Which type of sports club offers the best option for growing participation? • Geoff Nichols and Joanne Padmore:

Sheffield University Management School

• Peter Taylor and David Barrett: Sport Industry Research Centre

The problem• NGBs are at the heart of SE strategy

to grow participation• Sixteen NGBs have agreed to ‘whole

sport plans’• But can the clubs deliver? How many

clubs can, or want to, grow?

Club clusters by formality• 2003 report - impression of 2 types • 34 netball clubs – (2008) – 2 clusters

• High and low professionalization • 45 clubs in one county – 3 clusters

• Formal / semi-formal / informal

SARA (CCPR) 2009 club survey• Asked – membership / volunteers /

paid staff / facility ownership / charity : CASC : clubmark / income / expenditure

• 2,991 clubs - 1,975 provided full financial data

• 40% had clubmark – compared to 5.7% of clubs in Engalnd

Sub-sample for analysis • Removed

• Profit making / informal / other• Clubs with over 1000 adults or 600

juniors (37)• Final sample 2685 clubs

• All ‘non-profit’

Cluster analysis to identify ‘formality’ • Variables – selected for theoretical

link to formality • CASC, charity, clubmark, owns facility,

leases facility, hires facility, volunteer co-ordinator, paid staff, 5 or more juniors

Clustering procedure• two-step cluster procedure• Schwarz Bayesian Criterion used to

identify the number of clusters• repeated 4 times - different orders• Decision on numbers of clusters -

consistency and interpretability of the resultant classifications

• Clusters related to other variables not used

Clusters and growth• Clusters related to:

• % change in membership over 2 years• Absolute change in membership – 2

years

Results - clusters• Group 1 clubs (‘formal’) 50%+• bigger (average 238 members)• more likely to have CASC or charity• own or lease facilities• paid staff• and a junior section.

Results - clusters• Group 2 clubs (‘semi-formal’) 30%• average size of 113; all had a junior

section• Unlikely CASC / charity, 53% had

Clubmark.• not own or lease playing facilities -

hired them. • less likely to have paid staff

Results - clusters • Group 3 clubs ( ‘informal’) 20%• smaller (average 51)• none had a junior section - few had

Clubmark very unlikely to have CASC or charity

• hired playing facilities – not own or lease

• less likely to have paid staff

Results – clusters – other variables• Group 1 – higher adult fees / employ

more staff / more volunteers / high income and expenditure

• Group 2 – lower adult fees – higher junior fees / fewer paid staff and vols. / lower income and ex.

• Group 3 – low fees / fewer vols. / v.few paid staff / low income and ex.

Formality and growthGp 1 Gp 2 Gp 3

Absolute change membership

15 11 3

% Change membership

12 20 11

Extrapolating to clubs in England – solution 1• 6% English clubs – Clubmark in 2009• 40% of survey sample and sub

sample had Clubmark• 48% of Group 1 had Clubmark, 53%

of Group 2, none of Group 3

Extrapolating to clubs in England – solution 1• Assume - under-representation of

non-Clubmark clubs in the sample will only have an impact of reducing the number of Group 3 clubs in the sample.

• Thus - all the 48% of Group 1, and 53% of Group 2, clubs with Clubmark, must be within the 6% of the clubs in England with Clubmark.

Extrapolating to clubs in England – solution 1• 12% of clubs in England must be in

either Group 1 or Group 2. These two Groups account for approximately 6% of clubs in England each.

• Group 3 represents approximately 88% of English clubs.

Extrapolating to clubs in England – solution 2• Assumes - under-representation of

non-Clubmark clubs in the sample is not different in Groups 1, 2 and 3.

• The distribution of clubs with and without Clubmark within each group in the sample is representative of the distribution of clubs with and without Clubmark in the groups in all clubs in England.

Extrapolating to clubs in England – solution 2• Gives • Group 1 – 46%• Group 2 – 23%• Group 3 – 31%

Comparing solutionsGp 1 % Gp 2 % Gp 3 %

Solution 1

6 6 88

Solution 2

46 23 31

Absolute growth contributed by cluster as % of total

Gp 1 Gp 2 Gp 3

Solution 1

21 15 63

Solution 2

66 24 9

Alternative scenarios• If solution 1 – lots of little Group 3

clubs all grow a little – but contribute 63% of total growth

• If solution 2 – the big Group 1 clubs contribute most, followed by the junior dominated Group 2 clubs

Growth and policy • Even if the distribution of English

clubs is nearer to solution 1 - policy makers regard Group 1 and 2 clubs as a ‘safer bet’ - contribution to growth per club is greater - clubs have demonstrated an adoption of formality – essential for clubs to compete and grow in the leisure market.

Type of support needed by cluster• Group 1 – to manage facilities / utility

charges / CRB• Group 2 – access to hired facilities at

time and price / CRB

Acknowledgement• use of data from the 2009 survey of

sports clubs commissioned by the Sport and Recreation Alliance.