Means as well as ends: some critical insights for UK sport policy on the impact of facility ownership and configuration on sports participation

Abstract

The effectiveness of sports facility provision in increasing participation is debated internationally. The impact will be mediated by the sport delivery system, the welfare system within which sports policy might operate and the culture of sport. Change in the political persuasion of recent UK governments has followed a broadly consistent neoliberal policy direction of moving from big government and public ownership, to outsourcing and governance through networks. The intended aim: to more effectively achieve policy objectives, such as subjective well-being (SWB), health and social capital. A case study of participation in sport and fitness activities in a County Sports Partnership (CSP) in England is presented to examine if different ownership types and configuration of facilities that have emerged as a result of the policy direction, has influenced participation and policy targets. Regression results reveal that the ownership and configuration of facilities has no effect on the duration of activity and consequently no impact on policy outcomes. The largest influence on participation occurs in using facilities with others that were previously met there. The results also suggest that participation in facilities combined with other sport and physical activity can have an impact on health and social capital, and indirectly SWB. These insights are strongly indicative of the co-creation and interconnectedness of participation and suggest that policy should focus on network development more than specific forms of ownership and provision in seeking to achieve policy objectives. The research casts new critical light on the role of neoliberalism in sports policy.

Service outsourcing, pricing, and the engagement of citizen groups

“…Vandermeerschena and Scheerder, 2017) is not observed in the statistical comparison between ownership types. Concerning the engagement of wider citizen groups outside of the recreationally disadvantaged, economic logic suggests that private provision will be superior in meeting consumer needs beyond traditional inhouse provision (Kumar et al, 2019). Yet again there are no significant differences observed in the service engagement of wider citizen groups between ownership types in the analysis.…”

“…For example, Hodgkinson et al (2020) find a significant relationship between higher collective publicness in community sport provision and lower levels of aggregated sports participation among local authority populations. Kumar et al (2019) report that facility ownership type has no significant influence on the duration of participation at the facility, but 'cost per use' does have a negative effect on participation. Hallmann et al (2015) demonstrate how the ownership type (state-provided, nonprofit, commercial) of sport programmes is not associated with increased participation.…”

Membership of English sport clubs: A dynamic panel data analysis of the trickle-down effect

“…The current economic environment favours intensive use of the internet and expansion in membership of fitness clubs; both are identified as factors that limit sports club membership. An active sport policy is required to counteract negative influences and promote growth in sport club membership, whereby participants are enabled to take advantage of opportunities to engage in more flexible ways (Kumar et al 2018(Kumar et al , 2019. The existence of a trickle-down effect effectively links the economy of elite sport with the grassroots.…”

Healthy by Association: The relationship between social participation and self‐rated physical and psychological health

“…To target traditional non-participants, the research suggests that physical activity should be promoted first for enjoyment, and then for the accompanying health benefits. An interesting finding from Kumar et al (2019) indicates that the largest influence on sport and social participation results from using facilities with others that were previously met there. This suggests that social networks and interconnectedness in participation not only affect how much individuals engage in sport but also how these activities affect their SWB.…”