ublic
spac
e to
pla
y /
part
icip
ate
/ tra
in?
% of Clubs Using Playing Facilities
Fig
ure
2 -
Use
of P
layi
ng
Fac
ilitie
s, b
y T
enu
re T
ype
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
13
23%
9%
10%
17%
5%
11%
2%
6%
45%
29%
48%
6%
6%
58%
9%
17%
8%
8%
6%
55%
24%
55%
61%
24%
47%
0%
9%
59%
6%
14%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
3,05
8.
9861
261
9495
4963
250
5120
167
5333
190
110
3636
156
478
320
111
546
4380
3359
4828
5
% of Clubs
Fig
ure
3 -
Prop
orti
on o
f Clu
bs O
wni
ng P
layi
ng
Fac
ilitie
s, b
y S
por
t
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
14
29%
12%
18%
33%
15%
6%
12%
5%
37%
14%
41%
9%
8%
33%
16%
15%
11%
17%
6%
32%
37%
43%
49%
35%
9%
3%
21%
24%
2%
20%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
3,05
8.
9861
261
9495
4963
250
5120
167
5333
190
110
3636
155
478
320
111
546
4380
3359
4828
5
% of Clubs
Fig
ure
4 -
Prop
orti
on o
f Clu
bs L
easi
ng P
layi
ng F
acili
ties
, by
Sp
ort
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
15
68%
80%
79%
85%
60%
86%
76%
94%
21%
16%
58%
37%
81%
12%
79%
91%
58%
67%
85%
17%
78%
45%
13%
72%
49%
96%
67%
29%
90%
65%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
3,05
8.
9861
261
9495
4963
250
5120
167
5333
190
110
3636
156
478
320
111
546
4380
3359
4828
5
% of Clubs
Fig
ure
5 -
Pro
port
ion
of C
lub
s Hir
ing
Pla
yin
g F
acili
ties,
by
Spo
rt
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
16
33%
2%
5%
37%
82%
2%
45%
3%
14%
88%
13%
93%
0%
21%
1%
5%
44%
53%
5%
94%
20%
13%
75%
2%
0%
1%
3%
12%
35%
35%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
3,05
8.
9861
261
9495
4962
249
5120
067
5333
190
109
3636
155
478
320
111
546
4380
3359
4828
6
% of Clubs
Fig
ure
6 -
Pro
port
ion
of C
lub
s Usi
ng
Pu
blic
Sp
ace
for P
artic
ipat
ion
, by
Spo
rt
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
17
20
18
21
25
19
24
19
21
4
0
6
0 5 10
15
20
25
30
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(596
).
(208
)(7
4)(2
67)
(156
).
(151
)(4
45)
.(5
72)
(11)
(2)
(7)
Average Length of Lease (years)
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 7
-A
vera
ge L
engt
h o
f Fac
ility
Lea
se, b
y C
lub
Typ
e
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
18
23%
8%
14%
6%
11%
5%
19%
15%
0%5%10%
15%
20%
25%
We
use
a fa
cilit
y ow
ned
by th
e cl
ubW
e us
e a
faci
lity
leas
ed
by th
e cl
ub.
We
use
a lo
cal a
utho
rity
ow
ned
faci
lity
(e.g
. le
isur
e ce
ntre
, pla
ying
fi
eld)
We
use
a sc
hool
/ co
llege
/ u
nive
rsit
y ow
ned
faci
lity
We
use
a pr
ivat
ely
owne
d fa
cilit
yW
e us
e a
faci
lity
owne
d by
a tr
ust /
cha
rity
We
use
a pu
blic
hou
seO
ther
(ple
ase
spec
ify)
% of Clubs
Fig
ure
8 -
Use
of S
ocia
l Fac
ilitie
s
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3.2 Membership
Figure 9 shows average adult and junior membership numbers for clubs 'this year' (2008)and 'last year' (2007).
The average club sizes of 117 adult members and 107 junior members are probably higher than the true average for clubsin the UK, because of the sample bias in favour of CASC and Clubmark clubs. Clubs without CASC, Clubmark or charitablestatus have a much lower average size. The average club size in a survey of volunteers in 2002 was 77 (5).
Three categories of clubs are significantly larger than the total average for adult members - charitable, facility-owning andprofit-making. Unsurprisingly, informal clubs are significantly smaller than the average.
For the total sample, junior membership numbers are only just short of adult members. The types of clubs with the highestadult membership numbers tend to have higher junior membership numbers than the average too - particularly charitableclubs and profit-making clubs. Clubmark clubs are distinctive because on average they have higher junior membershipnumbers than adult - this is no doubt because it is an accreditation scheme for clubs with junior sections.
For almost all types of club, and for adult and junior memberships, the numbers of members are higher in 2008 than2007. The only exception is adult members in profit-making clubs. A different perspective on this apparently healthygrowth of members in most types of clubs is provided by the open comments reported towards the end of this report,where the most commonly cited challenge for clubs is recruiting and retaining members.
Figure 10 shows the average numbers of members per club by different sports. It demonstrates the large variety in theaverage sizes of clubs between different sports, from around 50 adult plus junior members per club in fencing and volleyball,to over 1,000 adult plus junior members in motor sports and golf. Excluding golf from the average for all clubs reduces itfrom 117 to 103 adult members and from 107 to 98 junior members.
Figures 11 and 12 show the percentages of clubs with expansion, stability or contraction in adult and junior membershipnumbers between 2007 and 2008. In the case of adult membership (Figure 11) whilst the majority of clubs have stablenumbers, it is encouraging that greater proportions of clubs of all types have expanding numbers than contracting numbers.This is even more the case for junior members (Figure 12), with an average of 39% of clubs expanding their juniormembership numbers, compared with 10% contracting. This picture might be favourably biased by the proportionatelyhigh number of Clubmark clubs in the sample.
Figure 13 shows the proportions of adult members that are playing and social members. On average 40% of adult membersare social members, which rises to 50% for clubs of charitable status and 66% for profit-making clubs. The social membersare not just people who frequent the bar! They are likely to consist mainly of volunteers, particularly ex-players who arenow putting something back into the clubs, as officers, coaches, officials, etc. This highlights the importance of clubs notsimply for playing sport but also for what is termed 'bonding social capital' - the coming together of people with sharedinterests and values.
Nevertheless, the significant proportion of members who are social members also relates to evidence presented below ofthe importance of income from the social side of clubs.
19
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
20
117
161
349
144
80
230
79
120
242
14
51
113
158
338
135
79
225
75
114
272
12
48
107
120
217
175
57
132
99
108
224
4
81
98
110
191
158
53
123
90
100
192
1
60
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit
mak
ing
Info
rmal
Oth
er
(2,5
39)
.(4
40)
(174
)(9
35)
(968
).
(638
)(1
,889
).
(2,3
57)
(44)
(93)
(28)
Average Number of Members
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
9 -A
vera
ge N
um
ber
of M
emb
ers
per
Clu
b, b
y C
lub
Typ
e
Adu
lt T
his
Yea
rA
dult
Las
t Yea
r
Juni
or T
his Y
ear
Juni
or L
ast Y
ear
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
21
117
93
38
95
111
48
65
25
167
104
107
68
25
527
21
94
105
782
33
177
110
197
340
55
143
35
46
389
37
81
113
84
33
86
111
46
57
18
163
102
92
58
22
539
17
92
102
754
30
175
93
187
314
53
135
33
39
375
35
79
107
113
14
167
78
42
14
80
4
129
89
16
27
59
171
63
19
32
32
41
125
221
74
6
32
157
54
165
11
55
98
71
10
146
72
39
11
66
4
84
73
11
23
60
150
54
15
33
29
37
111
213
71
6
27
146
40
155
8
48
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
2,53
9 .
9047
204
7777
4449
220
4718
661
4232
138
9932
3214
340
73
182
9944
4063
2753
4522
9
Average Number of Members per Club
Figu
re 1
0 -A
vera
ge N
umbe
r of
Mem
ber
s pe
r C
lub
, by
Spo
rt
Adu
lt T
his
Yea
rA
dult
Las
t Yea
r
Juni
or T
his Y
ear
Juni
or L
ast Y
ear
�
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
22
13%
16%
18%
9%14
%18
%
11%
13%
3%1%
1%
53%
51%
50%
55%
54%
52%
54%
53%
67%
52%
55%
34%
33%
32%
36%
32%
30%
35%
33%
29%
47%
44%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Faci
lity
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Prof
it m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(2,5
62)
.(4
42)
(178
)(9
44)
(1,4
12)
.(6
31)
(1,9
16)
.(2
,366
)(4
6)(9
4)(3
5)
Percentage of Clubs
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
11
-Pro
port
ion
of C
lub
s Sh
owin
g A
dult
Mem
bers
hip
Ch
ange
, by
Clu
b T
ype
Gro
win
g
Mai
ntai
ning
Con
trac
ting
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
23
10%
9%11
%11
%11
%13
%9%
10%
4%0%
0%
50%
48%
47%
37%
61%
50%
50%
51%
27%
99%
35%
40%
42%
41%
52%
29%
36%
41%
39%
69%
1%
65%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Faci
lity
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Prof
it m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(2,3
26)
.(4
24)
(167
)(9
60)
(1,1
99)
.(5
93)
(1,7
20)
.(2
,168
)(4
8)(5
1)(3
9)
Percentage of Clubs
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 1
2 -P
ropo
rtio
n o
f Clu
bs S
how
ing
Juni
or M
embe
rsh
ip C
han
ges,
by
Clu
b T
ype
Gro
win
g
Mai
ntai
ning
Con
trac
ting
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
24
60%
71%
50%
58%
63%
63%
58%
61%
34%
97%
80%
40%
29%
50%
42%
37%
37%
42%
39%
66%
3%
20%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Faci
lity
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Prof
it m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(2,3
50)
.(4
19)
(160
)(8
32)
(914
).
(603
)(1
,736
).
(2,1
77)
(37)
(92)
(28)
Percentage of Adult Members
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 1
3 -P
rop
orti
on o
f Adu
lt Pl
ayin
g an
d So
cial
Mem
bers
, by
Clu
b T
ype
Soci
al
Mem
bers
Play
ing
Mem
bers
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Subscription fees
Figure 14 shows the average annual subscription fees charged by clubs for adult members,junior members and social members, and compares these for 2008 and 2007.
In the sample as a whole, adult subscriptions average £70 for both 2008 and 2007, whilst junior subscriptions average£46 for 2008, slightly down on £47 in 2007. The average adult fees are significantly higher for CASC clubs, facility-owningclubs and profit-making clubs - all well over £100 a year. Junior fees are also at their highest at profit-making clubs. Socialmembership fees are very low - averaging just £13 a year.
Whereas the average fees across all clubs have hardly changed between 2008 and 2007, there are considerable differencesfor different types of club. Large increases in fees are apparent for adult members in charitable clubs, and increases havealso occurred for adult members in CASC and Clubmark clubs, facility-owning clubs, and profit-making clubs. Meanwhilefees have fallen for adults and juniors in clubs which are not CASC, Clubmark or charitable; and also for non-facility-owning clubs.
Relating the fees in Figure 14 to the membership numbers in Figure 9 shows that several of the types of clubs withincreases in average adult fees in 2008 also achieve higher adult membership numbers - CASC, Charitable, Clubmark,and facility-owning clubs. The average increases in subscription fees in most of these types of clubs are modest, however,as are the increases in their membership numbers. Clearly in these cases a small increase in subscription fees has notbeen a barrier to growth in membership. Profit-making clubs experience the more logical relationship - higher adult feesand lower membership numbers.
Figure 15 shows the average subscription fees for individual sports. As with other results, there is considerable variationin the fees across the 24 sports in the figure, with predictably the highest fees in golf clubs, but average adult fees of over£100 a year in several other sports, i.e. basketball, gymnastics/trampolining, hockey, netball, rowing, squash, swimming,tennis and volleyball. Excluding golf, the average subscription fees for all sports falls from £70 to £52 for adults, and from£46 to £43 for juniors..
25
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
26
70
115
93
78
59
116
55
73
127
16
12
70
109
72
73
67
110
56
73
120
15
11
46
43
56
62
35
41
48
47
103
3
21
47
41
55
57
46
38
51
49
86
3
19
13
18
20
13
12
21
10
13
15
6
26
13
19
17
13
11
21
9
12
26
3
26
0 20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit
mak
ing
Info
rmal
Oth
er
(2,1
75)
.(3
99)
(143
)(7
76)
(840
).
(570
)(1
,594
).
(2,0
44)
(26)
(71)
(23)
Annual Subscription Fees (£)
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
14
-Ave
rage
Su
bscr
ipti
on F
ees
per
Clu
b, b
y C
lub
Typ
e (£
)
Adu
lt T
his
Yea
rA
dult
Las
t Yea
r
Juni
or T
his Y
ear
Juni
or L
ast Y
ear
Soc
ial T
his
Yea
rSo
cial
Las
t Yea
r
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
27
70
72
70
33
24
92
66
103
60
20
57
19
96
636
58
121
16
32
80
130
45
70
95
74
94
100
51
152
150
74
70
66
68
42
24
96
62
88
58
19
54
17
77
612
49
112
15
32
81
118
37
75
89
76
95
104
49
147
141
64
46
36
27
46
12
60
17
87
12
7
19
8
70
141
108
40
5
8
45
68
57
33
27
19
24
134
32
40
47
57
47
32
25
54
12
57
13
81
12
6
17
8
61
126
96
39
5
7
41
58
20
30
25
18
23
127
28
40
44
45
13
7
21
5
11
10
13
8
9
15
12
9
11
57
6
21
11
12
18
37
15
31
31
14
17
12
8
26
33
21
13
8
21
4
11
10
12
10
9
13
11
10
11
57
6
20
10
10
21
33
9
34
30
17
15
11
7
28
35
23
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
2,97
4 .
8344
112
7572
4038
211
4216
949
3330
8093
3130
128
3756
172
8844
3750
2853
3919
1
Annual Subscription Fees (£)
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 1
5 -A
vera
ge S
ubs
crip
tion
Fees
per
Clu
b, b
y S
por
t (£)
Adu
lt T
his
Yea
rA
dult
Las
t Yea
r
Juni
or T
his Y
ear
Juni
or L
ast Y
ear
Soci
al T
his
Yea
rS
ocia
l Las
t Yea
r
�
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3.3 Volunteers and paid staff
Figure 16 shows that, on average, clubs have 21 volunteers but only one or two paid staff.
This varies, of course, by the type of club. Charitable clubs in the sample have the highest number of volunteers, 50 onaverage, whilst CASC, Clubmark, facility-owning and non-profit clubs all have more than the average number of volunteers.Not surprisingly, profit-making clubs have more paid staff than other types of club, and have twice as many part-time paidstaff as volunteers on average.
Comparison of 2008 with 2007 shows that overall, and in all types of clubs, the numbers of volunteers have risen, albeitslightly. This is encouraging, particularly when the open comments reported later reveal that one of clubs' biggest challengesis obtaining and retaining volunteers.
Figure 17 shows what kind of tasks volunteers and paid staff do. All clubs have management and administration volunteersor staff, and coaches - the columns for these categories add up to 100% or more. However, a much lower proportion ofclubs have bar and catering volunteers or staff - the other clubs presumably use other social facilities where manpower isnot needed, as shown in Figure 8 above.
Volunteers are very important to all the tasks. They are proportionately less important for bar and catering, and maintenanceand grounds staff – the roles where paid staff are more likely to be employed - although volunteers are still more commonlyemployed for these tasks. Paid staff also make an important contribution to coaching. Where volunteers and paid employeesare working on similar tasks in clubs, the volunteers in particular need to be managed sensitively.
28
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
29
21
26
50
32
12
27
19
22
4
1
7
19
24
47
30
11
25
17
21
4
1
6
1
2
2
2
1
3
0
1
10
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
0
1
9
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
4
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
1
3
0
1
0 10
20
30
40
50
60
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(2,2
44)
.(3
99)
(165
)(9
27)
(803
).
(557
)(1
,677
).
(2,1
16)
(30)
(49)
(38)
Average Count of Volunteers and Paid Staff
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 1
6 -A
vera
ge N
umb
er o
f Vol
unte
ers
and
Pai
d S
taff
per
Clu
b, b
y C
lub
Typ
e
Vol
unte
ers T
his Y
ear
Vol
unte
ers L
ast Y
ear
Paid
Par
t Tim
e T
his
Yea
rPa
id P
art T
ime
Las
t Yea
rPa
id F
ull T
ime
Thi
s Y
ear
Paid
Ful
l Tim
e L
ast Y
ear
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
30
93%
37%
56%
86%
73%
77%
87%
91%
83%
89%
30%
5%
15%
10%
10%
3%
4%
1%
1%
3%
2%
5%
6%
10%
6%
4%
3%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
2%
4%
49%
34%
8%
25%
21%
13%
10%
16%
8%
65%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Man
agem
ent a
nd
adm
inis
trat
ive
Bar
and
cat
erin
gM
aint
enan
ce a
nd
grou
nd s
taff
Coa
ches
Supe
rvis
ors/
lead
ers
Off
icia
ls, S
afet
y/
secu
rity
Wel
fare
off
icer
Fund
rais
ing
Clu
b de
velo
pmen
tC
omm
unic
ati
ons
Oth
er
(2,4
47)
(1,4
18)
(1,5
92)
(2,2
83)
(1,6
24)
(1,8
31)
(2,0
50)
(2,0
04)
(1,8
72)
(2,1
11)
(764
)
Percentage of Clubs Employing Volunteers / Paid Staff
Vol
unte
er T
ype
Fig
ure
17 -
Perc
enta
ge o
f Clu
bs E
mp
loyi
ng
Vol
unte
ers /
Pai
d St
aff b
y V
olun
teer
Typ
e
Vol
unte
ers
Paid
PT
sta
ff (<
30 h
rs/w
k)
Pai
d FT
sta
ff (3
0+ h
rs/w
k)
No
Ans
wer
, N/A
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3.4 Finances
Income
Figure 18 shows that overall, sports clubs have an average annual income of £41,937 per club.
This total average income is favourably influenced by the over-representation of CASC and Clubmark clubs in the surveysample. The average income per club is considerably higher for CASC, charitable, facility-owning and profit-making clubs.It is minimal for informal clubs. Average income per club has risen slightly since the previous year, and this is particularlyso for charitable clubs and profit-making clubs. Of the categories shown in Figure 18, only CASC clubs, non-facility-owningclubs, and informal clubs have suffered a fall in average income.
Figure 19 shows the variation in average annual income per club across different sports. The most 'different' sport in thisrespect is golf, with annual average income of over £500,000. All the other sports have average annual income per clubof less than £100,000, with quite a few less than £10,000 and four sports less than £5,000. Excluding golf from theoverall average income reduces it from £41, 937 to £27,781 per club.
Figures 20 and 21 show where sports clubs get their income from. The total clubs column illustrates a possibly surprisingfeature - bar, catering and hospitality provide nearly as much income as membership subscriptions (on average around24% of the total). The next most significant contributions come from match/game/tournament fees. Together, these threeitems provide over 60% of clubs' income.
The relative importance of different income sources varies according to the type of club. Bar/catering/hospitality is muchless important for charitable clubs, non-facility-owning clubs and profit-making clubs, and is non-existent for informalclubs - yet it provides 34% of the income of CASC clubs, and is the largest single income source for facility-owning clubs.The most 'different' profile appears to be for profit-making clubs, in Figure 21. However, this profile is distorted by theparticular circumstances of a few clubs in a small sample of 25. Therefore, this result does not represent the overall picturefor profit-making clubs.
31
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
32
£41,937
£78,382
£81,434
£57,202
£29,371
£98,902
£23,828
£42,030
£157,745
£443
£19,476
£40,508
£80,448
£66,286
£51,988
£28,483
£92,950
£24,062
£41,076
£121,654
£1,164
£19,384
0
20,0
00
40,0
00
60,0
00
80,0
00
100,
000
120,
000
140,
000
160,
000
180,
000
200,
000
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit
mak
ing
Info
rmal
Oth
er
(1,9
82)
.(3
48)
(139
)(7
48)
(778
).
(460
)(1
,512
).
(1,8
35)
(34)
(72)
(36)
Average Total Income (£)
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
18 -
Ave
rage
Tot
al In
com
e p
er C
lub,
by
Clu
b T
ype (
£)
Inco
me
Thi
s Y
ear
Inco
me
Las
t Yea
r
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
33
£41,937
£2,521
£4,870
£22,985
£8,835
£15,328
£3,034
£9,632
£29,362
£7,141
£32,881
£4,669
£6,389
£522,224
£37,534
£23,435
£30,371
£35,911
£4,092
£34,685
£21,541
£88,454
£66,938
£4,411
£24,491
£45,909
£6,889
£121,862
£5,625
£17,878
£40,508
£2,395
£4,149
£19,400
£7,644
£14,820
£2,886
£9,278
£29,041
£6,816
£33,403
£3,837
£4,251
£503,861
£33,410
£23,638
£29,172
£36,278
£3,509
£31,715
£17,854
£89,548
£67,251
£4,414
£26,128
£38,863
£4,945
£103,063
£4,300
£18,934
0
100,
000
200,
000
300,
000
400,
000
500,
000
600,
000
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
1,83
3 .
4633
185
5260
3141
151
2912
643
3522
102
7125
2185
3155
133
7431
3244
2241
3016
2
Average Total Income (£)
Spor
t
Fig
ure 1
9 -A
vera
ge T
otal
Inco
me
per
Clu
b, b
y Sp
ort (
£)
Inco
me
Thi
s Y
ear
Inco
me
Las
t Yea
r
�
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
34
£13
,095
£29,
113
£17,
035
£18
,193
£8,5
17
£22,
540
£10,
115
£10
,454
£25,
528
£3,4
80
£12
,206
£8
,36
5 £2
5,83
1
£5,
276
£5,
387
£7,
138
£14,
004
£8,0
10
£3,4
68
£8,
439
£4,
532
£3,
529
£3,
167
£2,6
23
£6,3
02
£1,6
10
£6,
450
£2,
473
£2,
506
£2,
568
£10,
237
£4,2
44
£780
£4,
034
£2,
064
£2,
497
£80
0
£1,9
43
£634
£5,0
49
£9,
880
£35
5
£2,
286
£1,
380
£16,
756
£3,9
74
£1,0
27
£5,
103
£
1,4
89
£1,
754
£2,
837
£4,6
54
£3,0
78
£543
£
2,6
79
£1,
509
£1,
661
£1,
816
£3,6
40
£2,1
91
£1,4
08
£2,
858
£
1,3
27
£653
£
793
£1,7
20
£1,1
28
£388
£
1,1
27
£51
7 £6
51
£1,3
30
£2,
640
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
Ow
ning
Non
-Ow
ning
(1,5
88)
.(2
76)
(106
)(6
08)
(637
).
(373
)(1
,213
)
% of Average Total Income
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
20
-Bre
akdo
wn
of M
ajor
Inco
me
Sou
rces
, by
Clu
b T
ype
Sale
of a
sset
s
Spec
tato
r rec
eipt
s
Sale
s an
d m
erch
andi
se
Com
mer
cial
spo
nsor
ship
Coa
chin
g an
d in
stru
ctio
n fe
es
Rev
enue
Gra
nts i
nc. L
otte
ry
Oth
er S
ourc
es o
f Inc
ome
Fund
rais
ing
e.g.
raff
les
Ren
ting
out o
f fac
ilitie
s
Mat
ch g
ame
tour
nam
ent f
ees
Bar
cat
erin
g an
d ho
spita
lity
Ann
ual m
embe
rshi
p
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
35
£13
,095
£1
3,9
17
£10
,238
£884
£3,
541
£10
,454
£11,
186
£7,8
84
£3,
048
£5,
387
£5,7
19
£5,9
81
£335
£79
4
£3,
529
£2,1
26
£47
,638
£9,
051
£2,
506
£2,7
24
£559
£18
£41
5 £
2,49
7
£92
9
£44
,968
£10
3
£2,
286
£2,4
39
£2,4
25
£43
7
£1,
754
£1,3
87
£21
,058
£160
£
1,6
04
£1,
661
£1,5
88
£7,2
34
£88
£653
£
498
£7,0
65
£88
4
£651
£20
,307
£24
4 £2
,20
4
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
Non
-pro
fit c
lub
Pro
fit m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(1,5
88)
.(1
,490
)(2
5)(4
6)(2
6)
% of Average Total Income
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
21
-Bre
akdo
wn
of M
ajor
Inco
me
Sou
rces
, by
Clu
b T
ype
Sale
of a
sset
s
Spec
tato
r rec
eipt
s
Sale
s an
d m
erch
andi
se
Com
mer
cial
spo
nsor
ship
Coa
chin
g an
d in
stru
ctio
n fe
es
Rev
enue
Gra
nts i
nc. L
otte
ry
Oth
er S
ourc
es o
f Inc
ome
Fund
rais
ing
e.g.
raff
les
Ren
ting
out o
f fac
ilitie
s
Mat
ch g
ame
tour
nam
ent f
ees
Bar
cat
erin
g an
d ho
spita
lity
Ann
ual m
embe
rshi
p
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Expenditure
Figures 22-25 show the other side of equation - clubs' expenditure.
On average this is £40,089 per club (Figure 22), although several types of club have much higher average annualexpenditures - particularly profit-making clubs but also for CASC, charitable, and facility-owning clubs. Non-facility-owningclubs have significantly lower expenditure than the average, and for informal clubs expenditure is minimal. It is importantto note that the average expenditure for profit-making clubs is inflated by one or two clubs' very large expenditures, in asmall sub-sample of 20.
Figure 23 shows the annual average expenditure per club for different sports. As with income, golf has conspicuouslyhigher annual average expenditure per club than other sports in the figure; whilst for eleven of the sports, annual averageexpenditure per club is less than £10,000. Excluding golf from the average expenditure for all sports reduces it from£40,089 to £27,459 per club.
On average, Figures 24 and 25 show that four expenditure categories make up nearly 80% of expenditure - staff andvolunteer expenses, premises, cost of sales (bar, catering, vending, merchandise), and sport related costs (i.e. transport,kit, equipment, fees to coaches). As with income, the proportions of total expenditure accounted for by different expenditurecategories varies considerably by type of club. For example, staff and volunteer expenses account for a much biggerproportion of total expenditure in clubs without CASC, Clubmark or charitable status, and for profit-making and informalclubs. Interestingly, premises costs are about the same proportions of total costs for facility-owning and non-facility-owningclubs (although the absolute premises costs are much higher in the former).
36
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
37
£40,089
£69,172
£81,179
£59,028
£26,464
£90,150
£24,848
£39,738
£195,199
£1,337
£23,526
£35,846
£67,918
£56,532
£51,849
£24,516
£79,284
£22,384
£36,918
£96,378
£1,247
£17,591
0
20,0
00
40,0
00
60,0
00
80,0
00
100,
000
120,
000
140,
000
160,
000
180,
000
200,
000
220,
000
240,
000
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit
mak
ing
Info
rmal
Oth
er
(1,6
37)
.(2
83)
(110
)(6
16)
(662
).
(375
)(1
,257
).
(1,5
13)
(24)
(67)
(29)
Average Total Expenditure (£)
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
22 -
Ave
rage
Tot
al E
xpen
ditu
re p
er C
lub,
by
Clu
b T
ype E
xpen
ditu
re T
his Y
ear
Exp
endi
ture
Las
t Yea
r
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
38
£40,089
£2,794
£4,464
£25,232
£8,122
£14,769
£3,569
£9,000
£26,124
£8,599
£33,498
£5,368
£8,280
£497,483
£36,061
£21,482
£30,452
£35,576
£3,857
£36,490
£20,722
£86,274
£59,100
£3,862
£11,579
£46,650
£5,734
£85,676
£5,418
£17,534
£35,846
£2,764
£3,741
£19,315
£7,651
£14,563
£2,445
£6,030
£24,900
£8,650
£30,293
£4,586
£4,364
£479,995
£33,181
£20,089
£30,994
£32,175
£3,651
£32,541
£17,326
£81,337
£56,901
£3,785
£9,141
£40,717
£4,559
£85,492
£4,180
£18,114
0
100,
000
200,
000
300,
000
400,
000
500,
000
600,
000
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
1,54
2 .
4331
148
4051
2937
139
2692
3332
1775
5822
1975
2943
104
6126
3038
2138
2714
2
Average Total Expenditure (£)
Spor
t
Figu
re 2
3 -A
vera
ge T
otal
Exp
end
iture
per
Clu
b, b
y S
por
t (£)
Exp
endi
ture
Thi
s Yea
rE
xpen
ditu
re L
ast Y
ear
�
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
39
£11,
027
£2
0,77
8
£12,
392
£
10,1
55
£12,
004
£30
,252
£5,
219
£9,8
80
£13,
404
£15,
959
£14
,413
£6,
943
£22
,232
£6,
119
£8,0
62
£24,
836
£2,5
54
£8,
838
£5,
554
£
19,7
67
£4,
664
£6,1
80
£6,
545
£18,
489
£11
,700
£2,
863
£
8,53
4
£5,
554
£4,8
74
£10,
004
£9,6
60
£7,
973
£3,
336
£
7,59
7
£4,
071
£2,3
11
£5,
689
£2
,475
£
3,10
8 £
1,3
23
£5,
861
£1,
037
£1,2
93
£2,
022
£2
,421
£
2,01
9 £
849
£1,
628
£1,
194
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
Ow
ning
Non
-Ow
ning
(1,4
03)
.(2
48)
(90)
(545
)(5
58)
.(3
28)
(1,0
73)
% of Average Total Expenditure
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 2
4 -B
reak
dow
n of
Maj
or E
xpen
ditu
re T
ypes
, by
Clu
b T
ype
Aff
iliat
ion
fees
Util
ities
cos
ts
Oth
er m
ajor
exp
endi
ture
s
Spor
t rel
ated
cos
ts
Cos
t of s
ales
Prem
ises
cos
ts
Staf
f and
Vol
unte
er e
xpen
ses
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
40
£11
,027
£
9,96
3
£113
,429
£7
38
£6,
117
£9,
880
£10
,184
£26
,680
£528
£3,
501
£8,
062
£8,
688
£1,
606
£14
£2,
252
£6,
180
£5,
375
£83
,663
£207
£2,
358
£4,
874
£4,
686
£35
,841
£35
£1,
007
£2,
311
£2,
218
£14
,897
£15
£2,
394
£1,
293
£1,
365
£1,
273
£113
£419
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
Non
-pro
fit c
lub
Pro
fit m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(1,4
03)
.(1
,316
)(1
6)(4
7)(2
4)
% of Average Total Expenditure
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 2
5 -B
reak
dow
n of
Maj
or E
xpen
ditu
re T
ypes
, by
Clu
b T
ype
Aff
iliat
ion
fees
Util
ities
cos
ts
Oth
er m
ajor
exp
endi
ture
s
Spor
t rel
ated
cos
ts
Cos
t of s
ales
Prem
ises
cos
ts
Staf
f and
Vol
unte
er e
xpen
ses
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Profit and loss
Figure 26 shows that over the whole sample, clubs make a small average profit of £1,986 per club.
Average profits are highest for profit-making clubs, CASC clubs, charitable clubs and facility-owning clubs. Three types ofclub make a loss on average - facility non-owning clubs, informal clubs and 'other' clubs (which are not non-profit, profit-makingor informal). Overall, the fall in average profits from last year (typically 2007 in the responses) to this year (typically 2008) isabout a third.
Figure 27 shows the average annual profit per club for individual sports. As with income and expenditure, golf stands outfor a much higher average profit per club than other sports, although there are other sports with significant average profitsin both years, i.e. sailing and squash. In contrast the annual average profit per club in 2008 was less than £1,000 in sevensports and negative (i.e. an average loss) in another seven sports. Excluding golf from the calculation of average profits forall sports reduces it from £1,986 to £1,316 per club.
Figures 28 and 29 show the proportions of clubs which are making a profit, breaking even (including up to £200 eitherside of break-even) and making a loss. Figure 28 does this for 2008 ('this year') and Figure 29 for 2007 ('last year'). Overthe whole sample, there are mixed signs of financial change:
• 49% of clubs made a profit in 2008, compared with 48% in 2007; • 26% of clubs made a loss in 2008, compared with 22% in 2007.
The economic recession began in the UK in the third quarter of 2008 for output and the second quarter of 2008 forconsumer spending, so the clubs' financial picture is fairly stable as the recession began. Furthermore, the proportions ofclubs making profits, breaking even and making losses for the minority which used 2009 as 'this year' are similar to thosethat used 2008 as 'this year'.
The clubs with the greatest financial deterioration in terms of loss making are informal and 'other' (i.e. not non-profit,profit-making or informal). In both cases the percentages of clubs making losses increased substantially in 2008, comparedwith much lower percentages in 2007.
The proportions of clubs making profits, breaking even and making losses vary significantly by types of club - also shownin Figures 28 and 29. Not surprisingly profit-making clubs have the highest proportion making profits and the lowestproportion making losses. On the other hand, CASC clubs, facility non-owning clubs and other clubs have the highestproportion of clubs making losses in 2008.
41
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
42
£1,986
£4,966
£4,971
£3,627
£2,048
£9,159
-£162
£1,978
£19,688
-£936
-£5,941
£2,999
£5,688
£6,128
£4,001
£2,359
£8,971
£1,171
£3,017
£16,720
-£14
-£1,192
-10,
000
-5,0
00
0
5,00
0
10,0
00
15,0
00
20,0
00
25,0
00
30,0
00
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Fac
ility
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Pro
fit
mak
ing
Info
rmal
Oth
er
(1,6
23)
.(2
83)
(108
)(6
13)
(655
).
(372
)(1
,246
).
(1,5
04)
(24)
(64)
(28)
Average Total Profit / Loss (£)
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 2
6 -A
vera
ge T
otal
Pro
fit /
Los
s p
er C
lub
, by
Clu
b T
ype
(£) Prof
it / L
oss
Thi
s Yea
rPr
ofit
/ Los
s L
ast Y
ear
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
43
£1,986
-£15
£673
£49
£1,486
£1,619
-£316
-£325
£4,724
-£1,465
£428
£36
-£1,398
£26,060
£2,760
£739
£3,137
£3,615
£229
-£1,152
£4,882
£5,257
£9,269
£95
£113
£1,698
£760
£24,665
£132
£1,970
£2,999
-£57
£375
£1,496
£1,046
£1,721
£501
£2,746
£5,573
-£1,791
£2,385
£72
£79
£22,301
£459
£886
£2,525
£5,539
£188
-£1,571
£4,181
£6,569
£9,076
£137
£2,650
-£99
£681
£25,238
£340
£1,836
-5,0
00
0
5,00
0
10,0
00
15,0
00
20,0
00
25,0
00
30,0
00
Total
.
Aikido
Archery
Association Football
Athletics
Badminton
Baseball and Softball
Basketball
Bowls
Climbing / Mountaineering
Cricket
Cycling
Fencing
Golf
Gymnastics / Trampolining
Hockey
Motor Cycling
Motor Sports
Netball
Rowing
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Sailing
Shooting
Squash
Swimming
Table Tennis
Tennis
Volleyball
Other Sports
919
.23
2482
3030
1520
9519
5020
1710
4330
1711
4316
2757
4415
1722
1124
1186
Average Total Profit / Loss (£)
Spor
t
Figu
re 2
7 -A
vera
ge T
otal
Pro
fit /
Los
s per
Clu
b, b
y Sp
ort (
£)
Prof
it / L
oss
Thi
s Yea
rPr
ofit
/ Lo
ss L
ast Y
ear
�
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
44
26%
30%
22%
25%
22%
24%
27%
26%
1%
18%
67%
25%
16%
16%
20%
29%
20%
25%
23%
32%
82%
31%
49%
54%
62%
56%
49%
55%
48%
51%
67%
2%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Faci
lity
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Prof
it m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(1,7
43)
.(2
96)
(148
)(7
44)
(660
).
(372
)(1
,364
).
(1,6
32)
(27)
(35)
(45)
Percentage of Clubs
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
28 -
% o
f Clu
bs O
pera
ting
at P
rofi
t, L
oss
or B
reak
Eve
n T
his
Yea
r, b
y C
lub
Typ
e
Prof
it
Bre
ak E
ven
Los
s
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
45
23%
26%
21%
26%
19%
18%
24%
24%
1%
1%
10%
30%
18%
18%
22%
37%
19%
32%
27%
33%
98%
89%
48%
55%
61%
52%
43%
63%
44%
50%
66%
1%
1%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Faci
lity
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Prof
it m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(1,6
93)
.(2
92)
(137
)(7
32)
(628
).
(371
)(1
,315
).
(1,5
98)
(20)
(34)
(36)
Percentage of Clubs
Clu
b T
ype
Fig
ure
29 -
% o
f Clu
bs O
pera
ting
at P
rofi
t, L
oss
or B
reak
Eve
n L
ast Y
ear,
by
Clu
b T
ype
Prof
it
Bre
ak E
ven
Los
s
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3.5 Challenges and opportunities
When asked to identify any challenges to their clubs, either now or likely in the next twoyears, respondents gave nearly 2000 responses.
Tables 1 and 2 show the main types of responses. It is clear that despite the increases in members and volunteers shownin Figures 9 and 16, two of sports clubs' most common challenges are obtaining and retaining members and volunteers.It should be noted that the numbers giving responses in Table 1 are much lower than the numbers giving responses inFigures 9 and 16. Even if the average numbers show growth, there will still be plenty of clubs which have experienced fallsin membership numbers and/or volunteer numbers.
Three other common challenges are increasing costs, getting sufficient income, and facilities - particularly accessingsufficient quantity and quality, and improving existing facilities. For a full list of challenges cited by clubs, see Appendix 2.
Table 1 Most common challenges identified by sports clubs
Note: these are numbers of similar responses, after coding of qualitative comments. They should not be taken as percentages of clubs.
46
Responses Number of responses
Members
Recruitment and retention of members/players
Finances
Increasing costs (NB facilities and transport)
Raising enough income (NB sponsorship, fundraising)
Keeping financially viable
Volunteers
Recruitment and retention of volunteers/staff
i.e. volunteers generally
coaches - volunteer or paid
officials - volunteer or paid
Increased cost of training coaches (UKCC)
Facilities
Access to the right quantity/quality of facilities
Facilities need renewal/improving/proper maintenance
Need new facilities
Bureaucracy
General and specific increases in bureaucracy
293
219
123
48
193
92
88
13
29
114
121
59
88
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Responses Number of responses
New facilities
Links with other organisations
of which, with schools
Expansion of teams/events
Promotion/increased level of competition
Increased exposure of sport by the 2012 Olympics
Clubmark
External funding/grants
Better qualified coaches/officials
Development plan
39
52
42
38
21
20
20
15
15
12
Fewer opportunities were identified by clubs and Table 2 identifies the most common.
There are clearly considerable amounts of development and investment opportunities and a shared optimism about thepositive effects of the 2012 Olympics. In addition a number of clubs are positive about the prospects of new partnerships(particularly with schools), expansion of their activities, and promotion in their leagues. A full list of responses for opportunitiesis in Appendix 3.
Table 2 Most common opportunities identified by sports clubs
Note: these are numbers of similar responses, after coding of qualitative comments. They should not be taken as percentages of clubs.
47
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
3.6 National governing bodies
Clubs were asked whether or not they felt that their affiliation to national governing bodies(NGBs) represented value for money.
Their responses are provided in Figure 30 and a clear majority of clubs overall (57%) feel that their NGBs do provide valuefor money, whilst 23% do not. These proportions vary across the different types of clubs but only one type has a largerproportion disagreeing than agreeing that NGBs provide value for money - informal clubs. The sub-sample for this responseis only 31 clubs, so it is not very reliable. Nevertheless, it is more informal clubs, such as those without CASC, Clubmarkor charitable status, which have arguably the least contact with NGBs. Clubs with facilities, and/or with CASC, Clubmarkand charitable status are likely to have more contact with NGBs and their approval ratings in Figure 14 are higher than theaverage.
As well as the evidence in Figure 14, respondents gave a total of 321 negative comments and 125 positive commentsabout NGBs when commenting on their value for money responses. Table 3 shows the most common comments. The mostcommon negative responses are that NGBs either give little or no return for affiliation fees, or they are too focussed on thenational, elite level, with not enough attention to grass roots clubs. Many clubs felt that the only return they received wasinsurance, and some of these complained that the insurance was expensive. However, a significant number of clubs pointedto positive aspects of NGBs, including being generally good, helpful and supportive, and providing specific help with fundingand information.
48
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
49
57%
70%
67%
69%
47%
65%
54%
57%
85%
29%
29%
23%
16%
4%
14%
31%
18%
25%
22%
15%
35%
71%
20%
15%
29%
16%
22%
17%
21%
21%
1%
36%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot
al.
CA
SCC
hari
tyC
lubm
ark
Non
e.
Faci
lity
O
wni
ngN
on-O
wni
ng.
Non
-pro
fit
club
Prof
it m
akin
gIn
form
alO
ther
(1,9
11)
.(3
27)
(146
)(8
12)
(687
).
(438
)(1
,464
).
(1,7
97)
(27)
(31)
(31)
Percentage of Clubs
Clu
b T
ype
Figu
re 3
0 -%
of C
lub
s Wh
o F
eel T
heir
NG
B O
ffer
s Goo
d V
alu
e for
Mon
ey, b
y C
lub
Typ
e
Don
't K
now
No
Yes
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Table 3 - Most common comments by sports clubs on the value for money of NGB affiliation
Note: these are numbers of similar responses, after coding of qualitative comments. They should not be taken as percentages of clubs.
A final question in the survey asked for any other general comments about NGBs or sports. Table 4 shows the most commonresponses on NGBs, although in total there were not many responses to this question.
Table 4 - Most common comments on NGBs generally
Note: these are numbers of similar responses, after coding of qualitative comments. They should not be taken as percentages of clubs.
50
Responses Number of responses
Negative
Little or no return
Only/mainly concerned with national level, not grass roots clubs
High or increasing fees
Only/main return is insurance
Positive
Generally good
Helpful/supportive
Informative
Provided funding
68
61
60
42
36
35
10
14
Responses Number of responses
Negative
Needs to market the sport better
Increased bureaucracy
Out of touch with grass roots needs
Do not support smaller clubs
Too focussed on national level/larger clubs
Need more coaching courses
Positive
General positive comments
Good regional development
Good development for new groups (e.g. juniors, females, 35+)
Good communications
20
17
18
13
11
13
8
7
5
5
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
4. CONCLUSIONS
The report gives information on the state of sports clubs in 2008 and changes between 2007and 2008.
While 1,975 clubs gave a complete set of responses, including full details of questions on income and expenditure, thenumber of clubs completing different questions varies. Thus overall averages and trends need to be interpreted with care,as these will depend on both the numbers of clubs answering specific questions and how representative those clubs are.Overall it is likely that the more detailed responses will have been provided by those clubs with the most detailed records,and thus might over-represent clubs that have attained Community Amateur Sport Club or Clubmark status.
In measuring change, the report is reliant on one respondent’s responses per club, reporting figures from 2008 and 2007.As with other information, these responses will only have been made in clubs where records are kept and are easy toaccess. However, the reliance on records rather than subjective impressions increases reliability. Changes reported areonly over a two year period, so one would expect them to be small, although one might also expect them to reflect a factoras significant as the economic recession which started in the second quarter of 2008.
With respect to the economic situation, the survey evidence suggests that the average club made a small profit in 2008,which fell by a third compared with 2007. The proportion of clubs making profits rose in 2008 compared with 2007; butso did the proportion of clubs making losses. Over a quarter of clubs made financial losses of more than £200 in 2008.A significant minority of respondents made comments about financial challenges - i.e. the challenges of financial viability,paying increased costs, and raising sufficient income.
The overall financial implication is that because clubs' profitability is relatively small, they will be less susceptible to theeconomic recession; nevertheless, the marked reduction in average profitability of clubs suggests that they are affected.Clubs experienced small rises in both income and expenditure over 2008. The average club has not reacted by changingmembership subscriptions, although this varies across the types of club.
The average number of members per club appears to have increased slightly over 2007-2008, the trend being consistentacross all types of club, at senior and junior levels, with the exception of clubs with an objective of profitability. The changes,while small, suggest that sports club members want to retain their level of participation. Clubs too are keen to retainmembers, and subscription fees have remained relatively stable, keeping most clubs in most sports affordable at wellunder £100 a year. The short-term trends in membership vary between clubs however, and the most common challengeexpressed by clubs is the recruitment and retention of members/players.
The most important implication from the membership figures is to confirm the critical role of sports clubs in providing theopportunity for both senior and junior members to play sport. The average club size of 117 senior members and 107juniors has to be qualified by the representativeness of the survey sample and is likely to over-represent large clubs whichare more ‘professionally’ organised and more likely to respond to the survey. It is worth noting that the junior membershipis only slightly less than the adult membership, thus demonstrating sports clubs’ role in developing sport for young people.
The numbers of non-playing, social members who are either providing sports opportunities for others while not playingthemselves, as volunteer officers, coaches, officials, etc., or just enjoying the social benefits of membership, indicate abroader contribution of clubs in providing opportunities for social interaction and enriching local communities. These socialmembers, 40% of adult members on average, are also an important source of income - from bar, catering and hospitalityrather than from their relatively low subscription fees.
51
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
Similarly, the reliance of clubs on volunteers (21 per club, on average) illustrates the importance of the clubs in providingorganisations within which individuals can express active citizenship and experience the rewards of volunteering. The freeengagement of volunteers in organisations with modest profit-making aspirations again illustrates that the volunteers arebound together with a different set of values. Organisations led by volunteers are distinctive in that the volunteers bothcreate the output of the organisation and determine the objectives.
The average number of volunteers per club has hardly changed in the two years covered by the survey, although trends involunteer numbers and the time volunteers are willing to contribute are more likely to be apparent over a longer period.Recruitment and retention of volunteers was the third most frequently mentioned challenge for clubs.
While sports clubs may value their independence, the survey confirms their interdependence with other organisations inthe public and private sector; the relations between these organisations being critical in ensuring the provision of sportsopportunities. Only 23% of clubs own their own playing facilities. While 28% lease facilities, the average length of leaseis 20 years, so this arrangement is relatively stable (although clubs will still need help in renegotiating these). However, the68% of clubs that hire playing facilities and the 33% of clubs that use public space will be more susceptible to short termchanges in hire charges and/or facility availability and quality. These concerns are reflected in the open responses. Thisaffirms the value of CCPR’s role of advocacy and representation. Clubs recognise the importance of links with otherorganisations, these being the most frequently cited opportunity.
One type of organisation with which all affiliated clubs have a relationship is their NGBs. The majority of survey respondentsacknowledge the value for money of NGBs, although just under a quarter disagree. The majority of the qualitative commentsprovided by respondents relate to problems with NGBs.
The 23% of clubs which own their own social facilities are in the best position to capitalise on revenue from bar andcatering, which averages 24% of income for clubs overall and also not have to pay to hire facilities. They will, however,need to deal with the legal requirements covering bar and catering; and they are also more likely to have to deal with theemployment of paid staff - this being the most significant area of work in which paid staff are employed. Again this indicatesa role for CCPR in advocating sensitivity in the way legal requirements designed primarily to apply to organisations managedby paid staff are applied to those run by volunteers (5,6,7,8).
The report confirms the critical contribution of sports clubs run by their members to sports participation and quality of life.The clubs are relatively resilient, but are inevitably reliant both on volunteers and relations with other organisations in thepublic and private sector. The report provides an overview of the state of these clubs to inform CCPR in its role of providingcollective representation and advocacy.
52
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
REFERENCES
1. Nichols, G., Taylor, P., James, M., Garrett, R., Holmes, K., King, L., Gratton, C. and Kokolakakis, T. (2004) Voluntary activity in UK sport. Voluntary Action 6 (2) 31- 54.
2. Nichols, G. (2003) Citizenship in action: voluntary sector sport and recreation London: CCPR.
3. Hoggett, P. and Bishop, J. (1985). The social organisation of leisure. London: Sports Council.
4. Taylor, P. (2004) Driving up participation: sport and volunteering. In, Driving up participation: the challenge for sport London: Sport England.
5. Taylor, P., Nichols, G., Holmes, K., James, M., Gratton, C., Garrett, R., Kokolakakis, T., Mulder, C. and King, L. (2003) Sports Volunteering in England London: Sport England.
6. Nichols, G., Taylor, P., James, M., Holmes, K., King, L., and Garrett, R. (2005) Pressures on the UK sports sector. Voluntas,16 (1) 33 - 50.
7. Nichols, G. and Taylor, P. (2010) The balance of benefit and burden: the impact of child protection legislation on volunteersin Scottish sports clubs.European Sport Management Quarterly 10 (1).
8. Cuskelly, G., Hoye, R. and Auld, C. (2006) Working with volunteers in sport: theory and practice. London: Routledge.
9. Sports Marketing Surveys (2007) CCPR Sports Club Survey 2007, London, CCPR
53
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
54
Appendix 1 Survey questionnaire
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
55
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
56
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
57
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
58
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
59
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
60
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
61
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
62
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
63
Appendix 2 List of challenges
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
64
Appendix 3 List of opportunities
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client
CCPR, Burwood House, 14-16 Caxton Street, London, SW1H 0QT
T 020 7976 3900F 020 7976 3901
2001---CCPR Sports club survey---v6---AB---03.11.09---Restricted: Client