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 growth Gp 1Gp 2Gp 3 Absolute change membership % Change membership

Extrapolating to clubs in England – solution 1 6% English clubs – Clubmark in % 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 solutions Gp 1 %Gp 2 %Gp 3 % Solution Solution

Absolute growth contributed by cluster as % of total Gp 1Gp 2Gp 3 Solution Solution

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.