Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market · Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market...

Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market

Submitted to:

Fraser Skilling

Senior Programme Manager

Sport England

Submitted by:

Professor Simon Shibli & David Barrett

Sport Industry Research Centre

Sheffield Hallam University

Sheffield, S10 2BP

Tel: +44 (0)114 225 5919

Email: [email protected]

15th November, 2017

mailto:[email protected]

2

Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

1 Research Context ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 The political context .......................................................................................................................... 6

2 Our Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Data Processing ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Cross-Referencing ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Geocoding .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Key Points .................................................................................................................................................. 9

3 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Initial Findings.................................................................................................................................. 10

Key Points ................................................................................................................................................ 13

3.2 Local Authority Level ...................................................................................................................... 13

Key Points ................................................................................................................................................ 16

3.3 County Sports Partnership Level .................................................................................................. 17

Key Points ................................................................................................................................................ 20

3.4 Deprivation Level ............................................................................................................................ 20

Key Points ................................................................................................................................................ 22

4 Constraints and Limitations ................................................................................................................... 22

4.1 What Constitutes a Club? .............................................................................................................. 22

4.2 Data Protection and Sharing ......................................................................................................... 22

4.3 Limitations of CSP Data ................................................................................................................. 23

4.4 Mapping Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 23

Key Points ................................................................................................................................................ 24

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 24

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................... 26

3

Executive Summary

1 Research Context Various attempts have been made to estimate the size of the sports club market in England, both

directly and indirectly through other research. The need for high quality data relating to the size of

the sports club market is highlighted by the wide variation between these estimates. Clubs are at

the heart of the Core Market and therefore it is important that Sport England has the fullest

intelligence possible on an area in which it will invest considerably over the next four years.

2 Our Approach The SIRC team used a similar approach to the Ecorys research, by contacting National Governing

Bodies of sport directly to access their database of affiliated clubs. In all cases the research team

agreed access on the understanding that as data 'owners', NGBs retained the right to decide what

data could be shared, and how it could be used. The final dataset includes records of clubs

affiliated to 95 NGBs, covering 85 sports.

3 Results

3.1 Initial Findings

On the basis of the data gathered for this research, there are 74,233 sports clubs affiliated to

English or English-based NGBs. Of these, 66,157 were mapped within England, and a further

1,898 clubs which were affiliated to the same NGBs were located outside the country (3% of the

total). Scaling up to the overall sample gives an estimated figure of 72,117 (97% 0f 74,233). The

ten most popular sports are responsible for 67% of the clubs affiliated to English or English-based

governing bodies, with the next ten sports accounting for a further 16%. Clubs in four sports

(Football, Cricket, Bowls and Tennis) make up just over half of all sports clubs in England.

3.2 Local Authority Level

Eight of the top 20 councils in terms of the number of sports clubs, are unitary authorities

corresponding roughly to traditional county boundaries, while the remaining 12 are metropolitan

boroughs. An analysis of raw counts at local authority is useful, but by standardising for population

size, it is possible to make a more meaningful comparison between areas, and reveals a different

pattern in terms of club provision. The 20 local authorities with the fewest clubs are predominantly,

but not exclusively, in remote rural areas. When standardised by population a different story

emerges, with provision of clubs per 100,000 people highest in the two smallest authorities (Scilly

and the City of London). In contrast, Kensington and Chelsea has the lowest number of clubs per

100,000 of any local authority in the country.

3.3 County Sports Partnership Level

At County Sports Partnership level, the pattern of club provision is simpler to determine. With the

exception of Devon, all of the top ten CSPs are located either in the South East or around Northern

Metropolitan cities. The capital accounts for 9% of all clubs, while the top ten CSPs account for

40% of England's clubs overall. Standardising by population paints an entirely different picture of

provision. The ratio of clubs per 100,000 people is lowest in Birmingham and London, while the

highest figures are in Avon (Westport) and Shropshire.

4

3.4 Deprivation Level

The use of postcode data to locate affiliated clubs also permits an analysis of distribution by

deprivation, as clubs can be mapped to the 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation. This presents an

opportunity to consider the impact of deprivation levels on access to sports clubs. In the majority of

the most popular sports, there is a tendency for clubs to be located in less deprived areas. There

are few sports which run counter to this trend, though boxing is a notable exception, with almost

three quarters of affiliated clubs located in the most deprived parts of England.

4 Constraints and Limitations The processes and procedures involved in compiling the data for this research were designed to

provide a comprehensive dataset which could be mapped and analysed in a variety of ways. The

exercise was successful in gathering data on a significant number of clubs from a wide variety of

sports, but the research operated under a number of limitations.

4.1 What Constitutes a Club?

NGBs in different sports continue to define their 'clubs' differently. There are also significant

differences between NGBs in the way they compile and maintain data relating to their clubs.

Nevertheless, there are a number of examples of good practice, and the desire to maintain or move

towards Open Data standards was noted by several NGBs.

4.2 Data Protection and Sharing

The Data Protection Act 1998 was cited by a number of governing bodies and CSPs as a constraint

on the sharing of club data. A small number of NGBs remained reluctant to share data for an

exercise of this nature, particularly those which had invested a significant amount of their own

resources in producing club databases. Most governing bodies and CSPs contacted during the

data collection phase of the study shared data directly with the team, but some preferred to direct

SIRC researchers towards resources posted on their websites. Data on NGB websites is subject to

error, omission and formatting issues, all of which require time and resources to correct before

mapping is possible.

4.3 Limitations of CSP Data

In theory, the use of CSP data to supplement and cross-reference NGB records should have

afforded an opportunity to test a methodology for investigating the non-affiliated club market. In

practice however, this was problematic, for a number of reasons, including the lack of a common

referencing system, and gaps in the coverage of the CSP data.

4.4 Mapping Constraints

The process of geocoding and cross-referencing with ONS (Census) datasets is dependent on full

postcodes being available, and this was not true of all governing bodies, while NGB datasets

included postcodes which were inaccurate, incomplete or obsolete. Correcting these errors is a

time-consuming process, which has inherent resource implications for future work of this nature.

The issue of linking with Clubs to venues is complex. Some sports, by their very nature, take place

over an extensive area, such as Mountaineering, Rambling and Motor Sport. In contrast, sports

which rely on a small number of specialist facilities, such as Real Tennis and the various ice and

snow sports, will draw their membership from a very wide area, despite their activities being

spatially confined. For this reason, it is important to bear in mind that this research is only one of a

number of ways in which the distribution of sports clubs across England may be analysed.

5

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Headline Findings

The data collected for this research indicate that there are 74,233 clubs affiliated to English-based

NGBs, of which an estimated 72,117 are located in England. The top ten sports in terms of

affiliated clubs account for two thirds of all sports clubs in England. There have been some

significant changes in the number of affiliated clubs between 2015 and 2017. There were more

than 2,400 additional Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017 compared with 2015, while the Lawn

Tennis Association noted a fall of 2,632 affiliated clubs over the same period. Methodological

differences between this research and the 2015 report may also account for at least some of the

change.

5.2 Geographical Variations

Crude counts of the number of clubs at Local Authority and County Sports Partnership level reveal

that major urban areas and larger unitary authorities areas play host to the highest numbers of

sports clubs, though a different pattern emerges when the counts are standardised to take account

of population. This provides a useful way of making meaningful comparisons between areas, which

highlights the differences between urban and rural populations.

When compared with the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015, there is a clear pattern of provision

which appears to favour the more affluent areas of England. While this pattern is common to the

majority of sports, there are a number of activities which are more prevalent in deprived areas.

These include Boxing, Swimming, Rugby League and Basketball.

5.3 Research Limitations and Opportunities for Refinement

The priority given to club data management varies among the NGBs and CSPs involved in this

study, with data sharing policy ranging from complete confidentiality to full disclosure. The obvious

solution is to require NGBs and CSPs to include accurate and up to date information on sports clubs

in their annual returns to Sport England. This would help to achieve a number of objectives,

including: more frequent updates on the number of sports clubs ; encouraging CSPs to provide

data to complement information provided by NGBs, and; shifting the burden of collecting the data to

the funded bodies.

While the data collected for this report was generally of good quality, coverage was not entirely

comprehensive, with notable gaps in location information. Setting a target to increase the

proportion of mappable clubs in the database would focus the attention of NGBs and CSPs on

correcting some of the omissions and weaknesses in their data.

The Club Count research has resulted in the compilation of a database of over 74,000 sports clubs,

which has been used to conduct a detailed analysis of provision at various geographic scales. It is

important that this resource should now be maintained with continuous updates, to ensure that it

becomes a 'live' dataset. Most importantly, the data underpinning this research should be used as

widely as possible, as this is the single most effective method of improving data quality.

6

Introduction The Sport Industry Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University is pleased to present this report

into the distribution of affiliated sports clubs in England. The research was commissioned to

investigate the current extent of the 'market' for affiliated sports clubs, with a particular focus on how

the number of clubs varies across the country. Sports clubs are the setting in which around 4

million people regularly take part in sport, and an understanding of this sector of the sports market is

crucial to underpinning Sport England's remit of increasing participation

1 Research Context Various attempts have been made to estimate the size of the sports club market in England, both

directly and indirectly through other research. In 2002, The Leisure Industries Research Centre, in

examining the extent of volunteering in the UK, estimated that there were just over 106,000 clubs.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance, through its regular programme of Sports Club Surveys (2009,

2011, 2013 and 2015), have estimated the number of clubs to be in the region of 80-85,000. In

2015, Ecorys were commissioned by Sport England to conduct a census, which identified 62,398

clubs affiliated to 67 governing bodies in England.

The need for high quality data relating to the size of the sports club market is highlighted by the

wide variation between these estimates. In the past, these have been put down to differences

between the methodologies and definitions employed to complete the research, rather than any

significant trends in club formation. By applying a similar approach to the 2015 report, this research

therefore presents an opportunity to examine the extent and direction of any change in the number

of sports clubs in England.

1.1 The political context

The need to monitor trends in sports club membership reflects a desire on the part of Sport England

to understand broader trends in participation, in response to continued scrutiny of investment in

sport. The Government makes its position clear from the perspective of the use of public funds in

the quotation below.

All organisations that receive funding from Sport England will be required to make

data which is relevant to getting more people involved in sport and physical activity

publicly available in an agreed format. This may include (but is not limited to) data on

the location and availability of facilities, coaches and clubs. (Sporting Future p 26)

Closer to home, Sport England's own strategy, Towards An Active Nation, details that between

2017 and 2021 29% of its investment will be made in the 'Core Market' which is the term used for

those who are already active. Clubs are at the heart of the Core Market and therefore it is important

that Sport England has the fullest intelligence possible on an area in which it will invest considerably

over the next four years. For the purposes of this analysis, a club is defined thus:

“A community sports club with a recognised governance structure (constitution, bank

account, and committee) that has a membership programme in place and is affiliated

to its recognised National Governing Body. Generally, the club is single sport but

where it is multi-sport, the different sections of the club are affiliated to the National

Governing Body”.

2 Our Approach In keeping with Sport England's desire to make comparisons with the 2015 research, the SIRC team

used a similar approach to the Ecorys research, by contacting National Governing Bodies of sport

7

directly to access their database of affiliated clubs. Initial e-mail contacts were supplemented by

telephone calls in order to begin negotiations for data sharing. This was a continuous process

throughout the research, and in all cases the research team agreed access on the understanding

that as data 'owners', NGBs retained the right to decide what data could be shared, and how it could

be used. For some sports, lists of clubs were available to download directly from NGB websites.

The final dataset includes records of clubs affiliated to 95 NGBs, covering 85 sports. Sport England

provided support in approaching County Sports Partnerships for any data they held regarding sports

clubs in their area. The objective of this strand of the data collection process was to provide a

second source of club data, to enable a cross-referencing exercise to take place. By taking the

same approach to data ownership as with NGBs, the research team was able to secure access to

data from 39 of the 45 CSPs.

2.1 Data Processing

On receipt of data from NGBs and CSPs, records were checked for completeness, with particular

reference to postcode information. As a means of fixing location, postcodes were identified as the

ideal point of reference, since they allowed clubs to be mapped with sufficient accuracy for

comparison with other units of geography, without revealing individual addresses. In most, but not

all cases, NGB and CSP datasets were found to contain records with missing postcodes. Where

the data owner had also supplied location or specific address data, it was possible to fill in the gaps.

Internet searches were used to confirm location information for clubs with no spatial references,

although the success rate varied between datasets.

Figure 1 - Outline of Methodology

8

Figure 1 outlines the process by which records were cross-referenced and processed to compile the

final dataset. By using official data, such as Ordnance Survey Code Point, ONS boundary

information and the output from the 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation, data could be checked for

accuracy, and erroneous records identified and amended. This feedback loop resulted in a more

complete and comprehensive dataset of clubs at postcode level, allowing for more accurate

analysis and comparison in the latter stages of the research. Geocoding to postcode was key to the

overall process, since this is the basic building block of all ONS datasets, and enables map

production without the need to compromise accuracy for data protection reasons.

2.2 Cross-Referencing

The cross-referencing exercise also presented a clear opportunity to compare the coverage of NGB

and CSP datasets across the country, and to cross-reference NGB, CSP and other datasets in

order to identify the extent of any variance in the coverage of club data across the country. Clubs in

some sports are known to register with local leagues and governing bodies rather than the

recognised NGB. An early analysis of data from Table Tennis England for example, revealed 233

clubs affiliated to the NGB, but more than 2,000 associate clubs, known to the organisation through

county and district level leagues.

The CSP data was a complementary source of club information, with the potential to extend the

scope of the analysis to sports whose governing bodies did not respond to enquiries. Additionally,

the CSP data covers a number of sports where governance is shared between a number of

organisations. This is particularly true of martial arts 'clubs' (more frequently referred to as

'schools'). In practice however, the CSP data was of limited value in comparison with information

supplied by the NGBs, for several reasons.

First, despite repeated requests, six of the 45 CSPs failed to supply a list of clubs in their area of

operation. A dataset compiled from CSP data could not therefore be considered comprehensive at

a national level. Second, at the local level, many CSPs maintain their own lists of clubs which are

active in their area, but they do so for a variety of purposes. In some cases, CSP databases consist

of clubs that have had some interaction with the CSP in the recent past. Other lists were more

comprehensive, but cross-referencing revealed that many records were out of date, and included

clubs which had evidently folded or merged. Nevertheless, the CSP data was useful in confirming

the location of clubs which were supplied without any spatial references. This was particularly true

of sports where there were gaps in the spatial data supplied by the relevant NGBs.

2.2 Geocoding

The process of converting address references into spatial data is known as geocoding. For the

purposes of this research, this involves using reference files created by Ordnance Survey to give

geographic co-ordinates to the club data using postcodes as the link between the datasets. The OS

Code Point Open™ dataset maps postcodes to the 'centroid' location - in simple terms, the average

Easting and Northing values of all addresses in a single postcode. This is another test of the

validity of the data, since missing, incorrect or invalid (out of date) postcodes cannot be mapped.

A 'first pass' geocoding run will inevitably reveal a proportion of data which cannot be fixed to a

location by means of the spatial reference, in this case, the club postcode. This creates a subset of

data which can be reviewed and recoded to improve its accuracy. As a result of this iterative

procedure, the final total of clubs which could be mapped with a satisfactory degree of confidence

was 68,343, which equates to 92% of the overall dataset. This compares favourably with Ecorys'

estimate that approximately 10% of the club records in their 2015 research contained incorrect or

incomplete postcode references.

9

Figure 2 - NGB Data - Spatial Accuracy

Rank NGB Clubs Full Postcode Mappable Clubs

n n % n %

1 Lawn Tennis Association 2,715 2,715 100% 2,673 98%

2 Bowls England 2,126 2,126 100% 2,075 98%

3 The Angling Trust 1,712 1,712 100% 1,683 98%

4 British Swimming 1,014 1,014 100% 976 96%

5 England Boxing 971 971 100% 946 97%

6 Archery GB 959 959 100% 912 95%

7 England Hockey 863 863 100% 845 98%

8 British Cycling 1823 1822 100% 1782 98%

9 English Golf Union 1,822 1,821 100% 1,777 98%

10 Table Tennis England 2661 2659 100% 2625 99%

11 BADMINTON England 1,766 1,763 100% 1,700 96%

12 British Crown Green Bowls Association 2,510 2,502 100% 2424 97%

13 British Gymnastics 1161 1157 100% 1133 98%

14 English Karate Federation 822 809 98% 776 94%

15 England Netball 2,330 2,252 97% 2,151 92%

16 The Football Asssociation 22,572 21,619 96% 21,263 94%

17 The Rugby Football Union 2,206 1,904 86% 1,850 84%

18 England and Wales Cricket Board 7,105 6,127 86% 7,076 100%

19 England Athletics 1,313 1,120 85% 1,086 83%

20 British Rowing 908 760 84% 737 81%

Other NGBs 14,874 11,132 75% 11,853 80%

Total 74,233 67,807 91% 68,343 92%

As Figure 2 makes clear, the majority of NGBs supplied data that included full postcode information,

though this does not necessarily equate to mappable data. In addition, every dataset supplied by

an NGB was reviewed before geocoding to deal with missing and incomplete postcode data.

Thirteen of the 20 largest governing bodies supplied a list of clubs with postcodes, which was

entirely complete after review, though none of these datasets were 100% accurate in terms of

mappability. Conversely, the England and Wales Cricket Board supplied a mixture of postcode and

map co-ordinates, drawn from their Play-Cricket.com website, which resulted in a much higher

degree of mapping accuracy.

It is important to note that a small number of NGBs (10) were unable to supply any address or

postcode information with their lists of clubs. This included three organisations (the British

Mountaineering Council, The Motor Sports Association and the British Caving Association) whose

clubs tend to participate at a variety of locations, and who were unable to supply club contact details

as a proxy. Clubs affiliated to these NGBs are included in the overall total, but excluded from the

more detailed geographical analysis which follows.

Key Points

• Data were accessed from 95 National Governing Bodies, covering 85 sports, as well as 39

out of 45 County Sports Partnerships. All Sport England funded sports supplied lists.

• NGB records were geocoded using OS Code Point Open™ data, with incomplete and

incorrect postcodes rectified with reference to CSP data, as well as ONS look-up tables

relating to standard levels of census and administrative geography.

• Of the 74,233 records in the database, 68,343 were mappable, equating to 92% of all clubs.

This represents a marginal improvement on 2015, when approximately 10% of records were

found to be inaccurate or incomplete.

10

3 Results

3.1 Initial Findings

Many of the governing bodies operating in England are UK-wide entities, meaning that clubs from

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can affiliate, and these are included in the overall totals. The

geocoding process means that it is possible to filter out clubs which are based in England, though

this was only possible for sports which provided mappable spatial data (generally at postcode level).

On the basis of the data gathered for this research, there are 74,233 sports clubs affiliated to

English or English-based NGBs. Of these, 66,157 were mapped within England, and a further

1,941 clubs which were affiliated to the same NGBs were located outside the country (3% of the

total). Scaling up to the overall sample gives an estimated figure of 72,117 (97% 0f 73,060). This

compares with 62,938 clubs from the 2015 study conducted by Ecorys, though direct comparisons

are problematic for reasons outlined below.

Fig. 3 lists the sports with the most affiliated clubs, irrespective of the governing body affiliation, and

highlights these activities dominate the participation market. The ten most popular sports are

responsible for two thirds (67%) of the clubs affiliated to English or English-based governing bodies,

with the next ten sports accounting for a further 16%. The fact that these sports dominate the

affiliated club market to such an extent should not be taken as an indicator of overall participation

however. A significant proportion of participation in 'lifestyle' sports such as Athletics and Cycling

for example, is known to take place without any connection to a formal affiliated club. Nevertheless,

given the changes in affiliations outlined earlier, the market share of the most popular sports is

noteworthy. Clubs in four sports (Football, Cricket, Bowls and Tennis) make up just over half of all

sports clubs in England.

Figure 3 - Clubs by Sport

Rank Sport Count Share %

1 Football 22,572 30%

2 Cricket 7,105 10%

3 Bowls 4,958 7%

4 Tennis 2,715 4%

5 Table Tennis 2,661 4%

6 Netball 2,330 3%

7 Rugby Union 2,206 3%

8 Equestrian 1,827 2%

9 Cycling 1,823 2%

10 Golf 1,822 2%

11 Badminton 1,766 2%

12 Angling 1,712 2%

13 Athletics 1,313 2%

14 Gymnastics 1,161 2%

15 Swimming 1,014 1%

16 Boxing 971 1%

17 Archery 959 1%

18 Rowing 908 1%

19 Hockey 863 1%

20 Karate 822 1%

Other Sports 12,725 17%

Total 74,233 100%

11

The 2015 dataset was not available for further examination, preventing any meaningful, detailed

time-series interrogation of the data. Any comparison of the two club censuses is therefore

dependent on a number of assumptions. First, it is assumed that NGBs have been consistent in

their definition of clubs to be included in the two analyses. Second, the Ecorys analysis includes

clubs which are located outside the English border, but which are affiliated to English or British

NGBs. We have included these clubs in the overall analysis for 2017, but we have also calculated

the total number of clubs based in England as a separate figure. Third, while every attempt was

made to collect data from the same NGBs as in 2015, it was not possible to access data from British

Ju-Jitsu or the British Biathlon Union. For this reason, we have also conducted a like-for-like

comparison of sports and NGBs which feature in both studies.

Figure 4 - Summary of Change between 2015 and 2017

2015 2017 Change Change %

All NGBs in 2017

All Clubs 62,398 74,233 11,835 19%

Count of NGBs 63 95 32 49%

NGBs Common to 2015 and 2017

All Clubs 61,829 63,714 1,885 3%

Count of NGBs 60 60 0 0%

There are 60 NGBs which feature in both this research and the 2015 study, many of which

represent the largest sports in terms of the number of clubs. Fig. 4 presents a summary of the

comparison between the two, and highlights the changes in the number of affiliated clubs. In crude

terms, there are an additional 31 NGBs featured in this research, which account for an increase of

11,835 (19%) in the number of recorded clubs. On a like-for-like basis however, the increase in

club numbers is more marginal, at 1,885, (3%), and this total figure masks some notable differences

between NGBs.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 make clear that there have been some significant changes in the number of

affiliated clubs between 2015 and 2017. For example, there are over 2,400 more Table Tennis

clubs recorded in 2017 compared with 2015, and an additional 1,801 Football clubs affiliated to the

FA. Conversely, the Lawn Tennis Association recorded 2,632 fewer affiliated Tennis clubs in 2017

than in 2015, while England Netball noted a fall of 864 clubs over the same period.

The reasons for these movements may be related to a number of causes, including changes in

participation rates, availability of facilities and structural changes in the respective sports. For

example, club mergers may be driven by a desire to bring men's and women's clubs together 'under

one roof', or to ensure the sustainability of club provision in areas affected by facility closures. This

has been noted in various sports over recent years, including golf and hockey.

Some consideration must also be given at this point to the question of what proportion of the

movement between 2015 and 2017 can be accounted for by methodology, as opposed to actual

changes in the number of clubs. While every effort has been made to mirror the approach of the

2015 research, it would be naïve to suggest that the number of Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017

reflects real growth of nearly 1,100%, or that the current number of Tennis clubs is half that of two

years ago. Additionally, the timing of the research may have affected the number of clubs recorded

by the various NGBs, depending on when the affiliation process is run.

12

Figure 5 - Change in Number of Clubs, by NGB

Figure 6 - Change in Club Affiliation, by NGB

NGB 2015 2017 Change Change %

Table Tennis England 223 2,661 2,438 1,093%

British Ice Hockey Association 152 329 177 116%

British Rowing 573 908 335 58%

Stoolball England 110 170 60 55%

Rounders England 123 184 61 50%

Volleyball England 337 456 119 35%

England and Wales Cricket Board 5,421 7,105 1,684 31%

British Triathlon 450 579 129 29%

Archery GB 853 959 106 12%

England Athletics 1,199 1,313 114 10%

The Football Asssociation 20,771 22,572 1,801 9%

England Hockey 795 863 68 9%

England Boxing 913 971 58 6%

The Rugby Football Union 2,140 2,206 66 3%

BADMINTON England 1,846 1,766 -80 -4%

British Swimming 1,065 1,014 -51 -5%

English Golf Union 1,931 1,822 -109 -6%

British Cycling 2,003 1,823 -180 -9%

Bowls England 2,516 2,126 -390 -16%

Baseball Softball UK 334 245 -89 -27%

England Netball 3,194 2,330 -864 -27%

British Canoe Union 624 369 -255 -41%

England Squash 654 375 -279 -43%

Lawn Tennis Association 5,347 2,715 -2,632 -49%

National Rifle Association 853 314 -539 -63%

British Roller Sports Federation 75 8 -67 -89%

13

The answer appears to lie in differences in NGBs' definitions of constituted and affiliated club

adopted in this exercise. In the case of Table Tennis for example, the inclusion of associated clubs

in the total has resulted in an additional 2,440 being taken into consideration. Although this appears

to be an extraordinary increase, the total number of Table Tennis clubs (2,661) is remarkably close

to the figure of 2,700 recorded in SIRC's 2002 research into volunteering on behalf of UK Sport.

These anomalies suggest that further qualitative research, in conjunction with NGBs, is necessary

to better understand the drivers of change in specific sports.

Key Points

• The data collected for this research indicate that there 74,233 clubs affiliated to English-

based NGBs, of which an estimated 72,117 are located in England. This represents an

increase of 11,835 on the 2015 Ecorys report.

• On a like-for-like basis, counting only those NGBs which featured in both 2015 and 2017, the

increase is more marginal at 1,885, or 3%.

• Football is the dominant sport in terms of the number of affiliated clubs with 22,572, equating

to 30% of the overall market. The top ten sports in terms of affiliated clubs account for two

thirds of all sports clubs in England

3.2 Local Authority Level

Club location data makes it possible to analyse the distribution of sports clubs across the country,

and one of the most useful comparisons is at local authority level. Figure 7 shows the 20 local

authorities with the highest number of clubs, with the unitary district of Wiltshire home to 829,

followed closely by the metropolitan centre of Leeds with 806. In fact, 8 of the councils in the top 20

are unitary authorities corresponding to roughly to traditional county boundaries, while the remaining

12 are metropolitan boroughs. The ex-counties are well populated but larger in terms of area than

the more densely populated metropolitan areas.

Figure 7 - Local Authorities with the most clubs

Rank Local Authority Clubs Population Popn / Club Clubs / 100,000 Popn

1 Wiltshire 829 488,409 589 170

2 Leeds 806 781,743 970 103

3 Birmingham 767 1,124,569 1,466 68

4 Cornwall 761 553,687 728 137

5 County Durham 657 522,143 795 126

6 Sheffield 652 575,424 883 113

7 Shropshire 607 313,373 516 194

8 Kirklees 534 437,047 818 122

9 Liverpool 527 484,578 920 109

10 Bradford 491 534,279 1,088 92

11 Cheshire East 460 376,695 819 122

12 Manchester 453 541,263 1,195 84

13 Cheshire W. & Chester 445 335,680 754 133

14 South Gloucestershire 438 277,623 634 158

15 Bristol 437 454,213 1,039 96

16 Northumberland 424 316,002 745 134

17 East Riding of Yorks. 414 337,696 816 123

18 Bromley 402 326,889 813 123

19 Wirral 397 321,238 809 124

20 Bath & NE Somerset 388 187,751 484 207

14

Figure 8 - Top 20 Local Authority Areas in terms of Club Provision

An analysis of raw counts at local authority is useful, but by standardising for population size, it is

possible to make a more meaningful comparison between areas (Figure 8). Looking at the same 20

areas reveals a different pattern in terms of club provision. Under this analysis, Wiltshire is still well

served, with 10 clubs per 100,000 people, but the local authority with the highest ratio of clubs to

people is Bath and North East Somerset with 207. Conversely, Birmingham, which has the third

highest number of clubs overall, has the lowest ratio, with only 68 clubs per 100,000 people.

At the other end of the scale, Figure 9 shows that the 20 local authorities with the fewest clubs are

predominantly, but not exclusively, in remote rural areas. The Isles of Scilly, with 5, is unsurprisingly

the lowest ranked local authority in terms of the number of clubs. There are a further 6 council

areas which are located in rural parts of England, with low population density (Ribble Valley,

Richmondshire, Rossendale, Adur, Purbeck and Rutland). The other authorities in this list are a

mixture of suburban boroughs (such as Cannock Chase, Christchurch and Watford), and two

London Boroughs - Kensington and Chelsea and the City of London. It is important to note that

land values in these two parts of London are among the highest in the country, which may explain

why there are fewer clubs requiring the use of expansive facilities. There are no football clubs

based in the City for example, while there is only one Rugby Union club in Kensington and Chelsea.

Again, standardising for population reveals a different story (Fig. 10), with provision of clubs per

100,000 people actually highest in the two smallest authorities (Scilly and the City of London). In

contrast, Kensington and Chelsea has the lowest number of clubs per 100,000 of any local authority

area in the country, while Slough is ranked seventh in these terms.

This is not to say however, that residents of the boroughs are poorly served overall in terms of club

provision. While there may be fewer clubs in Slough or Kensington and Chelsea in comparison to

15

their immediate neighbours, residents in both boroughs would be able to access clubs in adjacent

local authority areas. Slough is located next to Windsor and Maidenhead for example, where the

ratio of clubs per 100,000 people is more than three times higher (at 129).

Figure 9 - Local Authorities with the fewest clubs

Rank Local Authority Clubs Population Popn per Club Clubs / 100,000 Popn

307 Cannock Chase 82 98,534 1,202 83

308 Ribble Valley 80 58,826 735 136

309 Richmondshire 80 53,732 672 149

310 Rossendale 78 69,886 896 112

311 Adur 76 63,506 836 120

312 Tamworth 76 76,955 1,013 99

313 Watford 74 96,773 1,308 76

314 Weymouth and Portland 73 65,371 895 112

315 Christchurch 72 49,481 687 146

316 Purbeck 72 46,336 644 155

317 Rutland 72 38,606 536 186

318 Forest Heath 71 64,447 908 110

319 Redditch 71 84,971 1,197 84

320 Stevenage 69 87,081 1,262 79

321 Oadby and Wigston 61 55,825 915 109

322 Slough 61 147,181 2,413 41

323 Corby 54 68,187 1,263 79

324 Kensington and Chelsea 43 156,726 3,645 27

325 City of London 27 9,401 348 287

326 Isles of Scilly 5 2,308 462 217

Figure 10 - Local Authorities with the Fewest NGB-Affiliated Clubs

16

Figure 11 shows how the patterns described above are distributed across England, and why

proximity matters. Crude counts of clubs favour larger authorities, with ex-county unitary councils

and densely populated urban and suburban areas prominent (shaded red in the first map).

Standardising for population exposes how there are relatively fewer clubs per person in the most

densely populated urban areas, with the majority of London Boroughs, and a number of large towns

and cities highlighted in this way.

It is important to re-emphasise at this point that club provision represents only part of the overall

sports participation landscape. Nevertheless, the uneven distribution of clubs by local authority,

evident in the maps, highlights the difficulty faced by NGBs, CSPs and other providers in planning

and delivering strategic initiatives at through their constituent clubs. The density of the network of

affiliated clubs clearly varies considerably from place to place, potentially limiting the impact of any

programme focussed on club-based intervention.

Key Points

• In crude terms, the local authorities with the most clubs tend to be large unitary authorities

based on old county boundaries, and the larger metropolitan cities and boroughs.

• When standardised by population, provision appears to be more evenly distributed, although

the ratio of clubs to people is lower in some of England's largest cities (Birmingham,

Manchester, Liverpool) than in more rural areas.

• The areas with the fewest clubs are either in remote, rural parts of England, or in smaller

suburban boroughs. The ratio of clubs to people is highest in the City of London, and lowest

in Kensington and Chelsea.

Figure 11 - Clubs per Local Authority: Raw Count and Standardised

17

3.3 County Sports Partnership Level

At County Sports Partnership level, the pattern of club provision is simpler to determine. As Figure

12 shows, London is home to the highest number of sports clubs (6,242) across the thirty-two

boroughs, followed by Greater Manchester (3,005), Hampshire (2,628) and West Yorkshire (2,478).

With the exception of Devon, all of the top ten CSPs are located either in the South East or around

Northern Metropolitan cities. The capital accounts for 9% of all clubs, while the top ten CSPs

account for 40% of England's clubs overall.

In contrast, three of the four CSPs with the fewest sports clubs are based in the North East of

England; Northumberland (478), Tees Valley (656) and Durham (726). Of the ten CSPs with the

fewest clubs, nine are rural counties, the outlier being Birmingham (767). They account for 11% of

the affiliated clubs in England.k

Again however, standardising by population paints an entirely different picture of provision. As

Figure 13 makes clear, the ratio of clubs per 100,000 people is lowest in Birmingham (68) and

London (71), while the highest figures are in Avon (254) and Shropshire (248).

18

Figure 12 - Club Count by County Sports Partnership

CSP Funded Sports

Non-Funded Sports

Total Population Clubs / 100,000

Popn Rank

London* 5,746 496 6,242 8,787,892 71 44

Greater Manchester 2,787 218 3,005 2,782,141 108 40

Hampshire 2,448 180 2,628 1,969,331 133 19

West Yorkshire 2,349 129 2,478 2,299,673 108 41

Essex 2,262 131 2,393 1,802,164 133 20

Kent 2,144 159 2,303 1,820,435 127 25

Sussex 1,867 265 2,132 1,680,791 127 24

Devon 1,726 106 1,832 1,177,916 156 7

Lancashire 1,703 99 1,802 1,485,042 121 31

Merseyside 1,643 69 1,712 1,406,447 122 29

Surrey 1,565 108 1,673 1,176,549 142 14

Hertfordshire 1,585 80 1,665 1,176,720 141 15

Avon 1,513 119 1,632 641,964 254 1

Warwickshire 1,512 83 1,595 1,121,424 142 13

South Yorkshire 1,475 88 1,563 1,384,969 113 37

Staffordshire 1,382 78 1,460 1,293,324 113 36

Nottinghamshire 1,330 87 1,417 1,135,992 125 27

Derbyshire 1,303 77 1,380 1,041,998 132 21

North Yorkshire 1,301 73 1,374 813,233 169 4

Leicestershire 1,292 78 1,370 1,069,906 128 23

Tyne and Wear 1,179 94 1,273 1,128,757 113 38

Cambridgeshire 1,186 79 1,265 849,035 149 11

Hereford and Worcester 1,164 73 1,237 772,362 160 6

Cheshire 1,150 68 1,218 1,048,087 116 34

Humber 1,097 55 1,152 927,866 124 28

Buckinghamshire 1,026 89 1,115 799,199 140 16

Suffolk 1,048 63 1,111 745,274 149 10

Oxfordshire 1,027 79 1,106 683,169 162 5

Norfolk 985 70 1,055 892,870 118 33

Wiltshire 976 69 1,045 706,314 148 12

Gloucestershire 984 54 1,038 900,752 115 35

Black Country 929 104 1,033 1,175,682 88 43

Dorset 953 56 1,009 771,884 131 22

Berkshire 916 89 1,005 896,823 112 39

Lincolnshire 935 69 1,004 743,413 135 18

Somerset 897 60 957 761,128 126 26

Cumbria 893 46 939 497,906 189 3

Northamptonshire 837 47 884 733,128 121 32

Cornwall 795 46 841 555,995 151 9

Bedfordshire 764 44 808 664,479 122 30

Shropshire 737 41 778 313,373 248 2

Birmingham 693 74 767 1,124,569 68 45

Durham 699 27 726 522,143 139 17

Tees Valley 607 49 656 669,946 98 42

Northumberland 447 31 478 316,002 151 8

Total 61,857 4,299 66,156 55,268,067 120

19

Figure 13 - Clubs by CSP, per 100,000 Population

Mapped at CSP level (Figure 14), the pattern becomes clearer still. In numerical terms, the CSPs in

the South East of England stand out, along with the major urban areas of the North (Greater

Manchester, West Yorkshire and Lancashire) as well as Devon in the South West. The more rural

counties in the west of England, along the East coast and to the North appear to fare less well. In

relation to population however, the major metropolitan areas fare less well, with the less populated

CSPs in the West Midlands, South West and the North of England coming to the fore.

20

Figure 14 - Distribution of Clubs by County Sports Partnership

Key Points

• In crude numerical terms, London is home to 9% of all clubs in England. The other CSPs

with the most clubs are generally in the larger metropolitan areas of the West Midlands and

the North.

• When standardised by population, the pattern of club provision is drastically different. There

are fewer clubs per 100,000 people in many of the more urbanised CSPs. The highest ratio

of clubs to people occurs in Avon (254), while Birmingham has the lowest, at 68 clubs per

100,000.

3.4 Deprivation Level

The use of postcode data to locate affiliated clubs also permits an analysis of distribution by

deprivation, as clubs can be mapped to ONS Super Output Area Level (LSOAs). Clubs can be

assigned a value according to where they are located, in relation to the 2015 Indices of Multiple

Deprivation, which measure relative levels of development at small area level using a range of

economic and social indicators.

This presents an opportunity to consider the impact of deprivation levels on access to sports clubs,

and the figures are presented in Figure 14. LSOAs are grouped into deciles (bands of 10%)

according to their overall deprivation score, ranging from1 (the most deprived) to 10 (the least

deprived). The green shading indicates a higher proportion of clubs in each sport, while the red

shaded cells have the fewest clubs in each sport.

21

Figure 15 - Club Count by IMD Decile

Sport Count

IMD Decile

Most Deprived Least Deprived

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Football 22,572 1,944 1,786 2,020 1,951 2,220 2,559 2,423 2,469 2,285 1,852

Cricket 6,422 200 259 394 475 721 908 1,031 887 811 736

Bowls 4,958 345 416 447 536 531 553 522 526 512 364

Tennis 2,715 37 53 84 153 231 292 321 339 420 437

Table Tennis 2,661 213 203 199 227 315 356 344 328 233 208

Netball 2,330 105 201 183 249 257 199 205 284 226 275

Rugby Union 2,206 89 119 157 157 225 187 235 232 264 204

Equestrian 1,827 13 25 51 87 180 217 248 190 175 134

Cycling 1,823 62 115 126 167 166 200 207 252 237 264

Golf 1,822 33 38 75 133 199 235 288 256 276 250

Badminton 1,766 94 118 110 154 170 164 188 240 203 275

Angling 1,712 58 83 74 144 165 186 205 215 243 228

Athletics 1,313 43 65 75 87 114 104 151 142 157 159

Gymnastics 1,161 118 100 105 115 110 133 124 115 123 104

Swimming 1,014 100 104 118 108 112 109 89 89 85 77

Boxing 971 237 132 147 115 76 73 67 54 26 28

Archery 959 18 26 51 65 107 95 107 107 123 98

Rowing 908 38 37 77 41 58 61 104 101 131 50

Hockey 863 46 59 70 68 94 73 102 102 116 120

Karate 822 78 79 78 78 68 72 90 88 75 84

Other Sports 12,725 698 721 813 841 924 940 1,117 1,030 1,049 914

Non-funded 14,920 719 843 989 1,203 1,413 1,423 1,607 1,586 1,618 1,504

Funded 59,313 3,926 3,932 4,531 4,798 5,638 6,314 6,578 6,466 6,177 5,377

Total 74,233 4,648 4,779 5,534 6,022 7,067 7,753 8,208 8,064 7,809 6,894

The first point of note is that in the majority of the most popular sports, there is a tendency for clubs

to be located in less deprived areas. Overall, some 37,507 clubs (58% of the total) are located in

the 5 least deprived deciles according the IMD 2015. This pattern generally holds true across the

range of sports, although there are some notable variations. Tennis clubs are much more likely to

be located in more affluent areas, with more than 76% in less deprived deciles. Similarly, Golf

(73%), Equestrian (73%) and Cricket (69%) clubs tend to be located in areas which are less

affected by multiple deprivation.

There are few sports which run counter to this trend, though boxing is a notable exception, with

almost three quarters of affiliated clubs located in the most deprived parts of England. Indeed, a

quarter of all boxing clubs are found in the most derived decile. Other sports with a location bias

towards more deprived areas include Swimming (55%), and among the 'Other' sports with fewer

clubs overall, Snooker (63%), Rugby League (61%), Volleyball (53%), Weightlifting (53%) and

Basketball (52%).

This distribution of clubs by deprivation has important implications in terms of access to

opportunities to participate in club-based sport. One of the domains in the Indices of Multiple

Deprivation is that of Access to Services, in which areas that are generally more deprived tend to

perform better than average. These findings might suggest that access to sports clubs is more

difficult for those living in more deprived areas, despite higher levels of connectivity through public

transport. An element of caution is necessary however, since the location details of clubs in some

sports (e.g. Motor Cycling, Angling) relate to club officials, rather than playing venues.

22

Key Points

• Mapping clubs to Lower Layer Super Output Areas allows comparison with the Indices of

Multiple Deprivation 2015.

• More than half of all sports clubs are located in the less deprived areas (58%) of England,

suggesting that access to club sport is more challenging for residents of more deprived parts

of the country.

• While this pattern is common to the majority of sports, there are a number of activities which

are more prevalent in deprived areas. These include Boxing, Swimming, Rugby League and

Basketball.

4 Constraints and Limitations The processes and procedures involved in compiling the data for this research were designed to

provide a comprehensive dataset which could be mapped and analysed in a variety of ways. The

exercise was successful in gathering data on a significant number of clubs from a wide variety of

sports, but the research operated under a number of limitations.

4.1 What Constitutes a Club?

First, and in common with previous exercises of this kind, NGBs in different sports continue to

define their 'clubs' differently. In Ice Hockey for example, individual teams are affiliated as separate

clubs with the governing body for that sport, despite operating from the same venue, and in many

cases bearing the same place name. Teams often share ice rinks, but will cater for different age

and gender groups. This contrasts with other team sports, such as Rugby Union and Hockey,

where one club will affiliate to the NGB, but may operate a multiplicity of male and female (and

mixed) teams at senior, junior and veterans or masters level.

Second, it became clear during the data collection phase of the research, that there are significant

differences between NGBs in the way they compile and maintain data relating to their clubs. Many

of the larger organisations (of whom the majority are funded by Sport England) use the annual

affiliation process to gather significant amounts of information from their clubs, relating to their

membership, but the scope and extent of data relating to training and competition venues is much

patchier. Indeed, discussions with one NGB revealed that the research had prompted them to

reconsider how their clubs were recorded and mapped, while another was preparing to update its

records for the first time in several years. Nevertheless, there are a number of examples of good

practice, and the desire to maintain or move towards Open Data standards was noted by several

NGBs.

4.2 Data Protection and Sharing

In compiling the data used in this research, the Data Protection Act 1998 was cited by a number of

governing bodies and CSPs as a constraint on the sharing of club data. This is misleading

however, because the research sought primarily to identify where clubs participate, rather than

where its members live. Moreover, the sharing of suitably anonymised data is permitted, while

information which is already in the public domain (via club, NGB and CSP websites, or social media

feeds for example) is exempt from some provisions of the act. A small number of NGBs remained

reluctant to share data for an exercise of this nature, particularly those which had invested a

significant amount of their own resources in producing club databases.

Most governing bodies and CSPs contacted during the data collection phase of the study shared

data directly with the team, but some preferred to direct SIRC researchers towards resources

23

posted on their websites. As Ecorys found in 2015, data on NGB websites is subject to error,

omission and formatting issues, all of which require time and resources to correct before mapping is

possible.

British Weightlifting's website hosts a list of all active affiliated clubs, which was compiled in 2014

and recorded in a pdf document. Converting this into a complete and comprehensive list of

weightlifting clubs required appropriate software to export from one data format to another, as well

as a short process of collating a small number of missing and erroneous postcodes. In contrast, the

Gaelic Athletic Association hosts a page of live links to the websites of Hurling and Gaelic Football

Clubs in Britain. Few of the links led to valid location data however, necessitating further research

via the internet. While these examples relate to governing bodies with around 100 clubs each, they

illustrate neatly the issues involved in accessing and analysing publicly available website

information in this research.

4.3 Limitations of CSP Data

In theory, the use of CSP data to supplement and cross-reference NGB records should have

afforded an opportunity to test a methodology for investigating the non-affiliated club market. In

practice however, this was problematic, for a number of reasons. First, such an exercise is

dependent on a common referencing system, which might include a combination of club name,

sport and location. Second, the data should be contemporaneous, complete and comprehensive in

terms of coverage (both geographically and across the range of sports).

In reality, there was significant variance between CSP datasets on each of these criteria, the most

common being that data were more than a year old. More than one CSP collected details of club

name and sport, but did not include geographic references, making spatial analysis impossible.

More significantly, many CSP held data only for clubs with which they had interacted in the past (for

initiatives such as Club Matters), rather than all of the clubs located within their operational

boundaries.

4.4 Mapping Constraints

The limitations of using postcode information to plot club location have been outlined elsewhere in

this report, but are worth reiterating. The process of geocoding and cross-referencing with ONS

(Census) datasets is dependent on full postcodes being available, and this was not true of all

governing bodies. Similarly, even those NGB datasets which contained full address and postcode

data for clubs' home venues included postcodes which were inaccurate, incomplete or obsolete.

Even at 96% accuracy, the Football Association's dataset contains nearly 1,000 records without a

venue postcode, and a further 350 which could not be plotted using GIS. Checking and correcting

these errors is a time-consuming process, which has inherent resource implications for future work

of this nature.

This analysis is also constrained by other geographical considerations. For historical reasons, there

are a number of clubs which are affiliated to English-based governing bodies, but which are located

outside of the UK. This is particularly common for clubs linked to units of the armed forces posted

overseas though not exclusively so. Examples include Football and Rugby Union clubs based in

Germany and Cyprus, as well as six Polo clubs located in the Republic of Ireland.

The issue of linking with Clubs to venues is complex for some sports. At one end of the scale, there

are sports which, by their very nature, take place over an extensive area. Clubs in some sports,

such as Mountaineering, Rambling and Motor Sport have not traditionally pinpointed a single, fixed

location, preferring to identify themselves by a more general reference to the areas from which they

24

draw their membership. In contrast, sports which rely on a small number of specialist facilities, such

as Real Tennis and the various ice and snow sports, will draw their membership from a very wide

area, despite their activities being spatially confined. For this reason, it is important to bear in mind

that this research is only one of a number of ways in which the distribution of sports clubs across

England may be analysed.

Key Points

• Irrespective of Sport England's definition of sports clubs for this research, it is clear that

governing bodies apply the term differently to their sports.

• The priority given to club data management varies among the NGBs and CSPs involved in

this study. Equally, data sharing policy ranges from complete confidentiality to full

disclosure. Some NGBs have already moved, or are in the process of moving to Open Data

standards of data management, while others cite the Data Protection Act as a reason for

withholding some or all of their data.

• While data held by CSPs was useful as a means of cross-referencing and correcting,

coverage was not comprehensive. In addition, many of the records were found to be out of

date, relating to clubs which have folded or merged, making a nationwide comparison with

the NGB datasets impracticable.

• While postcodes are a useful and pragmatic proxy for venue location, their application in this

context is dependent on the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of the data in question.

Even in sports with a high degree of accuracy in terms of location information, there are

notable gaps in the data which limit the ability to map clubs accurately.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Headline Findings

The data collected for this research indicate that there are 74,233 clubs affiliated to English-based

NGBs, of which an estimated 72,117 are located in England. This apparent increase of 11,835

since 2015, is explained by the inclusion of a wider range of sports, but on a like-for-like basis,

counting only those NGBs which featured in both 2015 and 2017, the increase is more marginal at

1,885, or 3%. Football continues to be the dominant sport in terms of the number of affiliated clubs

with 22,572, equating to 32% of the overall market. The top ten sports in terms of affiliated clubs

account for two thirds of all sports clubs in England.

There have been some significant changes in the number of affiliated clubs between 2015 and

2017. There were more than 2,400 additional Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017 compared with

2015, while the Lawn Tennis Association noted a fall of 2,632 affiliated clubs over the same period.

While some of this change is the result of participations trends and structural change, it is important

to note that methodological differences between this research and the 2015 report may also

account for at least some of the change. These anomalies suggest that further qualitative research

is required, in conjunction with the NGBs, in order to understand the apparent fluctuations in the

number of clubs, and support improved data collection.

5.2 Geographical Variations

Crude counts of the number of clubs at Local Authority and county Sports Partnership level reveal

that major urban areas and larger unitary authorities areas play host to the highest numbers of

sports clubs. When standardised to take account of population however, a different pattern

emerges, showing that the ratio of clubs to people is actually lowest in some of the largest cities in

25

England, such as Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. The London region contains 9% of all

the sports clubs in England, though the contrasts in provision across the city are considerable.

When compared with the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015, there is a clear pattern of provision

which appears to favour the more affluent areas of England. More than half of all sports clubs are

located in the less deprived areas (58%) of England, suggesting that access to club sport is more

challenging for residents of more deprived parts of the country. While this pattern is common to the

majority of sports, there are a number of activities which are more prevalent in deprived areas.

These include Boxing, Swimming, Rugby League and Basketball. Access to sports clubs appears

to correlate well access to services generally, and may be a useful indicator of deprivation.

5.3 Research Limitations and Opportunities for Refinement

The compilation of the dataset used in this report revealed a number of significant differences

between NGBs and CSPs in their approach to data management. The priority given to club data

management varies among the NGBs and CSPs involved in this study. Equally, data sharing policy

ranges from complete confidentiality to full disclosure. Some NGBs have already moved, or are in

the process of moving to Open Data standards of data management, while others cite the Data

Protection Act as a reason for withholding some or all of their data. Given that funded NGBs and

CSPs are in receipt of financial support from Sport England, at least some of which is used to

underpin the provision of club sport, it seems reasonable to suggest that a duty exists on their part

to manage their club data to the highest possible standard.

The obvious solution is to require NGBs and CSPs to include accurate and up to date information

on sports clubs in their annual returns to Sport England. This would help to achieve a number of

objectives. First, Sport England would receive more frequent updates on the number of sports

clubs across the country, allowing closer monitoring of trends. Second, CSPs would be encouraged

to provide a complete set of data to complement information provided by NGBs. Third, the burden

of collecting the data would more clearly be the responsibility of the funded bodies.

While the data collected for this report was generally of good quality, coverage was not entirely

comprehensive, with notable gaps in location information. Overall, 92% of the clubs in the final

dataset were mappable, though this figure varied between sports, and some NGB data included no

spatial reference at all. This research has established a useful baseline which can be used to

measure future improvements in data quality, and a target to increase the proportion of mappable

clubs in the database would focus the attention of NGBs and CSPs on some of the weaknesses in

their data.

The Club Count research has resulted in the compilation of a database of over 73,000 sports clubs,

which has been used to conduct a detailed analysis of provision at various geographic scales. The

exercise has revealed notable variations between local authorities, CSPs and deprived areas, and

has established the concept of standardising provision by population. It is important that this

resource should now be maintained with continuous updates, to ensure that it becomes a 'live'

dataset. This would not only improve the quality of the data, but would also result in a cost saving

to Sport England in the longer term, by reducing the need to compile such a dataset from scratch.

Most importantly, the data underpinning this research should be used as widely as possible, as this

is the single most effective method of improving data quality. In this sense, the completion of this

report represents a starting point for sports club data analysis.

Sport Industry Research Centre, November 2017.

26

Appendix 1 - Data by Local Authority

Local Authority

Funded Sports

Other Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population

n n n Rank n Ratio Rank

Adur 71 14 76 311 63,506 120 138

Allerdale 180 24 189 149 96,956 195 308

Amber Valley 139 10 145 219 124,645 116 128

Arun 157 44 181 159 156,997 115 125

Ashfield 118 15 128 248 124,482 103 82

Ashford 179 21 197 135 126,151 156 239

Aylesbury Vale 273 32 294 41 193,113 152 228

Babergh 152 28 157 186 89,498 175 284

Barking and Dagenham 114 17 130 245 206,460 63 14

Barnet 250 41 276 47 386,083 71 19

Barnsley 240 16 254 72 241,218 105 88

Barrow-in-Furness 124 16 128 248 67,321 190 304

Basildon 207 13 219 100 183,378 119 135

Basingstoke and Deane 189 24 206 116 174,588 118 132

Bassetlaw 145 20 157 186 114,847 137 190

Bath and NE Somerset 370 46 388 20 187,751 207 314

Bedford 248 27 259 68 168,751 153 231

Bexley 179 23 198 132 244,760 81 32

Birmingham 693 110 767 3 1,124,569 68 17

Blaby 142 8 146 217 97,703 149 221

Blackburn with Darwen 147 14 159 182 147,049 108 96

Blackpool 134 15 142 223 139,195 102 79

Bolsover 91 5 92 297 78,082 118 131

Bolton 310 29 327 32 283,115 116 126

Boston 91 11 94 296 67,564 139 195

Bournemouth 188 31 201 127 197,657 102 78

Bracknell Forest 122 35 137 234 119,447 115 124

Bradford 475 46 491 10 534,279 92 51

Braintree 183 18 195 136 150,999 129 163

Breckland 142 17 154 192 137,032 112 114

Brent 115 27 126 252 328,254 38 2

Brentwood 129 14 132 239 76,386 173 274

Brighton and Hove 234 49 255 71 289,229 88 43

Bristol 402 77 437 15 454,213 96 64

Broadland 147 11 157 186 127,455 123 149

Bromley 379 39 402 18 326,889 123 148

Bromsgrove 146 9 153 196 96,769 158 244

Broxbourne 123 11 126 252 96,779 130 168

Broxtowe 134 15 144 220 112,671 128 160

Burnley 82 11 88 301 87,522 101 75

Bury 208 25 224 92 188,669 119 133

Calderdale 253 36 282 45 209,770 134 181

Cambridge 227 43 245 76 131,799 186 300

Camden 77 37 95 295 246,181 39 3

Cannock Chase 77 3 82 307 98,534 83 37

Canterbury 179 39 194 137 162,416 119 136

Carlisle 143 14 151 200 108,409 139 197

Castle Point 92 15 98 293 89,731 109 101

Central Bedfordshire 345 47 368 23 278,937 132 170

Charnwood 274 33 290 42 179,389 162 246

Chelmsford 311 30 324 34 174,089 186 301

Cheltenham 121 21 130 245 117,530 111 108

Cherwell 194 23 206 116 146,338 141 201

Cheshire East 428 53 460 11 376,695 122 142

27

Local Authority

Funded Sports



Cheshire W. and Chester 420 58 445 13 335,680 133 173

Chesterfield 137 9 138 230 104,440 132 171

Chichester 172 58 204 119 118,175 173 273

Chiltern 157 20 166 173 95,103 175 280

Chorley 123 14 129 247 114,351 113 118

Christchurch 69 10 72 315 49,481 146 212

City of London 25 7 27 325 9,401 287 326

Colchester 214 34 228 88 186,635 122 143

Copeland 116 18 121 258 69,307 175 281

Corby 51 4 54 323 68,187 79 29

Cornwall 716 116 761 4 553,687 137 192

Cotswold 204 40 220 98 85,756 257 324

County Durham 631 58 657 5 522,143 126 154

Coventry 327 48 348 25 352,911 99 68

Craven 95 9 98 293 56,308 174 279

Crawley 81 10 86 304 111,375 77 28

Croydon 227 29 237 81 382,304 62 13

Dacorum 224 34 232 83 152,692 152 227

Darlington 105 14 114 275 105,646 108 94

Dartford 94 7 100 287 105,543 95 59

Daventry 141 18 146 217 81,316 180 294

Derby 253 42 279 46 256,233 109 100

Derbyshire Dales 143 16 151 200 71,288 212 316

Doncaster 314 30 326 33 306,397 106 90

Dover 147 12 154 192 114,227 135 183

Dudley 234 28 260 67 317,634 82 34

Ealing 196 32 217 105 343,196 63 15

East Cambridgeshire 135 26 147 216 87,825 167 259

East Devon 222 29 237 81 139,908 169 266

East Dorset 124 8 127 250 89,093 143 207

East Hampshire 161 25 181 159 117,955 153 230

East Hertfordshire 275 33 295 40 146,309 202 312

East Lindsey 170 24 185 154 138,443 134 178

East Northamptonshire 100 11 106 281 90,999 116 129

East Riding of Yorkshire 392 48 414 17 337,696 123 146

East Staffordshire 175 13 181 159 116,701 155 235

Eastbourne 102 20 115 274 103,054 112 110

Eastleigh 179 39 190 147 129,635 147 216

Eden 117 12 120 259 52,639 228 322

Elmbridge 219 35 228 88 132,764 172 272

Enfield 234 15 244 78 331,395 74 23

Epping Forest 169 16 179 165 130,321 137 191

Epsom and Ewell 106 16 112 277 79,588 141 200

Erewash 146 14 150 208 114,891 131 169

Exeter 191 32 201 127 129,801 155 234

Fareham 99 18 106 281 115,423 92 50

Fenland 107 4 109 279 100,182 109 99

Forest Heath 67 6 71 318 64,447 110 106

Forest of Dean 137 11 143 221 85,385 167 261

Fylde 99 8 101 286 77,990 130 167

Gateshead 176 20 190 147 201,592 94 56

Gedling 126 9 131 242 116,501 112 115

Gloucester 178 26 188 150 128,488 146 215

Gosport 93 20 100 287 85,363 117 130

Gravesham 111 14 120 259 106,808 112 113

Great Yarmouth 84 12 89 300 99,164 90 46

28

Local Authority

Funded Sports



Greenwich 253 22 266 59 279,766 95 61

Guildford 188 42 202 124 148,020 136 189

Hackney 203 25 210 113 273,526 77 27

Halton 133 20 140 226 126,903 110 107

Hambleton 153 12 163 177 90,537 180 296

Hammersmith and Fulham 79 14 85 305 179,654 47 10

Harborough 153 12 160 180 90,416 177 287

Haringey 106 19 117 270 278,451 42 8

Harlow 92 14 100 287 85,995 116 127

Harrogate 247 32 263 63 156,312 168 263

Harrow 164 20 180 163 248,752 72 21

Hart 120 12 127 250 94,250 135 182

Hartlepool 110 9 118 265 92,817 127 158

Hastings 77 11 84 306 92,236 91 49

Havant 90 20 100 287 123,640 81 31

Havering 151 23 170 171 252,783 67 16

Herefordshire 292 32 309 38 189,309 163 251

Hertsmere 136 9 138 230 103,528 133 176

High Peak 118 12 122 257 91,662 133 175

Hillingdon 259 35 272 53 302,471 90 47

Hinckley and Bosworth 150 15 159 182 110,102 144 209

Horsham 196 43 225 91 138,018 163 249

Hounslow 260 29 269 55 271,139 99 70

Huntingdonshire 254 36 270 54 175,666 154 232

Hyndburn 82 10 88 301 80,537 109 102

Ipswich 181 22 191 146 135,908 141 199

Isle of Wight 175 36 186 153 139,798 133 174

Isles of Scilly 5 1 5 326 2,308 217 319

Islington 123 20 131 242 232,865 56 12

Kensington and Chelsea 38 16 43 324 156,726 27 1

Kettering 97 8 99 292 99,002 100 72

King's Lynn and W. Norfolk 182 30 194 137 151,589 128 161

Kingston upon Hull 255 42 264 61 260,240 101 76

Kingston upon Thames 203 31 212 111 176,107 120 140

Kirklees 502 65 534 8 437,047 122 144

Knowsley 104 3 106 281 147,915 72 20

Lambeth 123 26 131 242 327,910 40 6

Lancaster 180 25 194 137 143,517 135 184

Leeds 765 110 806 2 781,743 103 83

Leicester 250 46 267 58 348,343 77 26

Lewes 121 27 143 221 101,381 141 202

Lewisham 123 17 133 236 301,867 44 9

Lichfield 137 13 149 213 103,061 145 210

Lincoln 122 25 138 230 97,795 141 204

Liverpool 509 44 527 9 484,578 109 98

Luton 142 21 153 196 216,791 71 18

Maidstone 181 26 198 132 166,360 119 134

Maldon 107 31 116 271 63,350 183 299

Malvern Hills 143 18 151 200 76,130 198 310

Manchester 422 77 453 12 541,263 84 39

Mansfield 105 9 113 276 107,435 105 87

Medway 260 41 273 52 278,542 98 65

Melton 82 9 88 301 50,878 173 275

Mendip 180 22 193 141 112,545 171 271

Merton 193 27 208 115 205,029 101 77

Mid Devon 136 10 140 226 79,789 175 285

29

Local Authority

Funded Sports



Mid Suffolk 158 21 171 169 100,014 171 270

Mid Sussex 230 53 264 61 147,089 179 293

Middlesbrough 109 13 116 271 140,398 83 35

Milton Keynes 255 41 275 49 264,479 104 84

Mole Valley 128 19 137 234 86,223 159 245

New Forest 241 44 261 66 179,236 146 213

Newark and Sherwood 190 17 198 132 119,570 166 255

Newcastle upon Tyne 354 50 378 21 296,478 127 159

Newcastle-under-Lyme 145 17 154 192 128,467 120 139

Newham 115 26 133 236 340,978 39 5

North Devon 148 20 158 184 94,615 167 257

North Dorset 116 10 119 261 71,064 167 260

North East Derbyshire 143 12 150 208 100,423 149 220

North East Lincolnshire 238 17 246 74 159,144 155 233

North Hertfordshire 216 21 224 92 132,747 169 264

North Kesteven 164 32 178 166 113,297 157 241

North Lincolnshire 211 21 221 97 170,786 129 165

North Norfolk 116 15 118 265 103,752 114 122

North Somerset 323 47 350 24 211,681 165 253

North Tyneside 197 34 215 106 203,307 106 89

North Warwickshire 149 6 151 200 63,229 239 323

North West Leicestershire 120 10 132 239 98,644 134 179

Northampton 192 40 213 109 225,474 94 57

Northumberland 396 65 424 16 316,002 134 180

Norwich 133 38 151 200 141,041 107 91

Nottingham 274 57 299 39 325,282 92 52

Nuneaton and Bedworth 148 10 154 192 127,019 121 141

Oadby and Wigston 56 8 61 321 55,825 109 103

Oldham 236 21 242 79 232,724 104 85

Oxford 241 46 263 63 161,291 163 250

Pendle 98 12 103 285 90,588 114 121

Peterborough 180 20 188 150 197,095 95 63

Plymouth 320 67 342 27 264,199 129 166

Poole 143 30 152 198 151,500 100 73

Portsmouth 339 34 348 25 214,832 162 247

Preston 184 22 193 141 141,801 136 187

Purbeck 61 17 72 316 46,336 155 237

Reading 117 25 138 230 162,666 85 40

Redbridge 276 19 283 44 299,249 95 58

Redcar and Cleveland 118 14 126 252 135,404 93 54

Redditch 70 7 71 319 84,971 84 38

Reigate and Banstead 173 18 184 156 145,648 126 156

Ribble Valley 79 6 80 308 58,826 136 186

Richmond upon Thames 235 43 253 73 195,846 129 164

Richmondshire 76 12 80 309 53,732 149 219

Rochdale 191 21 203 123 216,165 94 55

Rochford 115 12 119 261 85,670 139 194

Rossendale 74 12 78 310 69,886 112 111

Rother 133 30 158 184 93,551 169 265

Rotherham 314 19 328 31 261,930 125 153

Rugby 141 15 149 213 103,815 144 208

Runnymede 103 33 116 271 86,889 134 177

Rushcliffe 238 21 246 74 115,204 214 318

Rushmoor 141 20 151 200 96,327 157 240

Rutland 69 15 72 317 38,606 186 302

Ryedale 114 10 119 261 53,486 222 320

30

Local Authority

Funded Sports



Salford 202 33 220 98 248,726 88 45

Sandwell 260 18 275 49 322,712 85 42

Scarborough 203 17 209 114 107,824 194 307

Sedgemoor 195 18 204 119 121,436 168 262

Sefton 327 26 340 28 274,261 124 151

Selby 147 13 152 198 86,667 175 283

Sevenoaks 198 26 214 108 119,142 180 295

Sheffield 605 84 652 6 575,424 113 120

Shepway 121 20 133 236 111,190 120 137

Shropshire 576 59 607 7 313,373 194 306

Slough 57 8 61 322 147,181 41 7

Solihull 300 33 321 35 211,763 152 224

South Bucks 122 11 126 252 69,636 181 298

South Cambridgeshire 291 37 317 36 156,468 203 313

South Derbyshire 132 11 139 229 100,334 139 193

South Gloucestershire 408 48 438 14 277,623 158 242

South Hams 155 26 161 179 84,306 191 305

South Holland 87 6 91 299 92,387 98 67

South Kesteven 171 13 181 159 140,193 129 162

South Lakeland 213 34 230 86 103,274 223 321

South Norfolk 182 24 194 137 132,837 146 214

South Northamptonshire 148 13 156 190 89,959 173 278

South Oxfordshire 226 42 245 76 138,128 177 289

South Ribble 109 9 118 265 110,118 107 92

South Somerset 260 24 276 47 165,645 167 256

South Staffordshire 182 17 199 130 111,180 179 291

South Tyneside 140 19 150 208 149,418 100 74

Southampton 196 38 206 116 254,275 81 33

Southend-on-Sea 162 20 171 169 179,799 95 62

Southwark 157 30 168 172 313,223 54 11

Spelthorne 101 18 106 281 98,902 107 93

St Albans 187 35 204 119 146,282 139 198

St Edmundsbury 175 16 184 156 112,938 163 248

St. Helens 185 27 193 141 178,455 108 97

Stafford 205 12 212 111 134,155 158 243

Staffordshire Moorlands 136 13 142 223 98,069 145 211

Stevenage 64 9 69 320 87,081 79 30

Stockport 291 40 314 37 290,557 108 95

Stockton-on-Tees 165 31 182 158 195,681 93 53

Stoke-on-Trent 255 20 265 60 253,226 105 86

Stratford-on-Avon 241 30 257 70 122,276 210 315

Stroud 208 28 219 100 117,381 187 303

Suffolk Coastal 179 26 192 145 125,955 152 229

Sunderland 312 32 340 28 277,962 122 145

Surrey Heath 93 11 100 287 88,387 113 119

Sutton 140 20 150 208 202,220 74 24

Swale 174 19 180 163 145,042 124 152

Swindon 209 26 224 92 217,905 103 81

Tameside 186 20 202 124 223,189 91 48

Tamworth 70 9 76 312 76,955 99 69

Tandridge 144 19 150 208 86,665 173 276

Taunton Deane 177 32 193 141 115,515 167 258

Teignbridge 202 27 215 106 129,856 166 254

Telford and Wrekin 154 25 164 176 172,976 95 60

Tendring 166 33 175 167 142,598 123 147

Test Valley 187 22 201 127 122,044 165 252

31

Local Authority

Funded Sports



Tewkesbury 152 9 157 186 88,589 177 288

Thanet 135 15 140 226 140,652 100 71

Three Rivers 122 11 126 252 92,533 136 188

Thurrock 176 12 188 150 167,025 113 116

Tonbridge and Malling 213 24 228 88 127,293 179 292

Torbay 135 30 151 200 133,883 113 117

Torridge 113 10 118 265 66,977 176 286

Tower Hamlets 105 35 118 265 304,854 39 4

Trafford 238 42 269 55 234,673 115 123

Tunbridge Wells 151 26 166 173 117,069 142 205

Uttlesford 139 18 151 200 86,188 175 282

Vale of White Horse 215 40 230 86 128,738 179 290

Wakefield 357 60 370 22 336,834 110 105

Walsall 249 21 274 51 278,715 98 66

Waltham Forest 185 26 202 124 275,843 73 22

Wandsworth 246 45 263 63 316,096 83 36

Warrington 217 32 231 85 208,809 111 109

Warwick 208 21 219 100 140,411 156 238

Watford 65 9 74 313 96,773 76 25

Waveney 138 24 148 215 116,514 127 157

Waverley 194 41 223 95 123,768 180 297

Wealden 192 46 232 83 157,575 147 217

Wellingborough 110 6 111 278 78,191 142 206

Welwyn Hatfield 177 18 185 154 121,996 152 225

West Berkshire 249 35 268 57 156,837 171 269

West Devon 104 11 109 279 54,582 200 311

West Dorset 188 23 199 130 101,382 196 309

West Lancashire 147 19 160 180 113,401 141 203

West Lindsey 133 11 142 223 93,734 151 223

West Oxfordshire 159 16 165 175 108,674 152 226

West Somerset 87 10 92 297 34,306 268 325

Westminster 206 45 219 100 247,614 88 44

Weymouth and Portland 68 12 73 314 65,371 112 112

Wigan 318 40 332 30 323,060 103 80

Wiltshire 776 123 829 1 488,409 170 267

Winchester 243 32 259 68 121,965 212 317

Windsor and Maidenhead 201 50 223 95 148,814 150 222

Wirral 382 39 397 19 321,238 124 150

Woking 127 11 132 239 99,695 132 172

Wokingham 187 31 204 119 161,878 126 155

Wolverhampton 185 25 218 104 256,621 85 41

Worcester 163 18 174 168 102,338 170 268

Worthing 109 19 119 261 108,605 110 104

Wychavon 200 23 213 109 122,943 173 277

Wycombe 225 35 240 80 176,868 136 185

Wyre 160 17 163 177 110,261 148 218

Wyre Forest 145 17 155 191 99,902 155 236

York 266 47 290 42 208,367 139 196

Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market · Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market · Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market...