Measuring the Affiliated Sports Club Market

Transcription

1 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) th November, 2017

2 Contents Contents... 2 Executive Summary... 3 Introduction Research Context The political context Our Approach Data Processing Cross-Referencing Geocoding... 8 Key Points Results Initial Findings Key Points Local Authority Level Key Points County Sports Partnership Level Key Points Deprivation Level Key Points Constraints and Limitations What Constitutes a Club? Data Protection and Sharing Limitations of CSP Data Mapping Constraints Key Points Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix

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. 3

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. 4

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 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. 5

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 % 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 6

7 directly to access their database of affiliated clubs. Initial 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 7

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. 8

9 Figure 2 - NGB Data - Spatial Accuracy Rank NGB Clubs Full Postcode Mappable Clubs n n % n % 1 Lawn Tennis Association 2,715 2, % 2,673 98% 2 Bowls England 2,126 2, % 2,075 98% 3 The Angling Trust 1,712 1, % 1,683 98% 4 British Swimming 1,014 1, % % 5 England Boxing % % 6 Archery GB % % 7 England Hockey % % 8 British Cycling % % 9 English Golf Union 1,822 1, % 1,777 98% 10 Table Tennis England % % 11 BADMINTON England 1,766 1, % 1,700 96% 12 British Crown Green Bowls Association 2,510 2, % % 13 British Gymnastics % % 14 English Karate Federation % % 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, % 19 England Athletics 1,313 1,120 85% 1,086 83% 20 British Rowing % % 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. 9

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, % 10

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 Change Change % All NGBs in 2017 All Clubs 62,398 74,233 11,835 19% Count of NGBs % NGBs Common to 2015 and 2017 All Clubs 61,829 63,714 1,885 3% Count of NGBs % 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 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. 11

12 Figure 5 - Change in Number of Clubs, by NGB Figure 6 - Change in Club Affiliation, by NGB NGB Change Change % Table Tennis England 223 2,661 2,438 1,093% British Ice Hockey Association % British Rowing % Stoolball England % Rounders England % Volleyball England % England and Wales Cricket Board 5,421 7,105 1,684 31% British Triathlon % Archery GB % England Athletics 1,199 1, % The Football Asssociation 20,771 22,572 1,801 9% England Hockey % England Boxing % The Rugby Football Union 2,140 2, % BADMINTON England 1,846 1, % British Swimming 1,065 1, % English Golf Union 1,931 1, % British Cycling 2,003 1, % Bowls England 2,516 2, % Baseball Softball UK % England Netball 3,194 2, % British Canoe Union % England Squash % Lawn Tennis Association 5,347 2,715-2,632-49% National Rifle Association % British Roller Sports Federation % 12

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 Englishbased 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 Pop n / Club Clubs / 100,000 Pop n 1 Wiltshire , Leeds , Birmingham 767 1,124,569 1, Cornwall , County Durham , Sheffield , Shropshire , Kirklees , Liverpool , Bradford ,279 1, Cheshire East , Manchester ,263 1, Cheshire W. & Chester , South Gloucestershire , Bristol ,213 1, Northumberland , East Riding of Yorks , Bromley , Wirral , Bath & NE Somerset ,

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 14

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 Pop n per Club Clubs / 100,000 Pop n 307 Cannock Chase 82 98,534 1, Ribble Valley 80 58, Richmondshire 80 53, Rossendale 78 69, Adur 76 63, Tamworth 76 76,955 1, Watford 74 96,773 1, Weymouth and Portland 73 65, Christchurch 72 49, Purbeck 72 46, Rutland 72 38, Forest Heath 71 64, Redditch 71 84,971 1, Stevenage 69 87,081 1, Oadby and Wigston 61 55, Slough ,181 2, Corby 54 68,187 1, Kensington and Chelsea ,726 3, City of London 27 9, Isles of Scilly 5 2, Figure 10 - Local Authorities with the Fewest NGB-Affiliated Clubs 15

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 16

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). 17

18 Figure 12 - Club Count by County Sports Partnership CSP Funded Sports Non- Funded Sports Total Population Clubs / 100,000 Pop n Rank London* 5, ,242 8,787, Greater Manchester 2, ,005 2,782, Hampshire 2, ,628 1,969, West Yorkshire 2, ,478 2,299, Essex 2, ,393 1,802, Kent 2, ,303 1,820, Sussex 1, ,132 1,680, Devon 1, ,832 1,177, Lancashire 1, ,802 1,485, Merseyside 1, ,712 1,406, Surrey 1, ,673 1,176, Hertfordshire 1, ,665 1,176, Avon 1, , , Warwickshire 1, ,595 1,121, South Yorkshire 1, ,563 1,384, Staffordshire 1, ,460 1,293, Nottinghamshire 1, ,417 1,135, Derbyshire 1, ,380 1,041, North Yorkshire 1, , , Leicestershire 1, ,370 1,069, Tyne and Wear 1, ,273 1,128, Cambridgeshire 1, , , Hereford and Worcester 1, , , Cheshire 1, ,218 1,048, Humber 1, , , Buckinghamshire 1, , , Suffolk 1, , , Oxfordshire 1, , , Norfolk , , Wiltshire , , Gloucestershire , , Black Country ,033 1,175, Dorset , , Berkshire , , Lincolnshire , , Somerset , Cumbria , Northamptonshire , Cornwall , Bedfordshire , Shropshire , Birmingham ,124, Durham , Tees Valley , Northumberland , Total 61,857 4,299 66,156 55,268,

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. 19

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, 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. 20

21 Figure 15 - Club Count by IMD Decile IMD Decile Sport Count Most Deprived Least Deprived 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, , Bowls 4, Tennis 2, Table Tennis 2, Netball 2, Rugby Union 2, Equestrian 1, Cycling 1, Golf 1, Badminton 1, Angling 1, Athletics 1, Gymnastics 1, Swimming 1, Boxing Archery Rowing Hockey Karate Other Sports 12, ,117 1,030 1, Non-funded 14, ,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 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. 21

22 Key Points Mapping clubs to Lower Layer Super Output Areas allows comparison with the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 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 22

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 23