KU Leuven – TNO – This study was funded by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the European Commission. stitute – Sheffield Hallam University Mulier In Contact: Mulier Institute social-scientific sport research PO box 85445 3508 AK Utrecht, the Netherlands t 0031-30-7210220 e [email protected] i www.mulierinstituut.nl 2 Executive summary 5 1. Introduction 13 1.1 The rising social and political significance of sport 13 1.2 The demand for evidence-based sport policies 14 1.3 Feasibility study: aims, objectives and methodology 15 1.4 Structure of the report 17 2. Questionnaire 19 2.1 Methodology and response group 19 2.2 Results 20 2.3 Conclusion 27 3. Social aspects of sport 29 3.1 Main substantial issues in this field and organisations involved 29 3.2 Data gathering 31 3.3 Dissemination of knowledge (networks, websites, good practices) 36 3.4 Conclusion 38 4. Sport and health 41 4.1 Main substantial issues in this field and organisations involved 41 4.2 Data gathering 43 4.3 Dissemination of knowledge (networks, websites, good practices) 46 4.4 Conclusion 47 5. Economic aspects of sport 51 5.1 Main substantial issues in this field and organisations involved 51 5.2 Data gathering 55 5.3 Dissemination of knowledge 56 5.4 Conclusion 57 6. Main findings 59 6.1 Overall findings 59 6.2 Social aspects of sport 60 6.3 Sport and health 61 6.4 Economic aspects of sport 62 7. Recommendations 65 7.1 2014- 2020: building an EU sport monitoring function 66 7.2 Beyond 2020: towards an EU research structure for sport 70 References 71 Appendix A: abbreviations Appendix B: mapping exercise – organisations and networks 3 Appendix C: mapping exercise – databases Appendix D: mapping exercise – studies and reports Appendix E: mapping exercise – key topics Appendix F: internet questionnaire Appendix G: persons and organisations interviewed Appendix H: report of the workshop KU Leuven – TNO – stitute – Sheffield Hallam University Mulier In 4 Over the past decades, the social and political significance of sport has grown considerably. An important milestone in European sport policy was the 2007 White Paper on Sport, in which the European Commission addressed for the first time sport-related issues in a comprehensive manner. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty gave the EU a supporting competence for sport. In 2011, the Commission's Communication on Developing the European dimension of sport gave additional support to the three core fields of the White Paper: the societal role of sport, the economic dimension of sport and the organisation of sport, and identified relevant actions. In times of financial hardship, the EU and its Member States (MS) need to spend money economically and efficiently. It is therefore important that sport policies at both national and EU level are based on sound and reliable data and information. In the 2007 White Paper on Sport, the need for evidence-based policy-making was emphasised. This paved the way for the activities of an EU Working Group on Sport and Economics, which initiated work on Sport Satellite Accounts (SSAs) at national level. In March 2011 an EU Conference on Sport Statistics confirmed the importance of having access to better and more comparable sport data, and underlined the relevance of ongoing EU-level initiatives to further address this need. In this context the Commission committed in its 2011 Communication on Sport to launch a 'feasibility study on a future sport monitoring function in the EU to analyse trends, collect data, interpret statistics, facilitate research, launch surveys and studies, and promote exchange of information'. The aim of the study was to clarify to what extent a sport monitoring function in the EU is desired, and how such a sport monitoring function could be established so as to support policy- making in the EU. The main questions for the purpose of this study were: What are the main content-related and structural elements for setting up a sport monitoring function in the EU to analyse trends, collect data, interpret statistics, facilitate research, launch surveys and studies and promote exchange of information? What are the existing data gathering processes and networks in the EU in the three broad fields: (1) sport and health (e.g. health-enhancing physical activity), (2) social aspects of sport (e.g. active participation in sport) and (3) economic dimension of sport (e.g. GDP, employment in sport)? What are the main barriers to set up a sport monitoring function in the EU on sport and health, social aspects of sport and sport’s economic dimension? The consortium that undertook the study was headed by the Mulier Institute, an institute for social-scientific sport research in the Netherlands. For the study, the Mulier Institute worked closely together with Sheffield Hallam University, University of Leuven and TNO, all specialists in their fields (respectively sport economics, social aspects of sport, and sport and health). The study began in December 2011 and run until late 2012. The methodology for the study consisted of four distinct elements: 5 Desk research; On-line questionnaire; Interviews with key experts and stakeholders; A workshop, on 2 October 2012, involving key experts and stakeholders. This Executive Summary highlights the main outcomes of the study and recommendations on a future sport monitoring function in the EU. At the national level, data on sport are gathered mainly by national statistical offices and research agencies. Collection of data is guided by national standards and as a consequence differs between MS. There is limited knowledge exchange between MS and very limited awareness of good examples in other MS. Yet, MS indicate that being able to compare outcomes greatly enhances the value of national research. There is a clear need and desire to debate methodologies, share experiences and develop guidelines that can inform both national and EU research. There are a few good national examples of overarching sport reports, covering the KU Leuven – TNO – social, health and economic domains. The Dutch Report on Sport series (2003, 2006, 2008, 2010) is one of them, the German Sport Development Report (2009, 2011) another. At the EU level, there is not one pan-European dataset that covers all fields of sport. Nor is there a website, or a report, where the available information on sport in Europe (as a whole or in an individual MS) is stored centrally and made accessible for a broader audience, such as for example Eurostat’s Pocket Book on Cultural Statistics. It is therefore not surprising that the vast majority of experts and stakeholders are unsatisfied with the availability of information at EU level. 64% of respondents believe that it is very important to improve sport monitoring. This holds true also for experts working at the national level (66%) and even more for experts who work at the transnational level stitute – Sheffield Hallam University (86%). The most important aspects of a future sport monitoring function are considered to be ‘better data and figures on trends’ and ‘easier access to existing information’. Both at the EU level and at the national level, there appears to be broad support for Mulier In improving sport monitoring in the EU. Currently, 82% of EU respondents find EU-wide information relevant for their work, 56% consider this to be ‘very relevant’. Even at the national level, there is ample support for improving sport monitoring at the EU level (42% very relevant). Information on basic facts and figures is considered the most relevant. The three areas that were central to this study (social, health and economic aspects of sport) are deemed equally important as regards future monitoring. There are clear differences between these three areas. Of these, the economic area more than the other two relies on the secondary analysis of data put together by national statistical offices. For social and health aspects of sport, the focus is more on debating and developing relevant standards and on designing effective policies for changing citizens’ behaviour. Compared to the area of social aspects, the area of sport and health is more advanced when it comes to collecting data, setting standards and publishing outcomes in databases and websites. Following the growing role of sport in EU policies, Eurostat is considering slowly taking up sport in its activities, as it has been doing for example in the fields of culture 6 and tourism for some time. Already Eurostat's current work offers possibilities that can contribute to the monitoring of sport in Europe. However, developing a new statistical area is not possible without the broad support of MS and the cooperation with the national statistical offices. Moreover, budgetary constraints and demands for reducing respondent burdens have to be taken into account. Stakeholders and networks in the field have expressed great interest in an EU sport monitoring function, and are willing to contribute to its success (e.g. provide input, share data, help disseminate and debate outcomes). It is very important that a sport monitoring function addresses the needs of all actors in the field (politicians, stakeholders and researchers). It is also important that the outcomes of the monitoring role are recognised as coming from independent sources; that information becomes publicly available; and that it serves to assist policy-makers and stakeholders in their debates by providing a sound evidence-base. Social aspects of sport cover a broad range of topics. Of these, experts and stakeholders deem sport participation as being the most important (82%). Following sport participation, sport infrastructure (64%), good governance, social inclusion and education (all 61%) are deemed most important.