SURVEY OF SPORTS CLUBS 2009 - Amazon Web...

SURVEY OF SPORTS CLUBS 2009

November 2009

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


4


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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


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


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


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


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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

�


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


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


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


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


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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

�


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


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


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


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


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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

�


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


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


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


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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

�


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


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


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


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


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


Athletics

Badminton


Basketball

Bowls


Cricket

Cycling

Fencing

Golf


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

�


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


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


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



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


47


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


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


Table 3 - Most common comments by sports clubs on the value for money of NGB affiliation


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


50


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


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


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


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


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


54

Appendix 1 Survey questionnaire


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63

Appendix 2 List of challenges


64

Appendix 3 List of opportunities


CCPR, Burwood House, 14-16 Caxton Street, London, SW1H 0QT

T 020 7976 3900F 020 7976 3901

[email protected]


SURVEY OF SPORTS CLUBS 2009 - Amazon Web...

Documents

Transcript of SURVEY OF SPORTS CLUBS 2009 - Amazon Web...