This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 10 August 2014, At: 15:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20

Sports participation — How muchdoes it cost?K.L. Lamb a , L.P. Asturias b , K. Roberts b & D.A. Brodie aa Department of Movement Science and Physical Education ,University of Liverpool , Liverpool, L69 3BX, UKb Department of Sociology , University of Liverpool ,Liverpool, L69 3BX, UKPublished online: 02 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: K.L. Lamb , L.P. Asturias , K. Roberts & D.A. Brodie (1992)Sports participation — How much does it cost?, Leisure Studies, 11:1, 19-29, DOI:10.1080/02614369100390281

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02614369100390281

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Sports participation- how much does it cost?

K.L. LAMB 1, L.P. ASTURIAS 2, K. ROBERTS 2 and D.A. BRODIE 1

Departments of 1Movement Science and Physical Education and 2Sociology, University of Liver- pool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

Introduction

The rise in the number of sports provisions in Britain over recent years, par- ticularly multi-sport leisure/recreation centres, has created a readily available source of consumer spending. Though sports participants remain a minority and those participating in indoor sports form an even smaller proportion of the popu- lation, it is of interest to examine how much importance, in terms of financial expenditure, these people attach to this component of their leisure. Previous attempts to provide quantitative data on this issue have been few, with just four studies emerging with relevant statistics.

From a mid-1960s British Government Social Survey examining the patterns of participation in outdoor and physical recreation among people living in urban areas of England and Wales, Sillitoe (1969) estimated that, on average, males (aged 15-70 years) spent s per year on fees and subscriptions to take part in active recreation. Females of similar age spent s per annum. However, no account was taken of the expenditure on transportation and equipment or clothing associated with such activity, and at the time the average annual incomes of the respondents was s (males) and s (females).

Apart from the Greater London Recreation Survey (Greater London Council, 1976), which gathered much detailed, but un-analysed, information on recreational expenditure, very little explicit data on family or personal leisure or sports expen- diture was reported until the mid-1980s. It is quite possible that recent efforts to uncover such information stem from a report by Vickerman (1979) which indi- cated that it ought to be the responsibility of on-going national poulation surveys to monitor expenditure on leisure. Subsequently, in their analysis of Leisure in Britain, Gratton and Taylor (1987) have utilized the 1984 Family Expenditure Survey to reveal that the average weekly household expenditure on sports-related activities was s Of this figure, the mean cost of participation (subscriptions and admission charges) was only s the remainder comprising the cost of non- clothing sports goods (s football match admissions (s and admissions to other spectator sports (s As gross household income rose, however, so did sports-related expenditure, rising from an average of s with weekly in- comes of up to s to s with incomes of over s In relative terms this

Leisure Studies 11 (1992) 19-29 0261~1367/92 $03.00+.12 �9 1992 E. & F.N. Spon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

20 K.L. Lamb et al.

represented a sports-related expenditure rising from 0.1% of gross income among the lowest group, to 3.4% of gross income among the highest group. Similarly, if the cost of participation is isolated, expenditure uniformly rose from less than 0.1% of gross income among the lowest income group to 1.5 % among the highest income group.

A recent report by Jones (1989) has highlighted in more detail the level of British sports-related consumer expenditure in 1985. The quoted figure of s per capita, or s per week, includes the cost of sports clothing and equipment, as well as expenditure on sports literature, skiing holidays, travel and gambling. Ex- cluding gambling, the single largest source of expenditure was clothing and foot- wear, accounting for an average of s per week. The cost of sports participation, excluding travel, was s per week.

Clearly, both studies provide an interesting insight into the financial commitment of the British people to sport. However, the picture is clouded by the fact that neither study examined the cost of sports participation to those people actually participating. The Gratton and Taylor report produced statistics relevant to average household income and expenditure, whilst the Jones report represented the expen- diture of the whole population. Recent General Household Survey figures (1986) show that only 32% of adults in Britain were regularly engaged (at least once per month) in outdoor sports, games and physical activities (including walking), and likewise 28% engaged in indoor sports. The above figures therefore cannot reflect the true cost of sports participation for this atypical section of the population.

One further report is noteworthy, however, since it does provide an estimate of sporting expenditure amongst 'regular' participants (Martin and Mason, 1984). Drawing heavily on 1980 General Household Survey data, the report predicted that in 1983 UK adults spent nearly s million on all types of sports goods and services, amounting to s (s per week) for each participant. Of this expendiutre, 63% (s per week) was on clothing and equipment, and 37% (s per week) on admission and membership fees. The authors conceded, however, that whilst their figures were indicative of the order of magnitude of sports expenditure, there was a possible error of + 10-20% associated with their predictions.

This article presents data from a longitudinal study of sports participants, who initially were respondents in a 1986 nationwide user survey of 46 indoor sports facilities (for a description of objectives and methodology, see Dench et al. 1987). What follows is a descriptive analysis of their expenditure both in specific sports and total sporting activity, and an analysis of the influence of the extent of their participation on this expenditure. In addition, the analysis is extended by examining the effects of gender, age, and social class.

Methods

Sample

The study sample comprised 1364 sports participants (669 males, 695 females) aged 16 years and above, who during extensive home interviews (in late 1987) provided information on recent and past sports participation, health status, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Sports participation - how much does it cost? 21

aspects of general lifestyle. Twelve months previously these subjects had been inter- viewed as participants in at least one of seven indoor sports: bowls, martial arts, five-a-side football, badminton, keep-fit/weights, snooker, and swimming. At the time of their follow-up interview, whilst they may have ceased playing their 'origi- nal' sport, they had nevertheless remained sports participants. Data from the home interviews enabled the calculation of the total weekly expenditure in all sports performed, an estimate of the weekly expenditure on clothing and equipment, and an index of the extent of sports participation.

Respondents were grouped into five age groups (16-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, and 54+ years) and assigned a social class category (middle/working) based on their employment status and age of leaving full-time education.

Total weekly expenditure For each sport, respondents indicated the cost of annual membership (subsequently expressed per week) and weekly expenditure on admissions to sports facilities, travel to and from venues, and sports magazines/j ournals. Total weekly expenditure (TWE) was the sum of the costs for each sport.

Clothing and equipment expenditure An estimation of clothing and equipment expenditure (CEE) was derived from three variables relating to how much participants had spent in the past 12 months on items for indoor sports only, outdoor sports only, and items to be used for either type of sport. Since responses could only be allocated to specific expenditure ranges (for example s or s the calculation of an 'average' weekly value for each of the three variables was achieved by assigning a mid-point to each range. A simple division of these average values by 52 (weeks) provides an expenditure compatible with TWE.

Sports participation score A previously described (Lamb et al. 1990) measure of the level of overall individual sports activity, calculated on the basis of the frequency of participation in each sport performed, formed an additional independent variable. For each sport the following scores were allocated (frequencies in brackets): 70 (everyday); 45 (three or more days/week); 20 (twice/week); 10 (once/week); 5 (once/two weeks); 2.5 (once/four weeks); 1 (less than once/four weeks). Total participation score (TPS) was the sum of the scores for each sport. For example, participation in badminton once per week, swimming once a fortnight and running three times per week would yield a TPS of 60 (10+5+45).

Statistical analysis Comparisons of expenditure were made within independent variables such as sex, age, sport, and level of participation. Since the distribution of TWE values was found to be skewed, logarithmic transformations were performed to yield data more suitable for inferential statistical methods, such as the t-test and analysis of variance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

22 K.L. Lamb et al.

Mean s per week

6

5

4

3

2

1

o

4.02

2.50

3.20

I !

Male Female All

Sex

Mean s per week

6

5

Fig. 1 Expenditure by sex.

3 20 l

__________--__ i iiiil ! I ! I

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ All

Age group

Fig. 2 Expenditure by age group.

IT s~rd Error i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Sports participation - how much does it cost? 23

Results

Overall participation

Mean TWE values for the whole sample, males and females are shown in Fig. 1. The difference between males and females is marked (s and statistically signifi- cant (t = 7.92, df. 1246; p<. 001). Analysed by age group (Fig. 2), mean TWE and age have a significant inverse relationship (F = 22.98, df. 4; p< .0001), with the youngest group (16-24) spending twice as much as the oldest group (55+). Amongst females (Fig. 3) this relationship follows a gradual trend, unlike males, for whom the principal difference in TWE occurs between the oldest group and each of the others. The influence of social class was also significant (t = 4.20, df. 1287; p< .0001), with the middle class spending an average of s per week more than the working class (Fig. 4). Amongst males, however, this relationship was not apparent.

The relationship between TPS values (classified according to quintiles of the sample) and TWE is highlighted in Figs 5 and 6. As one might expect, the two variables were positively related with significant increases in expenditure accom- panying increases in participation (F = 52.80 df. 4; p< .0001), culminating in the most active group (TPS > 74) spending three times more money per week than the least active group (TPS < 18). This trend remained when gender was controlled, though the males spent consistently more than their female counterparts. Apart from the oldest group, a similar relationship is observed in Table 1.

Table 2 shows 'average' CEE values for the three categories of sport. Overall, it was estimated that participants spent s per week on clothing and equipment, over half of which (s related to indoor sports only. Worthy of note is that whilst a considerable proportion (18%) reported zero CEE expenditure, values ranged up to s per week. As with TWE, male CEE expenditure (s sig- nificantly (t = 6.15; p< .0001) exceeded that of females (s Additionally, middle class participants again out-spent their working class counterparts although by only s (s compared with s

Clothing and equipment expenditure decreased progressively as age increased (Table 3), with the youngest once more incurring the greatest costs. Likewise, a significant (F = 44.3, df. 4; p< .01) relationship existed between level of sports participation and CEE.

In summary, sports participants spent approximately s (s + s on sport per week. Males spent s and females s

Individual sports

An analysis of the financial cost of each of our initial seven indoor sports is pre- sented in Table 4. These TWE figures do not include clothing and equipment expenses. Clearly, martial arts was the activity incurring the most expenditure (s per week) and cost s per week more than snooker, the next most expensive. Interestingly, the most popular sport, swimming, was also the least expensive, costing only s per week. As again anticipated, there was a significant group difference (F = 33.52, df. 6; p< .0001) between TWE and the frequency of participation in each sport (Table 5), with more money generally being spent as participation increased.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

24 K.L. Lamb et al.

Mean s Male per week 61

4.25

1.70 l

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

4.021

I

All Male

Age group

Mean s per week

31

Female

3.00

/i i2.3 ( 16-24 25-34 2;5-44 45-54 55- All female

Age group

Fig. 3 Expenditure by age and sex.

I I Standard Error I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Mean s per week

6-

Mean s per week

7

6

5

4

3

2

I

0

Sports participation - h o w much does it cost?

i

Middle All

2.80,

Working all

4.391

3.71

i i

Ntddle Working m a l e male

Class and Sex

2.99[

i

Middle female

Fig. 4 Expenditure by class and sex.

1.65 ~ L / ~ .k

2.11

Working female

IT l

25

| | i i

I to 17.5 18 to 30 30.5 to 45.6 45.7 to 75 75 plus

Fig. 5

Participation Score

Expenditure by participation score.

Mean

I Confidence Interval

Discussion

The foregoing analysis has revealed the financial cost of sports participation among a group of people regularly committed to sport. Compared with the previously

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

26 K.L. Lamb et al.

Mean s per week

7

6

5

4-

3-

2-

1

o

Male

5.6~1 d 3.88 I J l

5 . o 9 ~ l

T A 7 2 . 3 7 ~ 1

I I I I !

T to 17.5 18 to 30 30.5 to 456 45.7 to 75 75 plus

Mean s per week

7-

5: 4s

2s

Female

1"38 7 1

Participation Score

3 t

I I 0 ! I

I to 17.5 18 to 30 50.5 to 45.5 45.7 to 75 75 plus

Participation Score

[] Mean I Confidence

Interval

Fig. 6 Expenditure by participation score and sex.

mentioned estimates of cost (Gratton and Taylor, 1987; Jones, 1989) our participants were found to spend considerably more on sport. This fact is not surprising owing to the general nature of the populations on which the earlier calculations were based.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Sports participation - how much does it cost? 27

In comparison with the estimates of Martin and Mason (1984), our sporting sample spent approximately four times more on sports participation. Although our data was gathered four years later, it is not unreasonable to assume that markedly higher costs were still incurred by the present sample. This can be explained in terms of the definition of regular participation used by the General Household Survey, which classifies respondents as regular participants if they have taken part

Table I TWE by TPS by age group

TPS a AGE (n) 1 2 3 4 5

16-24 (160) 1.62 2.71 3.85 4.51 4.52 25-34 (249) 2.03 3.17 6.36 4.98 6.12 35-44 (420) 1.84 2.83 4.52 5.06 6.21 45-54 (207) 1.85 2.54 3.84 3.79 5.61 55+ (87) 1.42 2.45 3.63 5.97 3.49

1 -- 1 to 17.5; 2 -- 18 to 30; 3 -- 30.5 to 45.6; 4 -~ 45.7 to 75; 5 = 75+

Table 2 Weekly CEE on three categories of sport

Males Females Total Sport (s (s (s

Indoor 0.50 0.45 0.48 Outdoor 0.32 0.14 0.23 Indoor/ 0.25 0.15 0.19 Outdoor Overall 1.07 0.74 0.90

Table 3 Overall CEE by age and by TPS

(s F-ratio p<

AGE 16-24 1.10 24-34 1.00 35-44 0.78 45-54 0.66 55+ 0.44

TPS 1-17.5 0.51 18-30 0.63 30.5-45.6 0.83 45.7-75 1.11 75+ 1.46

n -- 1 364

17.7

44.3

.01

.01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

28 K.L. Lamb et al.

Table 4 TWE by indoor sport

TWE Sport (n) Males Females Overall

s s s

Bowls (204) 1.12 0.85 1.03 Martial Arts (168) 3.39 2.76 3.20 5-a-side a (173) 1.19 - 1.16 Badminton (308) 1.60 1.48 1.51 Snooker a (219) 2.06 - 1.98 K'fit/weights (485) 2.10 1.36 1.57 Swimming (496) 1.08 0.91 0.96

aParticipation in these sports by females was very low (n <13)

Table 5 TWE of individual sports by frequency of participation

Frequency a Sport (n) 1 2 3 4 5

s s s s s

Bowls (203) 1.40 0.79 0.48 - 1.11 Martial Arts (167) 3.85 3.13 1.95 2.18(b) 2.31(6) 5-a-side (173) 1.47 1.81 1.21 0.49 0.77 Badminton (380) 2.80 1.94 1.24 1.47 1.15 Snooker (219) 2.95 2.43 2.15 1.40 1.13 K'fit/weights (484) 2.34 1.78 1.00 0.94(b) 1.27 Swimming (494) 1.70 1.05 0.94 0.87 0.75

(~)1 = 3+/week; 2 = 2/week; 3 = llweek; 4 = 1/2 weeks; 5 = 1/month. (b) Sample sizes for these categories were very low (n <10).

in a sport at least once in the previous four weeks. Since the mean TPS of our sample was 47.7 (Lamb, Roberts and Brodie, 1990), representing sports participa- tion on almost five occasions per week (excluding walking), with over 85% of people participating at least once per week, it is clear that their rate of participation accounts for their greater level of expenditure.

Notwithstanding the nature of the sample surveyed, Martin and Mason (1984) also provide some comparable statistics for expenditure on individual sports. Ex- cluding spending on CEE (the data for which is absent for our individual sports), respondents in our survey approximately spent eight times per week more on badminton, four times more on indoor bowls, 22 times more on swimming, and nearly twice as much on snooker than the sports participants assessed by Martin and Mason. A direct comparison with our most costly sport, martial arts, was not possible, though Martin and Mason estimated expenditure on 'self-&fence' (incor- porating judo, karate, kendo, jiu-jitsu, and kung fu) as being negligible.

Our findings support established views that sport is dominated by young (<35 years), middle class males, though in this case 'dominated' is qualified by their markedly greater financial input into sport. At similar overall sports participation levels, males consistently spent more money on sport than females. It is likely, however, that males experienced a more frequent involvement in the most expen- sive sports whilst females were more active in the least expensive sports. The types of sports preferred was further shown to be exerting a potential influence on expenditure by our finding that older respondents spent less than those younger, even when level of participation was controlled. Amongst the oldest respondents,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Sports participation - h o w much does it cost? 29

hoveever, a confounding factor in their relatively low expenditure was management pricing policies which enabled reduced or free sports participation.

Our data did not allow for an analysis of relative expenditure, that is, what proportion of personal or family income and/or expenditure was absorbed by sports participation. Nor was it posible to compare sports costs with those of other leisure pursuits. However, data has been presented that does give some measure of the sample's commitment to their leisure-time. It would be equally interesting to observe their commitment in other ways, for instance, how devoted as sportsmen and women they are in terms of allocating their time to sport and the exclusion of other leisure pursuits from their overall leisure behaviour. Paradoxically, evidence is now available that shows sports participants to have actually more other leisure habits than non-sports participants (Gratton and Tice, 1989), and that an increase in sports activity is accompanied by an increase in other forms of leisure activity (Roberts et al. 1990). In reality, therefore, it seems probable that sports participants are willing to make a greater use of their leisure-time, squeezing more activities into a given number of hours. As initial sporting activities and their associated relation- ships tend to generate others, a growth in the 'cost' of participation can only occur.

Acknowledgement The project from which this report is based was supported by a grant from the Health Promotion Research Trust.

References Dench, S., York, C.S. and Roberts, K. (1987) Indoor sports provisions and participants: some prelimin-

ary findings, Department of Sociology, University of Liverpool. Gratton, C. and Taylor, P. (1987) Leisure in Britain, Leisure Publications, Hitchen. Gratton, C. and Tice, A. (1989) Sports participation and health Leisure Studies 8, 77-92. Greater London Council (1976) Greater London Recreation Study, research paper 19, Greater Lon-

don Council, London. Jones, H.G. (1989) The Economic Impact and Importance of Sport: A European Study, Council of

Europe, Strasbourg. Lamb, K.L., Roberts, K. and Brodie, D.A. (1990) Sports participation and health status among indoor

sports participants. In Long, J. (Ed.) Leisure, Health and Wellbeing, Leisure Studies Association, Bournemouth.

Martin, W.F. and Mason, S. (1984) The U.K. Sports Market, Leisure Consultants, Sudbury, Suffolk. Roberts, K., Brodie, D.A. Lamb, K.L., Campbell, R. and Asturias, L.P. (1990) Inner-City Sport, Health

Promotion Research Trust, Cambridge. Sillitoe, K.K. (1969) Planning for Leisure, Government Social Survey Report SS388, H.M.S.O.,

London. Vickerman, R.W. (1979) Personal and Family Leisure Expenditure, Sports Council and Social Re-

search Council, London.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

15:

30 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4