Measuring the Affiliated Market

Submitted to: Fraser Skilling Senior Programme Manager Sport Submitted by: Professor Simon Shibli & David Barrett Sport Industry Research Centre Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield, S10 2BP

Tel: +44 (0)114 225 5919 Email: [email protected] 15th November, 2017 Contents Contents ...... 2 Executive Summary...... 3 Introduction ...... 6 1 Research Context ...... 6 1.1 The political context ...... 6 2 Our Approach ...... 6 2.1 Data Processing ...... 7 2.2 Cross-Referencing ...... 8 2.2 Geocoding ...... 8 Key Points ...... 9 3 Results ...... 10 3.1 Initial Findings...... 10 Key Points ...... 13 3.2 Local Authority Level ...... 13 Key Points ...... 16 3.3 County Sports Partnership Level ...... 17 Key Points ...... 20 3.4 Deprivation Level ...... 20 Key Points ...... 22 4 Constraints and Limitations ...... 22 4.1 What Constitutes a Club? ...... 22 4.2 Data Protection and Sharing ...... 22 4.3 Limitations of CSP Data ...... 23 4.4 Mapping Constraints ...... 23 Key Points ...... 24 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 24 Appendix ...... 26

2 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, , 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 ). 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 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 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Headline Findings The data collected for this research indicate that there are 74,233 clubs affiliated to English-based NGBs, of which an estimated 72,117 are located in England. The top ten sports in terms of affiliated clubs account for two thirds of all sports clubs in England. There have been some significant changes in the number of affiliated clubs between 2015 and 2017. There were more than 2,400 additional Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017 compared with 2015, while the Lawn Tennis Association noted a fall of 2,632 affiliated clubs over the same period. Methodological differences between this research and the 2015 report may also account for at least some of the change.

5.2 Geographical Variations Crude counts of the number of clubs at Local Authority and County Sports Partnership level reveal that major urban areas and larger unitary authorities areas play host to the highest numbers of sports clubs, though a different pattern emerges when the counts are standardised to take account of population. This provides a useful way of making meaningful comparisons between areas, which highlights the differences between urban and rural populations. When compared with the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015, there is a clear pattern of provision which appears to favour the more affluent areas of England. While this pattern is common to the majority of sports, there are a number of activities which are more prevalent in deprived areas. These include Boxing, Swimming, Rugby League and .

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 Introduction The Sport Industry Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University is pleased to present this report into the distribution of affiliated sports clubs in England. The research was commissioned to investigate the current extent of the 'market' for affiliated sports clubs, with a particular focus on how the number of clubs varies across the country. Sports clubs are the setting in which around 4 million people regularly take part in sport, and an understanding of this sector of the sports market is crucial to underpinning Sport England's remit of increasing participation

1 Research Context Various attempts have been made to estimate the size of the sports club market in England, both directly and indirectly through other research. In 2002, The Leisure Industries Research Centre, in examining the extent of volunteering in the UK, estimated that there were just over 106,000 clubs. The Sport and Recreation Alliance, through its regular programme of Sports Club Surveys (2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015), have estimated the number of clubs to be in the region of 80-85,000. In 2015, Ecorys were commissioned by Sport England to conduct a census, which identified 62,398 clubs affiliated to 67 governing bodies in England. The need for high quality data relating to the size of the sports club market is highlighted by the wide variation between these estimates. In the past, these have been put down to differences between the methodologies and definitions employed to complete the research, rather than any significant trends in club formation. By applying a similar approach to the 2015 report, this research therefore presents an opportunity to examine the extent and direction of any change in the number of sports clubs in England.

1.1 The political context The need to monitor trends in sports club membership reflects a desire on the part of Sport England to understand broader trends in participation, in response to continued scrutiny of investment in sport. The Government makes its position clear from the perspective of the use of public funds in the quotation below. All organisations that receive funding from Sport England will be required to make data which is relevant to getting more people involved in sport and physical activity publicly available in an agreed format. This may include (but is not limited to) data on the location and availability of facilities, coaches and clubs. (Sporting Future p 26) Closer to home, Sport England's own strategy, Towards An Active Nation, details that between 2017 and 2021 29% of its investment will be made in the 'Core Market' which is the term used for those who are already active. Clubs are at the heart of the Core Market and therefore it is important that Sport England has the fullest intelligence possible on an area in which it will invest considerably over the next four years. For the purposes of this analysis, a club is defined thus: “A community sports club with a recognised governance structure (constitution, bank account, and committee) that has a membership programme in place and is affiliated to its recognised National Governing Body. Generally, the club is single sport but where it is multi-sport, the different sections of the club are affiliated to the National Governing Body”.

2 Our Approach In keeping with Sport England's desire to make comparisons with the 2015 research, the SIRC team used a similar approach to the Ecorys research, by contacting National Governing Bodies of sport

6 directly to access their database of affiliated clubs. Initial e-mail contacts were supplemented by telephone calls in order to begin negotiations for data sharing. This was a continuous process throughout the research, and in all cases the research team agreed access on the understanding that as data 'owners', NGBs retained the right to decide what data could be shared, and how it could be used. For some sports, lists of clubs were available to download directly from NGB websites.

The final dataset includes records of clubs affiliated to 95 NGBs, covering 85 sports. Sport England provided support in approaching County Sports Partnerships for any data they held regarding sports clubs in their area. The objective of this strand of the data collection process was to provide a second source of club data, to enable a cross-referencing exercise to take place. By taking the same approach to data ownership as with NGBs, the research team was able to secure access to data from 39 of the 45 CSPs.

2.1 Data Processing On receipt of data from NGBs and CSPs, records were checked for completeness, with particular reference to postcode information. As a means of fixing location, postcodes were identified as the ideal point of reference, since they allowed clubs to be mapped with sufficient accuracy for comparison with other units of geography, without revealing individual addresses. In most, but not all cases, NGB and CSP datasets were found to contain records with missing postcodes. Where the data owner had also supplied location or specific address data, it was possible to fill in the gaps. Internet searches were used to confirm location information for clubs with no spatial references, although the success rate varied between datasets.

Figure 1 - Outline of Methodology

7 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 Figure 2 - NGB Data - Spatial Accuracy Rank NGB Clubs Full Postcode Mappable Clubs n n % n % 1 Lawn Tennis Association 2,715 2,715 100% 2,673 98% 2 Bowls England 2,126 2,126 100% 2,075 98% 3 The Angling Trust 1,712 1,712 100% 1,683 98% 4 British Swimming 1,014 1,014 100% 976 96% 5 England Boxing 971 971 100% 946 97% 6 GB 959 959 100% 912 95% 7 England Hockey 863 863 100% 845 98% 8 British Cycling 1823 1822 100% 1782 98% 9 English Union 1,822 1,821 100% 1,777 98% 10 Table Tennis England 2661 2659 100% 2625 99% 11 BADMINTON England 1,766 1,763 100% 1,700 96% 12 British Crown Green Bowls Association 2,510 2,502 100% 2424 97% 13 British Gymnastics 1161 1157 100% 1133 98% 14 English Karate Federation 822 809 98% 776 94% 15 England Netball 2,330 2,252 97% 2,151 92% 16 The Football Asssociation 22,572 21,619 96% 21,263 94% 17 The 2,206 1,904 86% 1,850 84% 18 England and Wales Cricket Board 7,105 6,127 86% 7,076 100% 19 England Athletics 1,313 1,120 85% 1,086 83% 20 British Rowing 908 760 84% 737 81%

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

Total 74,233 67,807 91% 68,343 92% As Figure 2 makes clear, the majority of NGBs supplied data that included full postcode information, though this does not necessarily equate to mappable data. In addition, every dataset supplied by an NGB was reviewed before geocoding to deal with missing and incomplete postcode data. Thirteen of the 20 largest governing bodies supplied a list of clubs with postcodes, which was entirely complete after review, though none of these datasets were 100% accurate in terms of mappability. Conversely, the England and Wales Cricket Board supplied a mixture of postcode and map co-ordinates, drawn from their Play-Cricket.com website, which resulted in a much higher degree of mapping accuracy. It is important to note that a small number of NGBs (10) were unable to supply any address or postcode information with their lists of clubs. This included three organisations (the British Mountaineering Council, The Motor Sports Association and the British Caving Association) whose clubs tend to participate at a variety of locations, and who were unable to supply club contact details as a proxy. Clubs affiliated to these NGBs are included in the overall total, but excluded from the more detailed geographical analysis which follows.

Key Points • Data were accessed from 95 National Governing Bodies, covering 85 sports, as well as 39 out of 45 County Sports Partnerships. All Sport England funded sports supplied lists. • NGB records were geocoded using OS Code Point Open™ data, with incomplete and incorrect postcodes rectified with reference to CSP data, as well as ONS look-up tables relating to standard levels of census and administrative geography. • Of the 74,233 records in the database, 68,343 were mappable, equating to 92% of all clubs. This represents a marginal improvement on 2015, when approximately 10% of records were found to be inaccurate or incomplete.

9 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 2,206 3% 8 Equestrian 1,827 2% 9 Cycling 1,823 2% 10 Golf 1,822 2% 11 Badminton 1,766 2% 12 Angling 1,712 2% 13 Athletics 1,313 2% 14 Gymnastics 1,161 2% 15 Swimming 1,014 1% 16 Boxing 971 1% 17 Archery 959 1% 18 Rowing 908 1% 19 Hockey 863 1% 20 Karate 822 1% Other Sports 12,725 17% Total 74,233 100%

10 The 2015 dataset was not available for further examination, preventing any meaningful, detailed time-series interrogation of the data. Any comparison of the two club censuses is therefore dependent on a number of assumptions. First, it is assumed that NGBs have been consistent in their definition of clubs to be included in the two analyses. Second, the Ecorys analysis includes clubs which are located outside the English border, but which are affiliated to English or British NGBs. We have included these clubs in the overall analysis for 2017, but we have also calculated the total number of clubs based in England as a separate figure. Third, while every attempt was made to collect data from the same NGBs as in 2015, it was not possible to access data from British Ju-Jitsu or the British Biathlon Union. For this reason, we have also conducted a like-for-like comparison of sports and NGBs which feature in both studies.

Figure 4 - Summary of Change between 2015 and 2017 2015 2017 Change Change %

All NGBs in 2017

All Clubs 62,398 74,233 11,835 19% Count of NGBs 63 95 32 49% NGBs Common to 2015 and 2017

All Clubs 61,829 63,714 1,885 3% Count of NGBs 60 60 0 0%

There are 60 NGBs which feature in both this research and the 2015 study, many of which represent the largest sports in terms of the number of clubs. Fig. 4 presents a summary of the comparison between the two, and highlights the changes in the number of affiliated clubs. In crude terms, there are an additional 31 NGBs featured in this research, which account for an increase of 11,835 (19%) in the number of recorded clubs. On a like-for-like basis however, the increase in club numbers is more marginal, at 1,885, (3%), and this total figure masks some notable differences between NGBs. Figure 5 and Figure 6 make clear that there have been some significant changes in the number of affiliated clubs between 2015 and 2017. For example, there are over 2,400 more Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017 compared with 2015, and an additional 1,801 Football clubs affiliated to the FA. Conversely, the Lawn Tennis Association recorded 2,632 fewer affiliated Tennis clubs in 2017 than in 2015, while England Netball noted a fall of 864 clubs over the same period. The reasons for these movements may be related to a number of causes, including changes in participation rates, availability of facilities and structural changes in the respective sports. For example, club mergers may be driven by a desire to bring men's and women's clubs together 'under one roof', or to ensure the sustainability of club provision in areas affected by facility closures. This has been noted in various sports over recent years, including golf and hockey. Some consideration must also be given at this point to the question of what proportion of the movement between 2015 and 2017 can be accounted for by methodology, as opposed to actual changes in the number of clubs. While every effort has been made to mirror the approach of the 2015 research, it would be naïve to suggest that the number of Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017 reflects real growth of nearly 1,100%, or that the current number of Tennis clubs is half that of two years ago. Additionally, the timing of the research may have affected the number of clubs recorded by the various NGBs, depending on when the affiliation process is run.

11 Figure 5 - Change in Number of Clubs, by NGB

Figure 6 - Change in Club Affiliation, by NGB NGB 2015 2017 Change Change % Table Tennis England 223 2,661 2,438 1,093% British Ice Hockey Association 152 329 177 116% British Rowing 573 908 335 58% Stoolball England 110 170 60 55% Rounders England 123 184 61 50% England 337 456 119 35% England and Wales Cricket Board 5,421 7,105 1,684 31% British Triathlon 450 579 129 29% Archery GB 853 959 106 12% England Athletics 1,199 1,313 114 10% The Football Asssociation 20,771 22,572 1,801 9% England Hockey 795 863 68 9% England Boxing 913 971 58 6% The Rugby Football Union 2,140 2,206 66 3% BADMINTON England 1,846 1,766 -80 -4% British Swimming 1,065 1,014 -51 -5% English Golf Union 1,931 1,822 -109 -6% British Cycling 2,003 1,823 -180 -9% Bowls England 2,516 2,126 -390 -16% Baseball Softball UK 334 245 -89 -27% England Netball 3,194 2,330 -864 -27% British Canoe Union 624 369 -255 -41% England Squash 654 375 -279 -43% Lawn Tennis Association 5,347 2,715 -2,632 -49% National Rifle Association 853 314 -539 -63% British Roller Sports Federation 75 8 -67 -89%

12 The answer appears to lie in differences in NGBs' definitions of constituted and affiliated club adopted in this exercise. In the case of Table Tennis for example, the inclusion of associated clubs in the total has resulted in an additional 2,440 being taken into consideration. Although this appears to be an extraordinary increase, the total number of Table Tennis clubs (2,661) is remarkably close to the figure of 2,700 recorded in SIRC's 2002 research into volunteering on behalf of UK Sport. These anomalies suggest that further qualitative research, in conjunction with NGBs, is necessary to better understand the drivers of change in specific sports.

Key Points • The data collected for this research indicate that there 74,233 clubs affiliated to English- based NGBs, of which an estimated 72,117 are located in England. This represents an increase of 11,835 on the 2015 Ecorys report. • On a like-for-like basis, counting only those NGBs which featured in both 2015 and 2017, the increase is more marginal at 1,885, or 3%. • Football is the dominant sport in terms of the number of affiliated clubs with 22,572, equating to 30% of the overall market. The top ten sports in terms of affiliated clubs account for two thirds of all sports clubs in England

3.2 Local Authority Level Club location data makes it possible to analyse the distribution of sports clubs across the country, and one of the most useful comparisons is at local authority level. Figure 7 shows the 20 local authorities with the highest number of clubs, with the unitary district of Wiltshire home to 829, followed closely by the metropolitan centre of Leeds with 806. In fact, 8 of the councils in the top 20 are unitary authorities corresponding to roughly to traditional county boundaries, while the remaining 12 are metropolitan boroughs. The ex-counties are well populated but larger in terms of area than the more densely populated metropolitan areas.

Figure 7 - Local Authorities with the most clubs Rank Local Authority Clubs Population Popn / Club Clubs / 100,000 Popn 1 Wiltshire 829 488,409 589 170 2 Leeds 806 781,743 970 103 3 Birmingham 767 1,124,569 1,466 68 4 Cornwall 761 553,687 728 137 5 County Durham 657 522,143 795 126 6 Sheffield 652 575,424 883 113 7 Shropshire 607 313,373 516 194 8 Kirklees 534 437,047 818 122 9 Liverpool 527 484,578 920 109 10 Bradford 491 534,279 1,088 92 11 Cheshire East 460 376,695 819 122 12 Manchester 453 541,263 1,195 84 13 Cheshire W. & Chester 445 335,680 754 133 14 South Gloucestershire 438 277,623 634 158 15 Bristol 437 454,213 1,039 96 16 Northumberland 424 316,002 745 134 17 East Riding of Yorks. 414 337,696 816 123 18 Bromley 402 326,889 813 123 19 Wirral 397 321,238 809 124 20 Bath & NE Somerset 388 187,751 484 207

13 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 their immediate neighbours, residents in both boroughs would be able to access clubs in adjacent local authority areas. Slough is located next to Windsor and Maidenhead for example, where the ratio of clubs per 100,000 people is more than three times higher (at 129).

Figure 9 - Local Authorities with the fewest clubs Rank Local Authority Clubs Population Popn per Club Clubs / 100,000 Popn 307 Cannock Chase 82 98,534 1,202 83 308 Ribble Valley 80 58,826 735 136 309 Richmondshire 80 53,732 672 149 310 Rossendale 78 69,886 896 112 311 Adur 76 63,506 836 120 312 Tamworth 76 76,955 1,013 99 313 Watford 74 96,773 1,308 76 314 Weymouth and Portland 73 65,371 895 112 315 Christchurch 72 49,481 687 146 316 Purbeck 72 46,336 644 155 317 Rutland 72 38,606 536 186 318 Forest Heath 71 64,447 908 110 319 Redditch 71 84,971 1,197 84 320 Stevenage 69 87,081 1,262 79 321 Oadby and Wigston 61 55,825 915 109 322 Slough 61 147,181 2,413 41 323 Corby 54 68,187 1,263 79 324 Kensington and Chelsea 43 156,726 3,645 27 325 City of London 27 9,401 348 287 326 Isles of Scilly 5 2,308 462 217 Figure 10 - Local Authorities with the Fewest NGB-Affiliated Clubs

15 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 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 Figure 12 - Club Count by County Sports Partnership Non- Clubs / Funded CSP Funded Total Population 100,000 Rank Sports Sports Popn London* 5,746 496 6,242 8,787,892 71 44 Greater Manchester 2,787 218 3,005 2,782,141 108 40 Hampshire 2,448 180 2,628 1,969,331 133 19 West ,349 129 2,478 2,299,673 108 41 Essex 2,262 131 2,393 1,802,164 133 20 ,144 159 2,303 1,820,435 127 25 ,867 265 2,132 1,680,791 127 24 Devon 1,726 106 1,832 1,177,916 156 7 Lancashire 1,703 99 1,802 1,485,042 121 31 Merseyside 1,643 69 1,712 1,406,447 122 29 ,565 108 1,673 1,176,549 142 14 Hertfordshire 1,585 80 1,665 1,176,720 141 15 Avon 1,513 119 1,632 641,964 254 1 Warwickshire 1,512 83 1,595 1,121,424 142 13 South ,475 88 1,563 1,384,969 113 37 Staffordshire 1,382 78 1,460 1,293,324 113 36 Nottinghamshire 1,330 87 1,417 1,135,992 125 27 Derbyshire 1,303 77 1,380 1,041,998 132 21 North Yorkshire 1,301 73 1,374 813,233 169 4 Leicestershire 1,292 78 1,370 1,069,906 128 23 Tyne and Wear 1,179 94 1,273 1,128,757 113 38 Cambridgeshire 1,186 79 1,265 849,035 149 11 Hereford and Worcester 1,164 73 1,237 772,362 160 6 Cheshire 1,150 68 1,218 1,048,087 116 34 Humber 1,097 55 1,152 927,866 124 28 Buckinghamshire 1,026 89 1,115 799,199 140 16 Suffolk 1,048 63 1,111 745,274 149 10 Oxfordshire 1,027 79 1,106 683,169 162 5 Norfolk 985 70 1,055 892,870 118 33 Wiltshire 976 69 1,045 706,314 148 12 Gloucestershire 984 54 1,038 900,752 115 35 Black Country 929 104 1,033 1,175,682 88 43 Dorset 953 56 1,009 771,884 131 22 Berkshire 916 89 1,005 896,823 112 39 Lincolnshire 935 69 1,004 743,413 135 18 Somerset 897 60 957 761,128 126 26 Cumbria 893 46 939 497,906 189 3 Northamptonshire 837 47 884 733,128 121 32 Cornwall 795 46 841 555,995 151 9 Bedfordshire 764 44 808 664,479 122 30 Shropshire 737 41 778 313,373 248 2 Birmingham 693 74 767 1,124,569 68 45 Durham 699 27 726 522,143 139 17 Tees Valley 607 49 656 669,946 98 42 Northumberland 447 31 478 316,002 151 8 Total 61,857 4,299 66,156 55,268,067 120

18 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 Figure 14 - Distribution of Clubs by County Sports Partnership

Key Points • In crude numerical terms, London is home to 9% of all clubs in England. The other CSPs with the most clubs are generally in the larger metropolitan areas of the West Midlands and the North. • When standardised by population, the pattern of club provision is drastically different. There are fewer clubs per 100,000 people in many of the more urbanised CSPs. The highest ratio of clubs to people occurs in Avon (254), while Birmingham has the lowest, at 68 clubs per 100,000.

3.4 Deprivation Level The use of postcode data to locate affiliated clubs also permits an analysis of distribution by deprivation, as clubs can be mapped to ONS Super Output Area Level (LSOAs). Clubs can be assigned a value according to where they are located, in relation to the 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation, which measure relative levels of development at small area level using a range of economic and social indicators.

This presents an opportunity to consider the impact of deprivation levels on access to sports clubs, and the figures are presented in Figure 14. LSOAs are grouped into deciles (bands of 10%) according to their overall deprivation score, ranging from1 (the most deprived) to 10 (the least deprived). The green shading indicates a higher proportion of clubs in each sport, while the red shaded cells have the fewest clubs in each sport.

20 Figure 15 - Club Count by IMD Decile IMD Decile Sport Count Most Deprived Least Deprived 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Football 22,572 1,944 1,786 2,020 1,951 2,220 2,559 2,423 2,469 2,285 1,852 Cricket 6,422 200 259 394 475 721 908 1,031 887 811 736 Bowls 4,958 345 416 447 536 531 553 522 526 512 364 Tennis 2,715 37 53 84 153 231 292 321 339 420 437 Table Tennis 2,661 213 203 199 227 315 356 344 328 233 208 Netball 2,330 105 201 183 249 257 199 205 284 226 275 Rugby Union 2,206 89 119 157 157 225 187 235 232 264 204 Equestrian 1,827 13 25 51 87 180 217 248 190 175 134 Cycling 1,823 62 115 126 167 166 200 207 252 237 264 Golf 1,822 33 38 75 133 199 235 288 256 276 250 Badminton 1,766 94 118 110 154 170 164 188 240 203 275 Angling 1,712 58 83 74 144 165 186 205 215 243 228 Athletics 1,313 43 65 75 87 114 104 151 142 157 159 Gymnastics 1,161 118 100 105 115 110 133 124 115 123 104 Swimming 1,014 100 104 118 108 112 109 89 89 85 77 Boxing 971 237 132 147 115 76 73 67 54 26 28 Archery 959 18 26 51 65 107 95 107 107 123 98 Rowing 908 38 37 77 41 58 61 104 101 131 50 Hockey 863 46 59 70 68 94 73 102 102 116 120 Karate 822 78 79 78 78 68 72 90 88 75 84 Other Sports 12,725 698 721 813 841 924 940 1,117 1,030 1,049 914 Non-funded 14,920 719 843 989 1,203 1,413 1,423 1,607 1,586 1,618 1,504 Funded 59,313 3,926 3,932 4,531 4,798 5,638 6,314 6,578 6,466 6,177 5,377 Total 74,233 4,648 4,779 5,534 6,022 7,067 7,753 8,208 8,064 7,809 6,894

The first point of note is that in the majority of the most popular sports, there is a tendency for clubs to be located in less deprived areas. Overall, some 37,507 clubs (58% of the total) are located in the 5 least deprived deciles according the IMD 2015. This pattern generally holds true across the range of sports, although there are some notable variations. Tennis clubs are much more likely to be located in more affluent areas, with more than 76% in less deprived deciles. Similarly, Golf (73%), Equestrian (73%) and Cricket (69%) clubs tend to be located in areas which are less affected by multiple deprivation.

There are few sports which run counter to this trend, though boxing is a notable exception, with almost three quarters of affiliated clubs located in the most deprived parts of England. Indeed, a quarter of all boxing clubs are found in the most derived decile. Other sports with a location bias towards more deprived areas include Swimming (55%), and among the 'Other' sports with fewer clubs overall, Snooker (63%), Rugby League (61%), Volleyball (53%), Weightlifting (53%) and Basketball (52%).

This distribution of clubs by deprivation has important implications in terms of access to opportunities to participate in club-based sport. One of the domains in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation is that of Access to Services, in which areas that are generally more deprived tend to perform better than average. These findings might suggest that access to sports clubs is more difficult for those living in more deprived areas, despite higher levels of connectivity through public transport. An element of caution is necessary however, since the location details of clubs in some sports (e.g. Motor Cycling, Angling) relate to club officials, rather than playing venues.

21 Key Points • Mapping clubs to Lower Layer Super Output Areas allows comparison with the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015. • More than half of all sports clubs are located in the less deprived areas (58%) of England, suggesting that access to club sport is more challenging for residents of more deprived parts of the country. • While this pattern is common to the majority of sports, there are a number of activities which are more prevalent in deprived areas. These include Boxing, Swimming, Rugby League and Basketball.

4 Constraints and Limitations The processes and procedures involved in compiling the data for this research were designed to provide a comprehensive dataset which could be mapped and analysed in a variety of ways. The exercise was successful in gathering data on a significant number of clubs from a wide variety of sports, but the research operated under a number of limitations.

4.1 What Constitutes a Club? First, and in common with previous exercises of this kind, NGBs in different sports continue to define their 'clubs' differently. In Ice Hockey for example, individual teams are affiliated as separate clubs with the governing body for that sport, despite operating from the same venue, and in many cases bearing the same place name. Teams often share ice rinks, but will cater for different age and gender groups. This contrasts with other team sports, such as Rugby Union and Hockey, where one club will affiliate to the NGB, but may operate a multiplicity of male and female (and mixed) teams at senior, junior and veterans or masters level. Second, it became clear during the data collection phase of the research, that there are significant differences between NGBs in the way they compile and maintain data relating to their clubs. Many of the larger organisations (of whom the majority are funded by Sport England) use the annual affiliation process to gather significant amounts of information from their clubs, relating to their membership, but the scope and extent of data relating to training and competition venues is much patchier. Indeed, discussions with one NGB revealed that the research had prompted them to reconsider how their clubs were recorded and mapped, while another was preparing to update its records for the first time in several years. Nevertheless, there are a number of examples of good practice, and the desire to maintain or move towards Open Data standards was noted by several NGBs.

4.2 Data Protection and Sharing In compiling the data used in this research, the Data Protection Act 1998 was cited by a number of governing bodies and CSPs as a constraint on the sharing of club data. This is misleading however, because the research sought primarily to identify where clubs participate, rather than where its members live. Moreover, the sharing of suitably anonymised data is permitted, while information which is already in the public domain (via club, NGB and CSP websites, or social media feeds for example) is exempt from some provisions of the act. A small number of NGBs remained reluctant to share data for an exercise of this nature, particularly those which had invested a significant amount of their own resources in producing club databases. Most governing bodies and CSPs contacted during the data collection phase of the study shared data directly with the team, but some preferred to direct SIRC researchers towards resources

22 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 draw their membership. In contrast, sports which rely on a small number of specialist facilities, such as Real Tennis and the various ice and snow sports, will draw their membership from a very wide area, despite their activities being spatially confined. For this reason, it is important to bear in mind that this research is only one of a number of ways in which the distribution of sports clubs across England may be analysed.

Key Points • Irrespective of Sport England's definition of sports clubs for this research, it is clear that governing bodies apply the term differently to their sports. • The priority given to club data management varies among the NGBs and CSPs involved in this study. Equally, data sharing policy ranges from complete confidentiality to full disclosure. Some NGBs have already moved, or are in the process of moving to Open Data standards of data management, while others cite the Data Protection Act as a reason for withholding some or all of their data. • While data held by CSPs was useful as a means of cross-referencing and correcting, coverage was not comprehensive. In addition, many of the records were found to be out of date, relating to clubs which have folded or merged, making a nationwide comparison with the NGB datasets impracticable. • While postcodes are a useful and pragmatic proxy for venue location, their application in this context is dependent on the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of the data in question. Even in sports with a high degree of accuracy in terms of location information, there are notable gaps in the data which limit the ability to map clubs accurately.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Headline Findings The data collected for this research indicate that there are 74,233 clubs affiliated to English-based NGBs, of which an estimated 72,117 are located in England. This apparent increase of 11,835 since 2015, is explained by the inclusion of a wider range of sports, but on a like-for-like basis, counting only those NGBs which featured in both 2015 and 2017, the increase is more marginal at 1,885, or 3%. Football continues to be the dominant sport in terms of the number of affiliated clubs with 22,572, equating to 32% of the overall market. The top ten sports in terms of affiliated clubs account for two thirds of all sports clubs in England. There have been some significant changes in the number of affiliated clubs between 2015 and 2017. There were more than 2,400 additional Table Tennis clubs recorded in 2017 compared with 2015, while the Lawn Tennis Association noted a fall of 2,632 affiliated clubs over the same period. While some of this change is the result of participations trends and structural change, it is important to note that methodological differences between this research and the 2015 report may also account for at least some of the change. These anomalies suggest that further qualitative research is required, in conjunction with the NGBs, in order to understand the apparent fluctuations in the number of clubs, and support improved data collection.

5.2 Geographical Variations Crude counts of the number of clubs at Local Authority and county Sports Partnership level reveal that major urban areas and larger unitary authorities areas play host to the highest numbers of sports clubs. When standardised to take account of population however, a different pattern emerges, showing that the ratio of clubs to people is actually lowest in some of the largest cities in

24 England, such as Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. The London region contains 9% of all the sports clubs in England, though the contrasts in provision across the city are considerable. When compared with the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015, there is a clear pattern of provision which appears to favour the more affluent areas of England. More than half of all sports clubs are located in the less deprived areas (58%) of England, suggesting that access to club sport is more challenging for residents of more deprived parts of the country. While this pattern is common to the majority of sports, there are a number of activities which are more prevalent in deprived areas. These include Boxing, Swimming, Rugby League and Basketball. Access to sports clubs appears to correlate well access to services generally, and may be a useful indicator of deprivation.

5.3 Research Limitations and Opportunities for Refinement The compilation of the dataset used in this report revealed a number of significant differences between NGBs and CSPs in their approach to data management. The priority given to club data management varies among the NGBs and CSPs involved in this study. Equally, data sharing policy ranges from complete confidentiality to full disclosure. Some NGBs have already moved, or are in the process of moving to Open Data standards of data management, while others cite the Data Protection Act as a reason for withholding some or all of their data. Given that funded NGBs and CSPs are in receipt of financial support from Sport England, at least some of which is used to underpin the provision of club sport, it seems reasonable to suggest that a duty exists on their part to manage their club data to the highest possible standard. The obvious solution is to require NGBs and CSPs to include accurate and up to date information on sports clubs in their annual returns to Sport England. This would help to achieve a number of objectives. First, Sport England would receive more frequent updates on the number of sports clubs across the country, allowing closer monitoring of trends. Second, CSPs would be encouraged to provide a complete set of data to complement information provided by NGBs. Third, the burden of collecting the data would more clearly be the responsibility of the funded bodies. While the data collected for this report was generally of good quality, coverage was not entirely comprehensive, with notable gaps in location information. Overall, 92% of the clubs in the final dataset were mappable, though this figure varied between sports, and some NGB data included no spatial reference at all. This research has established a useful baseline which can be used to measure future improvements in data quality, and a target to increase the proportion of mappable clubs in the database would focus the attention of NGBs and CSPs on some of the weaknesses in their data.

The Club Count research has resulted in the compilation of a database of over 73,000 sports clubs, which has been used to conduct a detailed analysis of provision at various geographic scales. The exercise has revealed notable variations between local authorities, CSPs and deprived areas, and has established the concept of standardising provision by population. It is important that this resource should now be maintained with continuous updates, to ensure that it becomes a 'live' dataset. This would not only improve the quality of the data, but would also result in a cost saving to Sport England in the longer term, by reducing the need to compile such a dataset from scratch.

Most importantly, the data underpinning this research should be used as widely as possible, as this is the single most effective method of improving data quality. In this sense, the completion of this report represents a starting point for sports club data analysis.

Sport Industry Research Centre, November 2017.

25 Appendix 1 - Data by Local Authority Funded Other Sports Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population Local Authority n n n Rank n Ratio Rank Adur 71 14 76 311 63,506 120 138 Allerdale 180 24 189 149 96,956 195 308 Amber Valley 139 10 145 219 124,645 116 128 Arun 157 44 181 159 156,997 115 125 Ashfield 118 15 128 248 124,482 103 82 Ashford 179 21 197 135 126,151 156 239 Aylesbury Vale 273 32 294 41 193,113 152 228 Babergh 152 28 157 186 89,498 175 284 Barking and Dagenham 114 17 130 245 206,460 63 14 Barnet 250 41 276 47 386,083 71 19 Barnsley 240 16 254 72 241,218 105 88 Barrow-in-Furness 124 16 128 248 67,321 190 304 Basildon 207 13 219 100 183,378 119 135 Basingstoke and Deane 189 24 206 116 174,588 118 132 Bassetlaw 145 20 157 186 114,847 137 190 Bath and NE Somerset 370 46 388 20 187,751 207 314 Bedford 248 27 259 68 168,751 153 231 Bexley 179 23 198 132 244,760 81 32 Birmingham 693 110 767 3 1,124,569 68 17 Blaby 142 8 146 217 97,703 149 221 Blackburn with Darwen 147 14 159 182 147,049 108 96 Blackpool 134 15 142 223 139,195 102 79 Bolsover 91 5 92 297 78,082 118 131 Bolton 310 29 327 32 283,115 116 126 Boston 91 11 94 296 67,564 139 195 Bournemouth 188 31 201 127 197,657 102 78 Bracknell Forest 122 35 137 234 119,447 115 124 Bradford 475 46 491 10 534,279 92 51 Braintree 183 18 195 136 150,999 129 163 Breckland 142 17 154 192 137,032 112 114 Brent 115 27 126 252 328,254 38 2 Brentwood 129 14 132 239 76,386 173 274 Brighton and Hove 234 49 255 71 289,229 88 43 Bristol 402 77 437 15 454,213 96 64 Broadland 147 11 157 186 127,455 123 149 Bromley 379 39 402 18 326,889 123 148 Bromsgrove 146 9 153 196 96,769 158 244 Broxbourne 123 11 126 252 96,779 130 168 Broxtowe 134 15 144 220 112,671 128 160 Burnley 82 11 88 301 87,522 101 75 Bury 208 25 224 92 188,669 119 133 Calderdale 253 36 282 45 209,770 134 181 Cambridge 227 43 245 76 131,799 186 300 Camden 77 37 95 295 246,181 39 3 Cannock Chase 77 3 82 307 98,534 83 37 Canterbury 179 39 194 137 162,416 119 136 Carlisle 143 14 151 200 108,409 139 197 Castle Point 92 15 98 293 89,731 109 101 Central Bedfordshire 345 47 368 23 278,937 132 170 Charnwood 274 33 290 42 179,389 162 246 Chelmsford 311 30 324 34 174,089 186 301 Cheltenham 121 21 130 245 117,530 111 108 Cherwell 194 23 206 116 146,338 141 201 Cheshire East 428 53 460 11 376,695 122 142

26 Funded Other Sports Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population Local Authority n n n Rank n Ratio Rank Cheshire W. and Chester 420 58 445 13 335,680 133 173 Chesterfield 137 9 138 230 104,440 132 171 Chichester 172 58 204 119 118,175 173 273 Chiltern 157 20 166 173 95,103 175 280 Chorley 123 14 129 247 114,351 113 118 Christchurch 69 10 72 315 49,481 146 212 City of London 25 7 27 325 9,401 287 326 Colchester 214 34 228 88 186,635 122 143 Copeland 116 18 121 258 69,307 175 281 Corby 51 4 54 323 68,187 79 29 Cornwall 716 116 761 4 553,687 137 192 Cotswold 204 40 220 98 85,756 257 324 County Durham 631 58 657 5 522,143 126 154 Coventry 327 48 348 25 352,911 99 68 Craven 95 9 98 293 56,308 174 279 Crawley 81 10 86 304 111,375 77 28 Croydon 227 29 237 81 382,304 62 13 Dacorum 224 34 232 83 152,692 152 227 Darlington 105 14 114 275 105,646 108 94 Dartford 94 7 100 287 105,543 95 59 Daventry 141 18 146 217 81,316 180 294 Derby 253 42 279 46 256,233 109 100 Derbyshire Dales 143 16 151 200 71,288 212 316 Doncaster 314 30 326 33 306,397 106 90 Dover 147 12 154 192 114,227 135 183 Dudley 234 28 260 67 317,634 82 34 Ealing 196 32 217 105 343,196 63 15 East Cambridgeshire 135 26 147 216 87,825 167 259 East Devon 222 29 237 81 139,908 169 266 East Dorset 124 8 127 250 89,093 143 207 East Hampshire 161 25 181 159 117,955 153 230 East Hertfordshire 275 33 295 40 146,309 202 312 East Lindsey 170 24 185 154 138,443 134 178 East Northamptonshire 100 11 106 281 90,999 116 129 East Riding of Yorkshire 392 48 414 17 337,696 123 146 East Staffordshire 175 13 181 159 116,701 155 235 Eastbourne 102 20 115 274 103,054 112 110 Eastleigh 179 39 190 147 129,635 147 216 Eden 117 12 120 259 52,639 228 322 Elmbridge 219 35 228 88 132,764 172 272 Enfield 234 15 244 78 331,395 74 23 Epping Forest 169 16 179 165 130,321 137 191 Epsom and Ewell 106 16 112 277 79,588 141 200 Erewash 146 14 150 208 114,891 131 169 Exeter 191 32 201 127 129,801 155 234 Fareham 99 18 106 281 115,423 92 50 Fenland 107 4 109 279 100,182 109 99 Forest Heath 67 6 71 318 64,447 110 106 Forest of Dean 137 11 143 221 85,385 167 261 Fylde 99 8 101 286 77,990 130 167 Gateshead 176 20 190 147 201,592 94 56 Gedling 126 9 131 242 116,501 112 115 Gloucester 178 26 188 150 128,488 146 215 Gosport 93 20 100 287 85,363 117 130 Gravesham 111 14 120 259 106,808 112 113 Great Yarmouth 84 12 89 300 99,164 90 46

27 Funded Other Sports Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population Local Authority n n n Rank n Ratio Rank Greenwich 253 22 266 59 279,766 95 61 Guildford 188 42 202 124 148,020 136 189 Hackney 203 25 210 113 273,526 77 27 Halton 133 20 140 226 126,903 110 107 Hambleton 153 12 163 177 90,537 180 296 Hammersmith and Fulham 79 14 85 305 179,654 47 10 Harborough 153 12 160 180 90,416 177 287 Haringey 106 19 117 270 278,451 42 8 Harlow 92 14 100 287 85,995 116 127 Harrogate 247 32 263 63 156,312 168 263 Harrow 164 20 180 163 248,752 72 21 Hart 120 12 127 250 94,250 135 182 Hartlepool 110 9 118 265 92,817 127 158 Hastings 77 11 84 306 92,236 91 49 Havant 90 20 100 287 123,640 81 31 Havering 151 23 170 171 252,783 67 16 Herefordshire 292 32 309 38 189,309 163 251 Hertsmere 136 9 138 230 103,528 133 176 High Peak 118 12 122 257 91,662 133 175 Hillingdon 259 35 272 53 302,471 90 47 Hinckley and Bosworth 150 15 159 182 110,102 144 209 Horsham 196 43 225 91 138,018 163 249 Hounslow 260 29 269 55 271,139 99 70 Huntingdonshire 254 36 270 54 175,666 154 232 Hyndburn 82 10 88 301 80,537 109 102 Ipswich 181 22 191 146 135,908 141 199 Isle of Wight 175 36 186 153 139,798 133 174 Isles of Scilly 5 1 5 326 2,308 217 319 Islington 123 20 131 242 232,865 56 12 Kensington and Chelsea 38 16 43 324 156,726 27 1 Kettering 97 8 99 292 99,002 100 72 King's Lynn and W. Norfolk 182 30 194 137 151,589 128 161 Kingston upon Hull 255 42 264 61 260,240 101 76 Kingston upon Thames 203 31 212 111 176,107 120 140 Kirklees 502 65 534 8 437,047 122 144 Knowsley 104 3 106 281 147,915 72 20 Lambeth 123 26 131 242 327,910 40 6 Lancaster 180 25 194 137 143,517 135 184 Leeds 765 110 806 2 781,743 103 83 Leicester 250 46 267 58 348,343 77 26 Lewes 121 27 143 221 101,381 141 202 Lewisham 123 17 133 236 301,867 44 9 Lichfield 137 13 149 213 103,061 145 210 Lincoln 122 25 138 230 97,795 141 204 Liverpool 509 44 527 9 484,578 109 98 Luton 142 21 153 196 216,791 71 18 Maidstone 181 26 198 132 166,360 119 134 Maldon 107 31 116 271 63,350 183 299 Malvern Hills 143 18 151 200 76,130 198 310 Manchester 422 77 453 12 541,263 84 39 Mansfield 105 9 113 276 107,435 105 87 Medway 260 41 273 52 278,542 98 65 Melton 82 9 88 301 50,878 173 275 Mendip 180 22 193 141 112,545 171 271 Merton 193 27 208 115 205,029 101 77 Mid Devon 136 10 140 226 79,789 175 285

28 Funded Other Sports Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population Local Authority n n n Rank n Ratio Rank Mid Suffolk 158 21 171 169 100,014 171 270 Mid Sussex 230 53 264 61 147,089 179 293 Middlesbrough 109 13 116 271 140,398 83 35 Milton Keynes 255 41 275 49 264,479 104 84 Mole Valley 128 19 137 234 86,223 159 245 New Forest 241 44 261 66 179,236 146 213 Newark and Sherwood 190 17 198 132 119,570 166 255 Newcastle upon Tyne 354 50 378 21 296,478 127 159 Newcastle-under-Lyme 145 17 154 192 128,467 120 139 Newham 115 26 133 236 340,978 39 5 North Devon 148 20 158 184 94,615 167 257 North Dorset 116 10 119 261 71,064 167 260 North East Derbyshire 143 12 150 208 100,423 149 220 North East Lincolnshire 238 17 246 74 159,144 155 233 North Hertfordshire 216 21 224 92 132,747 169 264 North Kesteven 164 32 178 166 113,297 157 241 North Lincolnshire 211 21 221 97 170,786 129 165 North Norfolk 116 15 118 265 103,752 114 122 North Somerset 323 47 350 24 211,681 165 253 North Tyneside 197 34 215 106 203,307 106 89 North Warwickshire 149 6 151 200 63,229 239 323 North West Leicestershire 120 10 132 239 98,644 134 179 Northampton 192 40 213 109 225,474 94 57 Northumberland 396 65 424 16 316,002 134 180 Norwich 133 38 151 200 141,041 107 91 Nottingham 274 57 299 39 325,282 92 52 Nuneaton and Bedworth 148 10 154 192 127,019 121 141 Oadby and Wigston 56 8 61 321 55,825 109 103 Oldham 236 21 242 79 232,724 104 85 Oxford 241 46 263 63 161,291 163 250 Pendle 98 12 103 285 90,588 114 121 Peterborough 180 20 188 150 197,095 95 63 Plymouth 320 67 342 27 264,199 129 166 Poole 143 30 152 198 151,500 100 73 Portsmouth 339 34 348 25 214,832 162 247 Preston 184 22 193 141 141,801 136 187 Purbeck 61 17 72 316 46,336 155 237 Reading 117 25 138 230 162,666 85 40 Redbridge 276 19 283 44 299,249 95 58 Redcar and Cleveland 118 14 126 252 135,404 93 54 Redditch 70 7 71 319 84,971 84 38 Reigate and Banstead 173 18 184 156 145,648 126 156 Ribble Valley 79 6 80 308 58,826 136 186 Richmond upon Thames 235 43 253 73 195,846 129 164 Richmondshire 76 12 80 309 53,732 149 219 Rochdale 191 21 203 123 216,165 94 55 Rochford 115 12 119 261 85,670 139 194 Rossendale 74 12 78 310 69,886 112 111 Rother 133 30 158 184 93,551 169 265 Rotherham 314 19 328 31 261,930 125 153 Rugby 141 15 149 213 103,815 144 208 Runnymede 103 33 116 271 86,889 134 177 Rushcliffe 238 21 246 74 115,204 214 318 Rushmoor 141 20 151 200 96,327 157 240 Rutland 69 15 72 317 38,606 186 302 Ryedale 114 10 119 261 53,486 222 320

29 Funded Other Sports Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population Local Authority n n n Rank n Ratio Rank Salford 202 33 220 98 248,726 88 45 Sandwell 260 18 275 49 322,712 85 42 Scarborough 203 17 209 114 107,824 194 307 Sedgemoor 195 18 204 119 121,436 168 262 Sefton 327 26 340 28 274,261 124 151 Selby 147 13 152 198 86,667 175 283 Sevenoaks 198 26 214 108 119,142 180 295 Sheffield 605 84 652 6 575,424 113 120 Shepway 121 20 133 236 111,190 120 137 Shropshire 576 59 607 7 313,373 194 306 Slough 57 8 61 322 147,181 41 7 Solihull 300 33 321 35 211,763 152 224 South Bucks 122 11 126 252 69,636 181 298 South Cambridgeshire 291 37 317 36 156,468 203 313 South Derbyshire 132 11 139 229 100,334 139 193 South Gloucestershire 408 48 438 14 277,623 158 242 South Hams 155 26 161 179 84,306 191 305 South Holland 87 6 91 299 92,387 98 67 South Kesteven 171 13 181 159 140,193 129 162 South Lakeland 213 34 230 86 103,274 223 321 South Norfolk 182 24 194 137 132,837 146 214 South Northamptonshire 148 13 156 190 89,959 173 278 South Oxfordshire 226 42 245 76 138,128 177 289 South Ribble 109 9 118 265 110,118 107 92 South Somerset 260 24 276 47 165,645 167 256 South Staffordshire 182 17 199 130 111,180 179 291 South Tyneside 140 19 150 208 149,418 100 74 Southampton 196 38 206 116 254,275 81 33 Southend-on-Sea 162 20 171 169 179,799 95 62 Southwark 157 30 168 172 313,223 54 11 Spelthorne 101 18 106 281 98,902 107 93 St Albans 187 35 204 119 146,282 139 198 St Edmundsbury 175 16 184 156 112,938 163 248 St. Helens 185 27 193 141 178,455 108 97 Stafford 205 12 212 111 134,155 158 243 Staffordshire Moorlands 136 13 142 223 98,069 145 211 Stevenage 64 9 69 320 87,081 79 30 Stockport 291 40 314 37 290,557 108 95 Stockton-on-Tees 165 31 182 158 195,681 93 53 Stoke-on-Trent 255 20 265 60 253,226 105 86 Stratford-on-Avon 241 30 257 70 122,276 210 315 Stroud 208 28 219 100 117,381 187 303 Suffolk Coastal 179 26 192 145 125,955 152 229 Sunderland 312 32 340 28 277,962 122 145 Surrey Heath 93 11 100 287 88,387 113 119 Sutton 140 20 150 208 202,220 74 24 Swale 174 19 180 163 145,042 124 152 Swindon 209 26 224 92 217,905 103 81 Tameside 186 20 202 124 223,189 91 48 Tamworth 70 9 76 312 76,955 99 69 Tandridge 144 19 150 208 86,665 173 276 Taunton Deane 177 32 193 141 115,515 167 258 Teignbridge 202 27 215 106 129,856 166 254 Telford and Wrekin 154 25 164 176 172,976 95 60 Tendring 166 33 175 167 142,598 123 147 Test Valley 187 22 201 127 122,044 165 252

30 Funded Other Sports Sports All Clubs Population Clubs per 100,000 Population Local Authority n n n Rank n Ratio Rank Tewkesbury 152 9 157 186 88,589 177 288 Thanet 135 15 140 226 140,652 100 71 Three Rivers 122 11 126 252 92,533 136 188 Thurrock 176 12 188 150 167,025 113 116 Tonbridge and Malling 213 24 228 88 127,293 179 292 Torbay 135 30 151 200 133,883 113 117 Torridge 113 10 118 265 66,977 176 286 Tower Hamlets 105 35 118 265 304,854 39 4 Trafford 238 42 269 55 234,673 115 123 Tunbridge Wells 151 26 166 173 117,069 142 205 Uttlesford 139 18 151 200 86,188 175 282 Vale of White Horse 215 40 230 86 128,738 179 290 Wakefield 357 60 370 22 336,834 110 105 Walsall 249 21 274 51 278,715 98 66 Waltham Forest 185 26 202 124 275,843 73 22 Wandsworth 246 45 263 63 316,096 83 36 Warrington 217 32 231 85 208,809 111 109 Warwick 208 21 219 100 140,411 156 238 Watford 65 9 74 313 96,773 76 25 Waveney 138 24 148 215 116,514 127 157 Waverley 194 41 223 95 123,768 180 297 Wealden 192 46 232 83 157,575 147 217 Wellingborough 110 6 111 278 78,191 142 206 Welwyn Hatfield 177 18 185 154 121,996 152 225 West Berkshire 249 35 268 57 156,837 171 269 West Devon 104 11 109 279 54,582 200 311 West Dorset 188 23 199 130 101,382 196 309 West Lancashire 147 19 160 180 113,401 141 203 West Lindsey 133 11 142 223 93,734 151 223 West Oxfordshire 159 16 165 175 108,674 152 226 West Somerset 87 10 92 297 34,306 268 325 Westminster 206 45 219 100 247,614 88 44 Weymouth and Portland 68 12 73 314 65,371 112 112 Wigan 318 40 332 30 323,060 103 80 Wiltshire 776 123 829 1 488,409 170 267 Winchester 243 32 259 68 121,965 212 317 Windsor and Maidenhead 201 50 223 95 148,814 150 222 Wirral 382 39 397 19 321,238 124 150 Woking 127 11 132 239 99,695 132 172 Wokingham 187 31 204 119 161,878 126 155 Wolverhampton 185 25 218 104 256,621 85 41 Worcester 163 18 174 168 102,338 170 268 Worthing 109 19 119 261 108,605 110 104 Wychavon 200 23 213 109 122,943 173 277 Wycombe 225 35 240 80 176,868 136 185 Wyre 160 17 163 177 110,261 148 218 Wyre Forest 145 17 155 191 99,902 155 236 York 266 47 290 42 208,367 139 196

31