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

Figures & data

Figure 1. The trickle-down effect

Source: Own elaboration

Table 1. Overview of variables

Variable	Description	Category	Source
Membership	Senior memberships in sports clubs 18+ and Junior memberships in sports clubs under18	Scale variable	APS (Active People Survey)
Gold medals	Winner of Gold Medal in Olympics, World or European level or similar	Scale variable per sport for each competition	Gracenote Sports Podium Performance, provided by UK Sport
Star	1–3 scores according to the BBC Sports Personality of the Year	Ordinal variable	Sports Personality of the Year records
Home events	Hosting a European/World Championships, or Olympic Games	Binary variable (per sport for each competition)	UK Sport
Income	Real net national disposable income per capita	Scale variable	ONS (Office for National Statistics)
Work time	Average weekly hours of work per worker	Scale variable	ONS/Labour Force Survey
Number of adults	Total number of population aged 18+	Scale variable	ONS/Census, mid-year estimates
Number of juniors	Total number of juniors aged 16–17	Scale variable	As per seniors, above
Daily internet use	Proportion of people using the internet daily	Scale variable	ONS
Fitness	Total members of fitness clubs	Scale variable	Based on APS

Figure 2. Sport club membership, Active People Survey, APS1-APS10

Table 2. Estimated models

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4 (Juniors)
Dependent variable	Membership	Membership	Membership	Membership
Independent variable categories	Lagged membership Sport success Sport stars Home events Economic variables Population variables	As in Model 1 Lagged sport success Lagged sport stars Lagged home events	As in Model 2 Other leisure variables	Lagged membership Sport success Sport stars Home events Population variables Growth rates
Estimator	Arellano and Bond	Blundell and Bond	Arellano and Bond	Arellano and Bond
Diagnostics	Second order autocorrelation Sargan test Wald test Sensitivity test	Second order autocorrelation Hansen tests	Second order autocorrelation Sargan test Wald test	Second order autocorrelation Sargan test Wald test

Table 3. Gold medals and home events, 2003–2016

1 Year	2 Gold medals	3 Home events	4 Positive effect on membership	5 Sports club membership	6 Change in sports club membership	7 Impact of trickle-down effect	8 Explained variation in membership
2003	15	3	80,621
2004	19	2	70,127
2005	17	4	102,035
2006	25	3	98,821
2007	23	5	130,728
2008	48	6	194,002	3,373,000		168,326	5%
2009	31	10	234,156	3,338,000	−35,000	290,320	9%
2010	46	8	225,909	3,337,000	−1,000	227,459	7%
2011	35	5	152,568	2,839,000	−498,000	248,984	9%
2012	55	24	526,666	2,953,000	114,000	400,573	14%
2013	37	3	120,661	2,588,000	−365,000	226,191	9%
2014	60	1	126,975	2,823,000	235,000	363,057	13%
2015	43	5	167,129	2,836,000	13,000	226,919	8%
2016	77	5	229,009	2,911,000	75,000	185,744	6%

Source: SIRC, Sport England

Table 4. Results of the dynamic panel regression (AB) for Model 1, 2007–2016

Variables	Coefficient	p-value	Comparison with Germany
Membership _L1	0.455	0.000***	*(growth rate)
Stars	1348.46	0.024**	not significant
Home events	5572.74	0.000***	**
Gold medals	−458.70	0.462	not significant
Number of adults	−0.003	0.000***	not significant
Work time	−10,874.35	0.000***	**
Income	3.440	0.000***	**(GDP)
Tests		p-value	Model accepted?
AR(2)		0.140	yes
Sargan test (non-robust errors)		0.835	yes
Wald test		0.000	yes
Sensitivity analysis (Wooldridge test)		0.846	yes

Note: AB = Arellano and Bond; *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01.

Table 5. Results of the dynamic panel regression (Blundell and Bond) for Model 2, 2007–2016

Variables	Coefficient	p-value|	Comparison with Germany
Membership_L1	0.957	0.000***	*(growth rate)
Stars	−184.47	0.930	not significant
Stars_L1	−2540.77	0.294	not significant
Stars_L2	3740.54	0.248	not significant
Stars_L3	7816.88	0.000***	not significant
Stars_L4	−1900.73	0.753	not significant
Home events	8747.87	0.030**	**
Home events_L1	−2349.43	0.613	not significant
Home events_L2	9025.67	0.036**	not significant
Home events_L3	−6023.92	0.152	not significant
Home events_L4	−3819.67	0.345	not significant
Gold medals	75.12	0.969	not significant
Gold medals_L1	1820.02	0.093*	not significant
Gold medals_L2	−2579.67	0.104	not significant
Gold medals_L3	−642.86	0.706	not significant
Gold medals_L4	1765.71	0.259	*
Number of adults	0.020	0.218	not significant
Work time	−23,834.02	0.141	**
Income	−9.773	0.438	not significant
Tests		p -value	Model accepted?
AR(2)		0.106	yes
Hansen test of over identification		0.835	yes
Difference-in-Hansen tests of exogeneity of instrument subsets		0.696	yes

Note: *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01.

Table 6. Results of the Dynamic Panel Regression (AB) for Model 3, 2007–2016

Variables	Coefficient	p-value	Comparison with Germany
Fitness membership	−0.347	0.070*	*
Internet use	−12,283.98	0.106	not significant
Remaining variables	Included
Test	p-value		Acceptance
AR(2)	0.208		yes
Wald test	0.000		yes

Note: *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01.

Table 7. Results of the Dynamic Panel Regression (AB) for Model 4, 2007–2016

Variables	Coefficient	p-value	Comparison with Germany
Membership_L1	0.053	0.716	not significant
Stars	195.34	0.733	not significant
Home event_L1	1764.27	0.039**	***
Gold medals	573.15	0.131	not significant
Growth of membership_L1	−2.661	0.061*	***
Internet use	−347.56	0.021**	not significant (PC ownership)
Test		p-value	Acceptance
AR(2)		0.3089	yes
Sargan Test (non-robust errors)		0.9286	yes
Wald test		0.000	yes

Note: *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01.