Benchmarking
Analysis on Sport
Organizations
KPMG Sport Advisory
KPMG Advisory Ltd
Canada
Introduction and scope of the study
Main attributes of Canadian sport
■
■
Highlights of the Canadian sport scene
Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of area
(9,984,670 km2). It has a developed economy, according to the
International Monetary Fund; in 2012 Canada was the eight
wealthiest country in terms of nominal GDP per capita.
Population of Canada
35,158,300
People active in sport1
11,950,000
The population is generally very interested in sports, but this
shows mostly in high viewership of sporting broadcasts. There are
many national television and radio stations devoted entirely to
sports. However, there is much room for improvement in the
participation rate of the general public in sports, which has shown
a decreasing trend across all age groups, according to government
sources.
Monthly sport participation rate2
34.0%
Weekly sport participation rate3
25.8%
■
The most popular sport of Canada is ice hockey. Lacrosse is also
widely practiced during the summer season. A federal law in 1994
identified hockey and lacrosse as „national sports of Canada”.
■
Canadian sport has strong ties with the United States. The largest
professional leagues, the National Hockey League (NHL),
National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball
(MLB) and Major League Soccer (MLS) are predominantly based
in the US, only a few franchises (teams) are from Canada.
■
Canada has hosted the Olympics on three occasions so far, once
the Summer (Montreal, 1976) and twice the Winter Games
(Calgary, 1988 and Vancouver, 2010). However, the country failed
to win a gold medal in the first two Olympics it organized. This
disappointment boosted the efforts to ensure success in 2010 and
was a catalyst for structural changes in the sport system.
National sport federations
61
Source: KPMG Analysis
Note: (1) % taking part at least once a month
(2) Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute
– Sport Monitor 2011-12
(3) Canadian Heritage – Sport Participation 2010 Research Paper
The scope of the study
Our assessment of sports in Canada covers the following topics:
■ Governance structure and main institutions
■ The effect of major event hosting
■ Funding structure
■ Elite sport performance
■ Community sport
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
1
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (1/7)
The political governance
Summary of the governance structure of Canadian sport at the federal level
structure of Canada is
divided into three distinct
levels:
IOC
• Federal
• Provincial/Territorial
Federal government
• Municipal
Organizations at all levels
have some role in Canadian
Provincial/territorial
government
Department of
Canadian Heritage
Canadian Olympic
Committee
sport, but that of the federal
government is the most
extensive and significant.
Sport Canada
Sport related tasks and
responsibilities of the
provincial/territorial and
Municipal
government
municipal governments are
discussed in detail in the
following section.
Own the Podium
National sport
federations
Details on pages 4 and 5.
Canadian Sport
Institutes
Sport clubs
Source: KPMG Analysis
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
2
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (2/7)
The structure of Canadian federalism
The Physical Activity and Sport Act (2003)
■
Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy consisting of ten
provinces and three territories (Northwest Territories, Yukon and
Nunavut). The federal government is at the top of the structure.
■
The federal government’s involvement in sport is defined by the
Physical Activity and Sport Act (PASA).
■
The main difference between territories and provinces is that the
formers derive their powers from the federal government, whereas
provinces receive authority directly from the Constitution Act, thus
they have more power in their own areas. Municipalities (cities and
towns) also have their own governing bodies.
■
■
Provinces have jurisdiction over many issues, including education,
welfare. They receive transfers from the federal government and
are allowed to levy their own taxes.
The PASA identifies two main pillars covering the government’s
objectives regarding sport. The first one is about „encouraging
more people to take part in physical activity”, while the other
„promotes excellence in high-performance sport”. Through this
approach they target all Canadians (casual sport participants) and
elite athletes as well.
■
It should be noted, that the realization of the two pillars of the PASA
is not the sole responsibility of the federal government, as several
organizations work in this field. The PASA is only the backdrop for
the more detailed policies, for example the Canadian Sport Policy
2012-2022, which is a general guide for stakeholders in Canadian
sport (more details on page 4)
The role of the federal government
■
A key turning point in the history of sport policy in Canada came in
1961, when the ‘Fitness and Amateur Sport Act’ was passed.
Through this policy the federal government officially committed
itself to encourage, promote and develop sport. This Act was the
main guideline for Canadian sport until the first Canadian Sport
Policy in 2002 and the Physical Activity and Sport Act in 2003.
■
The following decades saw a series of legislation and policies,
bringing Canadian sport more and more under state influence
through funding channels and control mechanisms. The two main
parts of the federal policy were Sport Canada (developing highperformance, elite sports) and Recreation Canada (focusing on the
public’s participation in all kinds of physical activities)
■
After many changes, the system reached its current form in the
early 1990s. The Sport Canada organization became part of the
newly founded Department of Canadian Heritage in 1993, which
is responsible for various fields (e.g. culture, media, sports). The
federal government supports the national sport federations and
Olympic sports entirely through Sport Canada.
The Department of Health (established in 1996) assumed the
tasks of the now defunct Recreation Canada; their role is to
encourage Canadians to lead a healthy life, which includes regular
physical activity. However, sport is not a primary concern for them,
just part of an active lifestyle.,
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Two pillars of the PASA
Participation
Increase physical activity
participation by integrating
sport into the daily life of
Canadians
Excellence
Promote and support highperformance sports and build
capacity for it n the sport
system
3
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (3/7)
The role of governments of provinces/territories
Intergovernmental cooperation – Canadian Sport Policy
■
Although sport is not defined in the Constitution Act as an issue in
which provinces have a clear jurisdiction, the majority of them have
been organizing their own sport life for many decades. Provinces
and territories have their own governments, usually with a minister
responsible for sport.
■
■
As the federal government became more and more active in sport
policy, greater cooperation between the two levels was required.
After long debates it was settled that the provinces and territories
are responsible for community sport through launching regional
initiatives for increased participation and financing infrastructure
development for major events held in the province. Elite sports are
generally supported and funded at the federal level.
After two years of consultations, the first Canadian Sport Policy
(CSP) was agreed upon in 2002. The policy was a result of the
close collaboration of federal, territorial and provincial sport
ministers, ultimately committing all levels of political power to
the same goals in both community and elite sport. The CSP
gives a coherent and unified framework for governmental
involvement in sport at every level.
■
The revision of the first CSP was overseen by Sport Canada
between 2010 and 2012 and the evaluation report further
strengthened the belief in the usefulness of the policy. Based on
the findings, the second CSP was worked out for the period
between 2012 and 2022. The vision of CSP 2012 is to create „a
dynamic and innovative culture that promotes and celebrates
participation and excellence in sport.”
■
■
Provinces mostly support provincial sport federations and also fund
youth development at their level. However, in some cases
competences overlap, for example Québec provides financial
support for their „own” athletes. It should be noted that, while
provinces have relative autonomy in implementing their own
programs for community sports and sport participation, the federal
government through the PASA and the Canadian Sport Policy still
sets national goals in this field.
The extent of the provinces efforts is highly varied. For example,
British Columbia has longer traditions and more experience in
organizing voluntary sports than many others.
Five overall goals of CSP 2012
1. Introduction to sport
Canadians have the skills, knowledge and attitudes to participate in sport.
2. Recreational sport
Canadians participate in sport for fun, social interaction , recreation etc.
3. Competitive sport
Canadians have the opportunity to systematically improve and measure their
performance against others in competition in a safe and ethical manner.
4. High performance sport
Canadians are systematically achieving world-class results at the highest
levels of international competition through fair and ethical means.
5. Sport for development
Sport is used as a tool for social and economic development, and the
promotion of positive values
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
4
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (4/7)
The role of municipal governments
Sport federations (national and provincial/territorial)
■
Situated below the provincial/territorial level, municipal
governments are generally involved in local transportation,
education, public utilities issues. Most of them have the authority to
levy their own taxes to cover the costs of these functions and they
also receive transfers from their respective provincial government.
■
Sport federations are responsible for their own sports and mainly
operate by the same principles as every country’s federations.
However, the Canadian system identifies federations at both the
national and the provincial level.
■
Management of city parks and recreational centers is the
responsibility of municipalities, thus they are heavily involved in
the community sport life. Facilities for public use are usually
developed and financed at the municipal level. This system
operates effectively, almost every city has numerous ice hockey
rinks for use by local, amateur teams.
■
■
According to a survey carried out by the International Ice Hockey
Federation (IIHF) in 2013, Canada has around 2600 indoor and
5000 outdoor hockey rinks, accounting for almost half of all rinks in
the world.
There around 60 national sport or disabled sport federations,
while many more operate in the provinces and territories.
National federations are the representative bodies of sport clubs
and they concentrate on overarching, nationwide policies and
programs. For example, Badminton Canada is responsible for the
national team and the overall structure of badminton in Canada.
Provincial federations (e.g. Badminton Ontario) promote the sport in
their region and ensure there are enough facilities.
■
The governance structure of national federations is more formal
and professional; provincial federations are often run by volunteer
Boards of Directors.
■
The successful performance of Canadian athletes in other sports
has boosted the efforts to build more multi-sport facilities as well.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
5
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (5/7)
Sport Canada
Main programs of Sport Canada
■
As mentioned earlier, Sport Canada, established in the 1960s is a
branch at the Department of Canadian Heritage. They are the body
that carries out the federal government's commitments and tasks
regarding both elite and community sport. Sport Canada is active in
policymaking and planning (CSP 2002 and 2012), business
operations and management. This organization is the main
channel through which the federal level invests in sport.
The organization supports the realization of the goals set out in the
Canadian Sport Policy by providing substantial funding to various
players of the Canadian sport scene. Three grants and contributions
programs should be highlighted. It should be noted, that Sport Canada
does not make technical decisions; it is up to the expertise of the
federations how they invest the funds, but they are still held
responsible for their effective and sensible use of the support.
■
Sport Canada is also responsible for allocating and administering
federal government funding through various sport programs. Their
role is crucial in the system, since most sport organizations
operation depend on this type of financial backing. The power of
the Canadian sport policy sector concentrates in Sport Canada.
Information on the funding figures of these programs are on page 11.
■
■
■
Although the officially Sport Canada is also competent in supporting
the sport participation of the public, it mostly concentrates on elite
(Olympic) sports. Some criticism aimed at the organization
demanded more attention on the nationwide promotion of
participation in sport.
Other Sport Canada initiatives include research activities about
public sport policy (surveys, impact studies, statistics), and the
Long-Term Athlete Development Program, which sets out a
seven-stage career path for future elite athletes.
Sport Support Program (SSP): this initiative has various target
groups, the main beneficiaries are athletes, coaches and other
sport participants at the national team level. Funding is distributed
to sport federations, multisport service organizations, sport
centers and other institutions that provide professional sport
services for athletes.
The Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) is used
by Sport Canada to determine who can receive the funding.
Recipients are required to implement accountability measures to
ensure that their operation is aligned with the goals of Sport
Canada.
■
Athlete Assistance Program (AAP): the primary target group of
this program are Canadian high performance athletes, who are
usually required to live and train in the country. Living and training
allowances are awarded to help them combine their sport,
academic and working careers.
Generally athletes from high performance sports funded through
the SFAF are eligible for AAP backing, guaranteeing
accountability.
■
Hosting Program (HP): sport federations are assisted in hosting
and organizing the Canada Games and international sport events
in Canada. The sporting, economic, social and cultural legacies of
such events are managed together.
Contributions through the HP are only awarded to federations
operating by the SFAF. This is the only Sport Canada program
that supports the building and developing of sporting
infrastructure.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
6
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (6/7)
Canadian Olympic Committee (COC)
Own the Podium (OTP)
■
The national Olympic committee of Canada is independent from the
governments at every level. Its main task is to represent Canadian
athletes at the international sport level and look out for the interests
of the country at the International Olympic Committee. The COC’s
budget relies on private contributions.
■
When in 2003 Canada was awarded the right to host the 2010
Olympics in Vancouver, every stakeholder in Canadian sport
agreed that they must avoid the failure of the two previous
Olympics hosted by the country, where they did not win a single
gold medal.
■
Around 50 national federations of Olympic sports are members
of the COC. The organization cooperates with them to prepare the
Canadian teams and individual athletes for the Olympic, Youth
Olympic and Pan American Games. They conduct site visits and
hold preparation seminars for the athletes, among many other
activities.
■
■
The COC is managed by a Board of Directors, which has 20
members: the Chief Executive Officer, 12 elected and 7 ex officio
members (two IOC members, two athlete representatives, one
coach representative, the chair of the Canadian Olympic
Foundation, and the Immediate Past President).
The Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), the Canadian
Paralympic Committee (CPC), Sport Canada and the organizing
committee of the Vancouver Games established Own the Podium
(OTP) in 2004, after extensive consultation with 13 winter sport
federations. Later summer sports also became involved through the
Road to Excellence program. The program for winter and summer
sports were merged in 2009 , keeping the Own the Podium name.
■
OTP currently operates as a non-profit, multi-sport
organization, which serves as an advisory board in the funding
of Olympic and Paralympic sports. This organization helps
selecting the federations that should receive funding by assessing
their potential for Olympic success then making investment
recommendations for the funding partners (see below). OTP is an
important part of the ‘Excellence’ pillar of the PASA.
■
Contributions come from Sport Canada (Sport Support Program),
COC private fundraising and sponsorships. Sport Canada transfers
around USD 68 million each year to federations through OTP. In
addition, the COC provides a wide range of professional services to
federations of Olympic and Paralympic sports through the program.
■
OTP is credited with the success of Canadian athletes at the 2006
and 2010 Winter Games, where they finished third and first in the
medal table, respectively. The main and widely communicated goal
is to contend for the first position at every Winter Olympics and be
among the top 12 nations at the Summer Games.
■
Detailed information about the funding of sport federations through
OTP is on page 12.
■
Although the COC does not have direct influence on the allocation
of government funds (Sport Canada), it is a highly respected
organization with a long history. Their main role is to coordinate
the efforts related to the Olympic movement, but during the last
decade the COC also took up a role in financing Olympic sports
through the ‘Own the Podium’ initiative.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
7
Canada
Governance structure and main institutions (7/7)
Canadian Sport Institutes (CSI)
Winter Sport Institute (WinSport)
■
Also known as Canadian Sport Centres, the first CSI was
established in Calgary in 1994. Later six others were founded in the
regions of Montreal, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Atlantic
Canada and Pacific Canada. The network of these institutes spans
the whole country.
■
■
CSIs were created by the partnership of Sport Canada, the COC,
the coaching association of Canada and the respective provincial
governments. Their main responsibility is to support high
performance (Olympic)
sport excellence by providing sport
science, research, training and medical services to elite athletes.
Experts are employed in nutrition, physiology, conditioning and
mental Preparation.
Branded as the „world’s leading winter sport institute”, WinSport is
based in Calgary and tasked with managing the legacy of the
1988 Winter Olympics. This include the maintenance and
operation of several facilities, chief among them the Canada
Olympic Park, which is the primary base of the CSI of Calgary.
They also fund two-thirds of the budget of Olympic Oval, a speedskating venue.
■
WinSport also has a stake in the operation of the National Sport
School (More details on page 15)
■
WinSport venues do not only support the preparation of Canadian
elite athletes for the Winter Olympics, but also helps the efforts to
introduce winter sports to Canadians.
■
The network of CSIs operate mostly on funding from the federal
government through Sport Canada and Own the Podium. Financial
backing from provinces is also important.
■
The Institutes have successfully positioned themselves as the main
providers for Olympic sport federations preparing for the Games,.
The table below shows the contribution of the Canadian Sport
Institute of Ontario (CSIO) to Olympic success since 2004.
Year
Event
% of athletes trained at CSIO % of medals won by CSIO athletes
2012
London Summer Olympics
42.5% ( 118 / 277 )
50% (1 Gold, 4 Silver, 4 Bronze)
2010
Vancouver Winter Olympics
23.3% ( 48 / 206 )
26.9% (4 Gold, 2 Silver, 1 Bronze)
2008
Beijing Summer Olympics
34.9% ( 116 / 332 )
50% (1 Gold, 4 Silver, 4 Bronze)
2006
Turin Winter Olympics
15.3% ( 30 / 196 )
33.3% (3 Gold, 4 Silver, 1 Bronze)
2004
Athens Summer Olympics
42.9% ( 113 / 263 )
41.6% (1 Gold, 3 Silver, 1 Bronze)
Source: Canadian Sport Institute Ontario Website
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
8
Canada
The effect of major event hosting
Vancouver 2010 – Winter Olympic Games
Toronto 2015 – Pan American Games
■
■
Pan American Games are held every four years, just before the
year of the Summer Olympics. Canada has hosted it on two
occasions so far (1967 and 1999, both in Winnipeg). The next one
will be in July 2015 in Toronto.
■
The Games will have 41 participating nations in 36 different sports.
In terms of the number of athletes and sports, the Pan American
Games will be significantly bigger than the Vancouver Winter
Olympics.
■
Although no large, new venues are being constructed in Toronto,
the existing (sporting) infrastructure will be thoroughly renovated.
Policymakers hope that it will provide a boost for the sporting
life of the Toronto region.
■
The estimated cost of the Games (USD 1,55 million) is divided
between the three administrative levels. Federal and provincial
(Ontario) governments pay 35% each, while the municipality level
covers the remaining 30%.
■
■
■
Winning the rights to host the Winter Olympics and Paralympics led
to structural and policy changes in the Canadian elite sport sector.
As mentioned earlier, the ‘Own the Podium’ programme was
initiated in 2004 to advise Sport Canada and other contributors on
how to finance Olympic sports.
Every player related to Canadian sport policy worked together to
ensure the sporting success at Vancouver in 2010. This joint effort
by governments at all levels was reflected in consultations and the
alignment of policy goals.
Canada performed exceptionally at the Games, finishing at the top
of the medal table. After the good results the public perception
of sports changed among Canadians as they established a
strong emotional connection with national teams, which was
practically non-present before.
The Vancouver Olympics also left a strong legacy in
infrastructure. Six completely new venues were built for the
Games: Cypress Mountain (ski sports), Richmond Olympic Oval
(indoor arena, multi-sport), UBC Thunderbird Arena (ice
hockey), Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre, Whistler Olympic
Park, and The Whistler Sliding Centre (bobsleigh, luge, skeleton).
Other arenas and sport facilities were renovated. These venues
provide adequate training opportunity for athletes and also help in
bidding for future sporting events.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
9
Canada
Funding structure (1/3)
Elite sport funding
Canadian Olympic
Committee
The following chart shows
the most important funding
channels that define the
Canadian sport system.
Own the Podium
The federal government is
the biggest contributor to
elite sport, while community
Federal government
Canadian Sport
Institutes
Sport Canada
and leisure sport are mostly
National sport
federations
financed at provincial,
territorial and municipal
levels.
Sport clubs
Provincial/territorial
government
Provincial/territorial
sport federations
Municipal
government
Sport facilities
Community sport
funding
Source: KPMG Analysis
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
10
Canada
Funding structure (2/3)
Funding figures of Sport Canada programs
(in Canadian dollars, million)
The funding system of Sport Canada
■
■
■
■
Sport Canada uses federal government funds to support national
sport federations, elite athletes and the hosting of major sporting
events through three distinctive programs.
Year
Hosting
Program
Athlete
Assistance
Sport
Support
Total
The total amount of financing divided between the programs more
than tripled between 2002 and 2008, which could be attributed to
the increased efforts prior to the Vancouver Olympics. Since then
the funding of the Hosting Program significantly decreased due to
the lack of major international events organized in Canada.
2002-03
16,1
15,1
48,3
79,5
2003-04
29,7
15,2
56,7
101,6
2004-05
80,3
19,8
83,3
183,4
However, the funds made available for sport federations (Sport
Support Program) still shows an increasing trend, signaling the
intent of Canada to be among the top sporting nations of the world.
The Athlete Assistance Program also remains high on the agenda
of the federal government.
2005-06
51,6
24,8
93
169,4
2006-07
126,5
25,3
94
245,8
2007-08
118,7
25,3
103,1
247,1
The current trend in the ‘global sporting arms race’ is that more and
more money goes to the support Olympic athletes. This also seems
to be the priority of Sport Canada, while the financing of community
sport is left almost entirely to the provinces and municipalities.
2008-09
44,5
26,5
111,9
182,9
2009-10
58,5
26,1
113,7
198,3
2010-11
23,8
25,9
154,4
204,1
2011-12
23,1
26,8
148,8
198,7
Funding of Sport Canada programs visualized
Source: Public Accounts of Canada: Transfer Payments
Canadian Dollar, millions
300
250
200
Hosting Program
Athlete Assistance Program
150
Sport Support Program
100
Total
50
0
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Source: Public Accounts of Canada:
Transfer Payments
11
Canada
Funding structure (3/3)
Funding of elite sports through Own the Podium
■
■
■
As discussed earlier, Sport Canada provides the majority of the
funds that are distributed among Olympic and Paralympic sport
federations through the Own the Podium initiative.
Top 10 winter sports by OTP funding for 2013-2014
(million Canadian dollars)
Sport
Funding through this programme is divided into four categories:
 National Team: contributing to the training and competing
costs of national teams.
 SSSM: funding to cover sport science and medical services
through Canadian Sport Centres or other providers.
 Coaching: financing of world class coaches.
 Administration:
support staff salaries and various
administrative costs that are related to the programme.
OTP supports both winter and summer sports. As a general rule,
those with a higher chance of Olympic success and better past
results receive more funding.
Funding
1
Speed skating
3.537
2
Freestyle skiing
3.253
3
Alpine skiing
2.976
4
Ice hockey
2.801
5
Bobsleigh/skeleton
2.454
6
Snowboard
2.448
7
Cross county skiing
1.966
8
Curling
1.892
9
Ski Cross
1.468
10
Luge
1.088
Top 10 summer sports by OTP funding for 2013-2014
(million Canadian dollars)
Sport
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Funding
1
Rowing
4.285
2
Swimming
4.180
3
Athletics
3.625
4
Cycling
3.500
5
Canoeing
2.700
6
Diving
2.600
7
Soccer (women)
2.250
8
Rugby 7s (women)
1.700
9
Wheelchair basketball
1.400
10
Wrestling
1.300
12
Canada
Elite sport performance
Most successful Olympic sports
Canada’s Olympic history
■
■
■
■
As mentioned in the introduction, Canada has hosted three
Olympics, once the Summer (Montreal, 1976) and twice the Winter
Games (Calgary, 1988 and Vancouver, 2010). The first two events
brought no success in terms of gold medals won, but in 2010
Canada managed to finish at the top of the medal table at the
Winter Olympics.
The country has participated at every Olympics, except for the first
modern Summer Games in 1896 and they boycotted the
competition in 1980. From the 1930s until the 1990s Canadian
athletes usually won only one or two gold on every occasion,
complemented with a couple of other medals.
Their best
performance at the Summer Olympics (10 gold) came in 1984,
when the majority of Communist countries did not compete.
In the last 15 years Canada has established itself as a top nation in
winter sports; they always finished in the top 5 at the medal table
since 1998. Their two best performances came at the last two
Games. Although their main focus is on winter sports, they usually
achieve good results in summer sports as well.
Canada’s main strength is perhaps that they have realistic medal
chances in a wide range of sports. The last 10 Summer Olympics
gold medals were delivered across 8 different sports.
Medal count of the Summer Olympic Games
Sport
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
1
Athletics
13
14
26
53
2
Ice hockey
13
5
2
20
3
Rowing
9
16
15
40
4
Speed skating
8
12
15
35
5
Short-track speed skating
8
11
9
28
6
Swimming
7
14
22
43
7
Curling
5
3
2
10
8
Figure skating
4
10
11
22
9
Canoeing
4
10
10
24
10
Shooting
4
3
2
9
Source: Olympics.Org
Medal count of the Winter Olympic Games
18
16
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Gold
14
11
12
10
8
6
4
7
4
Bronze
14
10
8
7
Silver
12
6
3
3
3
10 10
9
8
3
6
6
3
5
3
3
6
4
7
5
4
7
7
7
7
5
5
3
1
2
0
Barcelona Atlanta 1996
1992
Source: Olympics.Org
Sydney
2000
Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
London
2012
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Lillehammer Nagano
1994
1998
Source: Olympics.Org
Salt Lake
City 2002
Turin 2006
Vancouver Sochi 2014
2010
13
Canada
Community sport (1/2)
Participation statistics
■
Although Canada has achieved great results in elite sports in recent
years, the weak participation statistics are still a great concern for
policymakers. The evaluation of the first Canadian Sport Policy
carried out by Sport Canada found that almost every elite sport goal
was met, but only half of the participation goals were achieved.
■
According to Canadian Heritage, only 26% of the population
aged over 15 years old took part in sporting activities on a
weekly basis, which is a significant, 17% decline since 1992.
Obesity among young people is also a problem.
■
Meanwhile, Sport Canada spent only 13% of its the Sport Support
Program on community sport purposes. It is clear, that Sport
Canada’s main goal is to support elite sports, but due to the
decreasing trend in public sport participation the organization is
urged to focus more on community sport.
■
Other stakeholders, including provincial and municipal governments
and Health Canada focus on sport participation, but the almost all
federal level fund is still aimed at the ‘Excellence’ pillar of the
PASA.
Top 10 most practiced sports in Canada (% of adult population,
aged 15+ regularly pursuing a sport)
1992
2010
1
Ice hockey (6.4%)
Golf (5.2%)
2
Skiing (6.3%)
Ice hockey (4.4%)
3
Swimming (6.2%)
Soccer (3.5%)
4
Golf (5.9%)
Baseball (2.1%)
5
Baseball (5.6%)
Volleyball (1.9%)
6
Volleyball (3.8%)
Basketball (1.8%)
35-54
7
Basketball (2.9%)
Skiing (1.6%)
55-
8
Badminton (1.9%)
Cycling (1.4%)
9
Soccer (1.8%)
Swimming (1.4%)
10
Cycling (1.0%)
Badminton (1.1%)
Sport participation (at least once a week) by age groups
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15-19
20-24
25-34
10
0
1992
1998
2005
2010
Source: Canadian Heritage – Sport Participation 2010 – Research Paper
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: Canadian Heritage – Sport Participation 2010 – Research Paper
14
Canada
Community sport (2/2)
Involvement of young people
School Sport Canada (SSC)
■
Although there is no program that directly targets the participation
of young people in sports, there are some initiatives that indirectly
serve this purpose.
■
As the biggest, structured sport organization in the country, the
School Sport Canada reaches more than 750,000 students, 52,000
volunteer PE teachers and 3,200 schools.
■
As mentioned earlier, Canada has the most ice hockey rinks in the
world; most of them are free for public use. The youth development
in ice hockey thus is well equipped with adequate facilities.
■
■
Education in Canada is a provincial jurisdiction, meaning that
primary and secondary schools receive funding from the provincial
governments. Physical education programs and school sports
are therefore not financed by an overarching, federal program.
SSC has numerous member provinces and territories, where it
operates individual offices. The organization mainly serves as a
representative lobby group for school sports, but also has an
important role in organizing interscholastic sport events and
competitions in Canada.
■
It is up to the municipalities to provide sporting opportunities for
young people. There is not much collaboration between provincial
or national sport federations to organize programs.
Canada Games
■
The Canada Games is a multi-sport competition held biannually,
which was launched in 1967. It has a Winter and Summer Games
edition.
■
All participating athletes are amateurs. Over the years the Games
has established itself as the most important developmental
event for young athletes between the age of 15 and 17. Teams
are selected on a provincial basis. The events generally take place
at community sport facilities.
■
Many ot the Canadian superstars of today has gone through this
system, for example Sydney Crosby (ice hockey) or Steve Nash
(basketball)
■
The competition is overseen and managed by the Canada Games
Council, which supports the hosting cities in technical,
organizational planning, marketing and sponsorship issues.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
15
Canada
Key takeaways
Population:
Elite sport assessment system
Large number of sport facilities
35 200 000
■ The ‘Own the Podium’ initiative decides the amount of
■ Both the general public and elite athletes have sufficient
funding an Olympic sport federation receives. The
assessment is based on performance potential and many
variables are taken into account.
means to exercise and train. Canada has the most indoor
and outdoor ice hockey rinks in the world, the majority of
them is for public use.
■ A mechanism called Sport Funding and Accountability
■ Hosting of major events, such as the Winter Olympics
Framework holds the federations accountable for the use
of funds they receive from the program.
(Vancouver, 2010) and the Pan American Games
(Toronto, 2015) helped the development
and
maintenance of elite sport training centers and facilities.
Sport participation rate:
34%
Funding for elite sport:
CAD 90 million (per year)
Funding for leisure sport:
CAD 150 million (per year)
■ The financing of the federations is used to cover
numerous costs ranging from training, management,
medical and other expert services.
Cooperation between different levels of government
Youth competition opportunities
■ In Canada the federal, regional and municipal authorities
■ Although there is no detailed youth sport policy in the
all have a say in the development of the sport sector.
country, there are some notable initiatives.
■ Their jurisdictions and responsibilities are not always
■ For example, the Canada Games, a multi-sport event
clear, but they have created some overarching systems
and frameworks that help coordinating their efforts.
taking place every two years, pitches teams of young,
amateur athletes against each other. The groups of
athletes are chosen on a regional basis.
■ The most notable among these is the Canadian Sport
Policy
which
sets
the
intergovernmental cooperation.
basic
principles
of
■ The
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
competition gives valuable experience for the
participants. Many of them later become professionals
and represent Canada at the highest sporting levels.
16
United Kingdom
Introduction and scope of the study
Introduction to sport in the UK
■
■
■
Highlights of the UK sport scene
The United Kingdom has a developed economy in terms of both nominal
and per capita GDP. London has hosted the Summer Olympic Games
three times, more than any other city. The modern version of many
sports have developed out of the UK, including football, cricket, rugby,
tennis and snooker. Today these sports are still very popular in the
country.
Population of the United Kingdom
62,641,000
People active in sport1
32,500,000
In addition to rich sporting past, the UK is one of the most significant
players in the international sports scene. Every year the country is home
to many major sporting events, for example the historic tennis
tournament in Wimbledon. The Premier League is the top-tier football
competition in England, which generates world-wide interest.
National sport federations3
Following disappointing Olympic displays in the 1980s and the 1990s,
the governance and funding system of sport in the UK went through
significant changes. UK Sport was established and other organizations
saw their roles becoming clearly defined.
■
At the same time, with the advent of the National Lottery, unprecedented
amounts of funding were made available for sport.
■
The first real test of the new system came in 2002, when Manchester
hosted the Commonwealth Games. The newly reorganized institutions
proved that they could cooperate and ensure the success of a major
sporting event. The winning bid in 2005 to host the 2012 Olympics also
significantly helped the development of British sport life.
Sport participation rate2
Sport clubs2
Sport club members2
Olympic sports receiving government
funding
52%
320
151,000
12,380,000
19
Source: KPMG Analysis; Sports Club Survey (2013)
Note:
(1) who takes part at least once a month
Eurobarometer survey (2009)
(2) Ranked 12th out of the 27 EU member countries
(3) including every home nation (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
and England),
Sport and Recreation Alliance Website
The scope of the study
Our assessment of sports in the UK covers the following topics:
■
The governance structure and main institutions
■
Major reforms in the UK sport system
■
The funding structure
■
Elite sport success
■
Public sport participation in the UK
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
1
United Kingdom
The governance structure and main institutions (1/5)
The majority of the
Community sport
Elite sport
organizations active in British
sport have a clear mandate;
they either focus on
IOC
UK Government
community sport participation
or elite sports. Naturally, the
government through its
connections is involved in
both aspects.
N. Irish
government
Scottish
government
Welsh
government
Sport
Scotland
Sport
Wales
British Olympic
Association
Department of
Culture, Media
and Sport
Sport and
Recreation
Alliance
The two institutions with the
largest influence are Sport
England (promoting and
supporting public sport
participation in England) and
Sport
N. Ireland
Sport
England
UK Sport
Sport
federations
UK Sport (allocating funds to
and reviewing the operation of
sport federations).
County sports
Partnerships
Sport clubs
Sport clubs
Source: KPMG Analysis
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
2
United Kingdom
The governance structure and main institutions (2/5)
The two pillars of sport in the UK
■
■
Home Nation Sport Councils
■ These national organizations are tasked with promoting sport
The development and funding of elite sports is the sole
participation among the general public. Every home nation has its
responsibility of UK Sport, which is sponsored by the Department
own council competent in their area. These are:
for Culture, Media and Sport, an institution controlled by the
 Sport England (English Sports Council)
government of the UK.
The allocation of responsibilities is different in community sport.
The UK consists of four „home nations”, England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, each with its own government (England’s is ■
the common UK government). In this setting certain issues
(including sports) are qualified as devolved matters for which home
nation governments are responsible. Community sport tasks are
the responsibility of sport councils in each home nation. The largest ■
council is Sport England, both in terms of size, budget and
influence over community sport policies in England.
Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS)
■
The DCMS is responsible for a wide range of issues, including ■
tourism, media and the national lottery. The Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the department.
■
The DCMS oversees and funds the two important sports
organizations, namely UK Sport and Sport England, and also
plays an important coordinating role between them, in order to
make the overall operation of the sport system more effective.
■
The DCMS can set out policies for both the community and the elite
sport sector, for example to increase the number of people playing ■
sports, or making elite (Olympic) sports more successful. However,
it should also be noted, that the DCMS is involved only indirectly in
the realization of these goals though the bodies mentioned
previously. The exact allocation of funding between projects or
sport federations is not the role of the DCMS.
■
In addition to these general tasks, the department supports the
bidding process for major sport events, protects UK’s sporting
interest abroad.
■
The DCMS is also the lead government body regarding the legacy
of the London 2012 Olympics. The Government Olympic
Executive is a unit within the department which was focused on the
preparation for the Games and since then they are responsible for
the management of the legacy of the Olympics.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.



Sport Northern Ireland (Northern Irish Sports Council)
Sport Scotland (Scottish Sports council)
Sport Wales (Welsh Sports Council)
They are affiliated with their corresponding governments, for
example Sport Northern Ireland is under the Department of Culture,
Arts and Leisure, which is part of the Northern Irish government.
The councils are responsible for working out the details of
government policies and they are also responsible for allocating
funds between community sports projects aimed at increasing
participation. Funding ends up in the hands of local sports clubs
who can put it to use to improve local facilities and access to sport.
Councils operate in close cooperation with sport federations
(national governing bodies - NGBs). They also play an important
role in talent development by identifying potential early on, and
providing them with sufficient sporting opportunities. In this sense
councils provide access for young people to become elite athletes.
Because of this, they work in partnership with UK Sport (the
organization for elite sports) to make sure their goals and
investments are aligned.
A good example of council projects is the ‘Active Places' website by
Sport England, which is designed to help the public find sports
facilities anywhere in England. Searching can be through an
interactive map to discover more information about public facilities.
3
United Kingdom
The governance structure and main institutions (3/5)
Community sport in England
Compared to other home nations, England has the most extensive
community sport system, therefore this part of the case study
concentrates on their example.
County Sports Partnerships (CSPs)
■
■
These networks comprise of local agencies active in the sport life
of given region. Authorities, schools, sport federations, community
sport networks and other agencies work together to develop sporting
opportunities for the local population. For example, in England there
are around 49 different CSPs,, covering almost the whole country.
Example of CSP activity – The Copeland Physical Activity Project
The North Country Leisure organization, which operates in the
Borough of Copeland, successfully applied for a GBP 91,800
investment from Sport England in 2013. This amount, which comes
from the National Lottery, was complemented with support from local
partners.
The programme builds on a pilot project and provides fitness and
exercise sessions in Cleator Moor (a small town in Copeland) for
adults and children of all ages.
Sport England contracts these partnerships to carry out the actions
of the overall community sport plan at the regional level. For
example, the goal to increase sport participation in England is
achieved through the diligent work of these CSPs.
School Sports Partnerships (SSPs)
■
Numerous schools have formed partnerships on a voluntary basis in
order to work together in creating sporting opportunities of young
people. These are usually led by a partnership development
manager with sport coordinators at participating schools.
■
In 2010, the government decided to cut two-thirds of the budget
available for SSPs through Sport England, which resulted in a drop
in the number of active partnerships. There are now around 200
school sports partnerships in England instead of 400.
■
To make up for this setback, another, complementary, programme
was launched in 2013 with the aim to distribute funds directly to
schools. Currently GBP 150 million is set aside for school sports
every year between 2015 and 2020. The funding comes from the
Department of Education and the DCMS. A average primary school
with 250 pupils receive a yearly lump sum of GBP 10,000.
■
The school headmasters are free to decide how they use the money
to improve the quality of physical education in schools. For example,
they can hire specialist coaches and sport teachers. National
sport federations also offer coaching and skill development
programmes. The schools are held accountable for how they spend
the funding by Ofsted, an inspectorate body
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
4
United Kingdom
The governance structure and main institutions (4/5)
UK Sport
■
UK Sport (UKS) was set up in 1997 by Royal Charter as a nondepartmental body of the DCMS; since then it has established itself
as an organization of vital importance in the UK sport system.
■
With no responsibilities towards community or grassroots sport,
UKS concentrates only on elite (Olympic) sports. The overall
budget of UKS increased significantly in recent years, from
GBP 30 million in 2005 to the current amount of 127 million,
consisting of:
■
Exchequer funds directly through DCMS – GBP 40 million
■
National Lottery funds – GBP 87 million
■
UKS is managed and overseen by the UK Sport Board which
includes representatives from the four home nations along with
independent members. UKS being the most important organization
in elite sports policy, it is essential that every home nation has a
say in its operation.
■
The organization acts as the strategic lead body for elite sports
through allocating funds between Olympic and Paralympic sports.
This is achieved through the World class Performance Programme,
for which the „No Compromise” policy is used as a guideline. As a
result, only federations of sports with realistic chance of success
receive funding from UKS. (More details on page 11).
■
UKS works in partnership with numerous institutions to provide elite
athletes with the necessary support for Olympic preparation. These
services include high quality training opportunities, coaching , and
sport performance research.
■
Through the Gold Event Series programme running from 2013 to
2019, UKS helps sport federations (NGBs) in bidding for and
hosting international sporting events in the United Kingdom.
■
Finally, UKS supports federations in building relationships with
their international partners and other regulatory bodies. This is
aimed to represent British interest on the international scene,
■
It should be noted that Sport Scotland, Sport Northern Ireland and
Sport Wales complement the work of UKS in their corresponding
home nations through coordinating the support of their „own” elite
athletes.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Core responsibilities of UK Sport
Effectively invest in
Olympic and Paralympic
sports
Develop a supportive
background for elite
sports through
partnerships
Bring major,
international sporting
events to the UK
Aid the international
sporting representation
of the UK
5
United Kingdom
The governance structure and main institutions (5/5)
Umbrella organizations of sport federations
British Olympic Association (BOA)
■
Unlike many other countries, the Olympic Committees of the UK plays
less significant role in policy-making and elite sports funding decisions.
■
The main task is to help athletes in preparing for the Olympics by
implementing programs, but it should be noted that direct funding of
Olympic sport federations and athletes is the responsibility of UK Sport.
The BOA represents the Olympic movement in the country and organizes
the participation of UK athletes at the Games.
■
The sport federations of Olympic sports are customary members of the
BOA, which is independent from the government.
■
Every Olympic sport can send a representative to the BOA. Six people
from the representatives are elected to the Board, which oversees the
decision-making process of organization.
Sport and Recreation Alliance (SRA)
■
■
■
This umbrella organization serves to bring together the interests of the
sport federations. Currently it represents the views of and speaks on
behalf of its more than 320 members. This number includes even major
federations, like the Football Association or the Rugby Football Union.
Through its members, the SRA represents more than 150,000 clubs and
8 million regular sport participants (club members).
The SRA is strictly independent from the government and political
parties. Their aim is to ensure that sport and recreation remains to be
high on the political agenda in the UK. They essentially campaign on
issues affecting sports in general (e.g. Olympic legacy, regulations,
access to facilities etc.).
Members are divided into five different divisions based on their common
characteristics: 1. Games and Sports 2. Major Spectator Sports, 3.
Movement and Dance 4. Outdoor Pursuits 5.Water Recreation. This
setup covers every type of physical activity.
Services provided by SRA for sport federations and clubs
Category
Examples
Leadership Convention
Annual event where chair and executives of
sport and recreation can get together and
discuss the biggest issues.
Training and networking
Workshops, seminars etc.
Governance advice
Wide range of resources to help members
improve their governance structures.
Business support
Access to approved commercial partners, HR
and payroll shared services and a free
business support helpline.
Information
Daily news summary, publication of research
findings etc.
Source: Sport and Recreation Alliance Website – Who We Are
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
6
United Kingdom
Major reforms in the UK sport system (1/2)
The reorganizing efforts of
Restructuring in the 1990s
the 1990s significantly
■
As a result of the disappointing performances at the Olympics of the ■
1980s and 1990s, the UK sport system went through a series of
reforms, which brought substantial changes in the structure of both
funding and governance.
■
Governance: prior to the 1990s, the now defunct Sports Council was
responsible for almost every aspect of sport in the country. In 1994 it
was decided that the system should be revised. The United Kingdom
Sports Council was formed in 1997, which was later renamed to UK
Sport. As mentioned earlier, this organization had a clear mandate to ■
concentrate only on elite (Olympic and Paralympic) sports.
improved the governance
structure of British sport.
Reallocating tasks resulted
in each organization being
able to focus their
resources on a well-defined
field of sport policy.
Another important part of the restructuring was that tasks and
responsibilities for community and grassroots sports were completely
transferred to the Home Nation Sport Councils (Sport Wales, Sport
Scotland etc.) between 1997 and 2000. Today they are the most
important actors in the field of mass-participation sports in their
respective countries.
■
The fine tuning of the
system has continued
throughout the past decade,
as the responsibilities of UK
sport and the home nation
sport councils became more
Developments of the 2000s
■
clearly defined.
The preparation for the
London Olympics resulted in
larger contribution from to
sector for elite sports.
■
The Commonwealth Games in 2002, hosted in Manchester, were the
first event that required the extensive collaboration of the newly
restructured organizations. The successful hosting proved that the
system was functional and the stakeholders couldwork together. It was
also a catalyst for later hosting bids, for example the 2012 Olympics,
which were awarded to London in 2005 and the 2014 Commonwealth
Games in Glasgow.
The sport councils and UKS experienced additional changes during
the 2000s, but on a much smaller scale. Actions mostly aimed to
further streamline the system. Sport England was significantly
downsized between by 2006, when their responsibilities became
clearer. In 2009 the Regional Sports Boards was disbanded, making
the decision-making process of Sport England more centralized.
Funding: the National Lottery was launched in 1994 when the UK
government granted license for its operation to Camelot Group, a
private company. Some part of the revenues was designated for
investments in both community and elite sports. All of a sudden the UK
sport system gained access to substantial funding, which they lacked
during the previous decades.
The London Olympics
Meanwhile, the plan was to cut back on the number of sport disciplines ■
receiving government funding and increase the budget for the
remaining ones. After 1997 number of sports funded by the
government or the Lottery decreased from 110 to less than 30,
enabling the more effective use of financing.
government and the private
Exact, well-defined goals were set by the early 2000s, by which the
success of the system could be judged. The most important ones
aimed to improve the medal tally of the British Olympic Team and to
win the bid for hosting the 2012 Olympics. The communication of
these goals to the public was well-organized and this lent credibility
to the whole British sport policy. The organizations built a unified
narrative around the sport policies at every level, resulting in that they
communicated in the same way.
In addition to reforms in funding and governance responsibilities,
positive changes started in other fields, too. The UK sport system
lacked the proper sporting infrastructure, however this significantly ■
improved after increased efforts by policymakers to channel funds for
infrastructure development.
■
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
UK Sport established a strategic alliance with the London organizing
committee, and the BOA in order to launch the first-ever UK
fundraising programme for elite athletes. It was called Team 2012 and
provided a third stream of private sector income alongside National
Lottery and Government funding. As mentioned earlier, the budget of
UKS was increased to support the preparation of British athletes for
the 2008 and 2012 Games.
The success of sports at the Olympics and other competitions made
them more popular and enabled the public to “emotionally connect”
with them. This process was also encouraged by the active
participation of athletes and clubs in promoting sports “off the field”.
7
United Kingdom
Major reforms in the UK sport system (2/2)
The rebranding of the Olympic Team
■
After the 1996 Olympics, the British Olympic Association (BOA)
decided to create a strong brand for the Olympic team, which could
help create a „team feeling” among athletes and supporters alike
and could be instantly recognizable.
■
The BOA finally introduced the ‘Team GB’ brand in 1999 and
since then it has been the official name for the Great Britain and
Northern Ireland Olympic team. It is also a registered trademark of
the BOA, which often uses the name to identify itself. The reception
of the brand was generally positive, but there were some who said
the Team GB name virtually excludes Northern Ireland, and
therefore the name should be ‘Team UK’.
■
During the build-up to the London Olympics, the brand proved to be
a useful tool to make the British population more interested in the
Games. The BOA came up with the ‘Our Greatest Team’
campaign to create and identity for ‘Team GB’. They enlisted 27
ambassadors, including members of the Royal Family, who
promoted the team. Further promotion concentrated on social
networks (Facebook, Twitter etc.), because of limited funds (the
BOA is not financed by the government).
■
The campaign was very effective and successful, interest in ‘Team
GB’ rose measurably. Commercial sponsors, companies such as
Cadbury and BMW also used 'The Greatest Team' in their
communications.
An example of commercial use of the Team GB Brand – Cadbury
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
8
United Kingdom
The funding structure (1/4)
The funding of most British
UK Government
sport organizations is largely
dependent on contributions
from the government, either
directly (Exchequer funds and
home nation budgets) or
indirectly (National Lottery,
Home nation governments
National
Lottery
which is licensed by the UK
Department of
Culture, Media
and Sport
British Olympic
Association
government).
corporate sources, for example
sponsorship deals and private
Home nation sport
councils
Sport England
UK Sport
County Sports
Partnerships
Sport
federations
fundraising plays an important
role at many levels.
Corporate sector
However, financing from
Sport clubs (elite and community sports alike)
Source: KPMG Analysis
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
9
United Kingdom
The funding structure (2/4)
Corporate partners
Direct government funding
■ The 2000s saw an increase in funding coming from the private
■ The UK government earmarks significant Exchequer funds in its
sector as more companies wanted to be associated with the
London Olympics and the British team. Through the initiative
called ‘Team 2012’ more than GBP 18 million were raised for
the Olympic preparation of athletes between 2009 and 2012. In
the final 100 days leading up to the Games, another GBP
750,000 was distributed.
yearly budget for sport purposes, During the Rio Olympic cycle
(2012-2016) UKS receives GBP 40 million every year from
this source. Exchequer money is also used to finance
community sport projects through Sport England and other
sport councils. From 2009 until December 2013, Sport England
distributed more than GBP 430 million for community sport.
■ The ‘Team 2012’ programme was jointly launched by UKS, and
■ Primary and secondary schools will receive GBP 150 million
BOA and was sponsored by Visa, a financial services company.
The funds were used to cover the costs of coaches, medical
support, training camps, international travel, equipment and
facilities. More than 1200 elite athletes from 47 sports received
this type of financial backing.
each year from the DCMS and the Department for Education to
improve the quality of school sports.
■ The amount of
direct government funding was negligible for
long decades, but during preparation for the London Olympics it
increased significantly. In exchange, ‘Team GB’ athletes
funded by the government are asked to promote school sports
five days a year, free of charge.
■ The British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic
Association relies on private sponsorships and donations.
UK sport
system
Indirect government funding: National Lottery
■ The National Lottery, which started in 1994, provides an indirect form of funding for sport in the UK. Through the ‘Good
Causes’ programme Lottery money is given out by twelve independent organizations, each with specialist knowledge of
their sectors. Five of them are related to sports (UKS and the four home nation sport councils).
■ Sport federations, clubs and even individuals can apply for grants. Funds are used for both the elite and community
sport projects. Olympic federations are financed by the UKS (receiving GBP 87 million of its yearly budget from the
Lottery) using this source, while community sport facilities are developed by grants provided by Sport England and
others. From 2009 until December 2013, Sport England distributed more than GBP 920 million for community sport.
■ In the year ending 31 March 2013, 28% of total National Lottery revenue was returned to the ‘Good Causes’. 20% of the
contribution went for sports (GBP 360 million). As a special project, GBP 2.2 billion was used to stage the Olympics.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
10
United Kingdom
The funding structure (3/4)
World Class Performance Programme
■
■
■
Home Nation Institutes of Sport
As mentioned before, the main role of UKS is to finance elite sports
to maximize the performance of UK athletes Shorty after it was
established in 1997, the World Class Performance Programme
(WCPP) was launched, which is the most important funding source
for sport federations. UKS invest only in federations of Olympic
and Paralympic sports that have a good chance to succeed at the
Games. Performance is thus measured by the number of medals
won.
■




Sport federations are required to devise their own
programmes, the UKS only supports those with a detailed plan set
out already. Their governance structure and operation is closely
scrutinized in order to ensure that WCPP funds are channeled to
the right places. Federations are accountable for the delivery of
their programmes.
Currently there are two levels of funding available for federations
and their athletes:
English Institute of Sport (EIS)
Sport Institute Northern Ireland (SINI)
Sportscotland Institute of Sport (SIS)
Welsh Institute of Sport (WIS)
■
Their core function is to provide expert services to Olympic,
Paralympic and a range of other sports (e.g. Premier League
football, Premiership rugby etc.). These services include
innovative sport medicine, sport science solutions aimed to
increase the performance of the athletes.
■
Over the previous Olympic cycle (2008-2012), the EIS delivered
more than 4,000 hours of medical and science support to over
1,500 Olympic and Paralympic athletes every week. Sport
federations that receive funding from the UKS through the World
Class Performance Programme are able to pay for the services of
the four Institutes of Sport.
■
The funding year for the WCPP runs from 1 December to the end of
November.
■
Reviews by UKS are conducted annually when the performance
of the federations is measured against agreed milestones. In case
they under or over-perform, it is possible to realign the amount of
investment, meaning that the level of UKS support can fluctuate or
even completely diminish during an Olympic cycle for a given sport.
 Podium: the highest level of funding, which is awarded to
sports that are deemed capable of winning medals at the
Olympics and/or gold medal at the Paralympics within four
years (Paralympic silver and bronze medal prospects do not
count).
Every home nation has its own Institute of Sport, which were set
up during the late 1990s, as a part of the reforms of the period.
 Podium Potential: sports with the potential to compete for
medals at the next Olympics or Paralympics.
■
UKS realizes that it can take a long time for talent to fulfill potential.
With that in mind, the WCPP is seen as a long-term investment.
■
In addition to WCPP funds, sport federations are required to
finance a minimum percentage of their sport budgets from their own
income channels (e.g. sponsorships, membership fees).
■
Federations use the contribution from the UKS to either fund their
athletes directly or pay for the back-up services they require (see
‘Home Nation Institutes of Sport’ box).
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
11
United Kingdom
The funding structure (4/4)
Individual funding for athletes
Sports with the largest contribution from UKS through the World Class
Performance Programme (ranked by Rio 2016 funding, in GBP million)
Athlete Personal Award (APA)
■
■
■
Beside the WCPP, the Athlete Personal Award is another important
funding channel for elite athletes. It serves as a contribution
towards personal living and sporting costs and is paid directly to
them.
■
■
■
Rio 2016
Change
Rowing
27,3
32,6
+19,4%
2
Cycling
26,0
30,6
+17,7%
Individuals has to apply at the UK Sport for APA financing through
an application form. The amount awarded depends on the athlete’s
performance category (Podium and Development) and any other
income they receive.
3
Athletics
25,1
26,8
+6,8%
4
Sailing
22,9
25,5
+11,4%
The average APA payment to athletes on the Podium level in 2013
was around £18,500 per annum, the average figure for
Development level athletes was £7,500.
5
Swimming
25,1
20.8
-17,1%
6
Canoeing
16,2
20,0
+23,5%
7
Equestrian
13,4
18.0
+34,3%
As part of private financing, Sportsaid, a charity fund established in
1976, aims to support young talent between the age of 12 and 18,
who train in one of the Olympic or Paralympic sports on an amateur
basis but have potential to become successful in the future.
8
Field hockey
15,0
16,1
+7,3%
9
Gymnastics
10,8
14,6
+35,2%
10
Boxing
9,6
13,8
+43,8%
This project relies on fund raising from the corporate sector and
private individuals.
11
Taekwando
4,8
8,1
+68,8%
12
Triathlon
5,3
7,5
+41,5%
13
Diving
6,5
7,5
+15,4%
14
Judo
7,5
7,4
-1,3%
15
Pentathlon
6,3
7,0
+11,1%
Other forms of athlete financing
■
London 2012
1
Sportsaid
■
Sport
Financing is also channeled to professional sportsmen from
private sponsorship deals.
These funds either flow through the sport federations and
sports clubs, or are directly signed between the sportsmen and
the sponsoring companies on a one-by-one basis.
For example, Chris Hoy, a cyclist received USD 1,5 million in
2012 from the likes of Adidas, Harrods and Kellogg’s.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: UK Sport Website and BBC.co.uk
Note: four sports lost the financial support of UKS after the London
Olympics, because of below par performances, meaning that they will
have to completely rely on private funds. These were: basketball,
synchronized swimming, water polo, weightlifting.
12
United Kingdom
Elite sports success
The United Kingdom’s Olympic history
■
■
■
■
■
Most successful Olympic sports
The UK was among the nations that participated in the first Summer
Games of the modern age in 1896. They have competed at every
Summer and Winter Olympics since then.
The country’s capital, London has welcomed athletes from all around
the world as the host of the Games three times (1908, 1948 and
2012). The most recent occasion proved to be the most successful
for Team GB since 1908; their athletes won 29 gold, 17 silver and 29
bronze medals and finished third in the overall medal table.
During the first half of the 20th century the British were among the
top sporting nations. The following decades saw them constantly
lagging behind the likes of the United States, the Soviet Union, and
even Germany, Italy and France. The worst performance came in
1996 with a 36th position at the medal table.
The restructuring of elite sports funding dramatically turned trends
around and the government and UK Sport’s aim is to maintain the
good results at the Rio Olympics in 2016.
The red line below signals the period when the reforms of the British
elite sport system were initiated.
Sport
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
1
Athletics
53
79
62
194
2
Rowing
28
22
13
63
3
Cycling
26
26
23
75
4
Sailing
25
18
11
54
5
Tennis
17
15
12
44
6
Boxing
17
12
24
53
7
Swimming
15
23
30
67
8
Shooting
13
15
16
44
9
Equestrian
9
10
13
32
10
Figure skating
5
3
7
15
Source. Olympic.Org
Medal count of the Summer Olympic Games
Medal count of the Winter Olympic Games
35
Gold
30
Silver
29
Bronze
Gold
Silver
Bronze
1
1
1
25
19
20
19
17
15
15
12
11
8
10
6
5
5
12
10
9
13
9
7
2
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
Barcelona Atlanta 1996
1992
Source. Olympic.Org
Sydney
2000
Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
London
2012
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Lillehammer Nagano
1994
1998
Source. Olympic.Org
Salt Lake
City 2002
Turin 2006
Vancouver Sochi 2014
2010
13
United Kingdom
Public sport participation in the UK
Statistics and findings
■
According to the latest physical activity related Eurobarometer
survey carried out in 2009, around 52% of the UK population took
part in sports at least once a month, which was slightly better
than the average 46% rate across the 27 EU countries.
■
In comparison, 46% of the population participated in sports at least
monthly in 1996, just before the year when the sport reforms were
launched.
■
■
The strategy of Sport England
The current strategy regarding public sport participation in England
(not including other home nations) runs from 2012 until 2017 and
sets out ambitious goals for Sport England. The most important are
the following:
 Invest GBP 500 million in 46 sport federations to help them
increase the number of people who play their sports below
the elite level. This investment, coming from National Lottery
and Exchequer funds, also aims to support talent
development.
‘The Statistics on Obesity, Physical Activity and Diet’ survey found
that 15.5 million adults participated in sport at least once a week
(30 minutes of exercise) in 2011/12. It also said that 77% of school
children (aged 5-15 years) had taken part in competitive sport in
school during the same period. This survey was commissioned by
The Health and Social Care Information Centre.
 Provide every secondary school in England with a direct link
to one or more sports. Help them set up facilities for local
community use.
 Invest GBP 265 million in sport facilities across England.
A recent analysis by Sport England compares statistics on sports
participation between 2005/06 and 2012/2013. The figures cover
only England and show that:
 Invest GBP 10 million in sport projects for disabled people.
 Engage 2,000 young people „on the margins of the society”
 15.5 million adults (16+) played sport at least once a week in
through giving them sporting opportunities
2013 in England. That’s 1.5 million more than in 2005/6.
 Over 900,000 14-15 year olds played sport at least weekly
Number of adults taking part in sports in England by frequency
 17.4% of all adults took part in at least three sport sessions a
week – up from 15.5% in 2005/6
 However, 52% of adults did not play any sport in 2013.
■
■
20
16
The Summer Olympic Games held in London in 2012 significantly
increased the number of people playing sports at least once a
week (by 750,000). It remains to be seen whether this effect will
prove to be permanent.
12
Cycling was the one of the sport which seen a large rise in its
popularity after the recent Games. The ‘Olympic Cycling Effect’
report by Alexander Grous says that 52% of the respondents to a
specific survey were motivated to cycle after the inspiring
achievements of the Team GB cycling team at London 2012 (8
gold, 2 silver and 2 bronze medals). According to the same report,
British Cycling estimated that participation in cycling has increased
by 20% since the Beijing Games in 2008.
4
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
18,3
16,8
15,5
13,9
10,9
9,4
8
7,5
6,3
0
2005/6
2012/13
At least monthly
At least weekly
At least twice a week
At least three times a week
Source: Sport England – Active People survey 7 (2013)
14
United Kingdom
Key takeaways
Population:
Effective restructuring
„Brutal” elite sport redistribution system
62 600 000
■ During the 1990s the sport structure of the United
■ Sport
Sport participation rate:
52%
Sport club members:
12 380 000
Funding for elite sport:
GBP 130 million (per year)
Funding for leisure sport:
GBP 400 million (per year)
Kingdom experienced major changes that were long
overdue.
federations are assessed by their Olympic
performance and funds are given to those with the
highest chance of success.
■ New organizations were established and existing ones
■ Failure to reach the pre-set goals can easily result in the
were reorganized. The entire responsibility for the
development of Olympic sports was transferred to UK
Sport, while the tasks regarding „sport for all” were
overtaken by new authorities in each home nation.
complete withdrawal of funds. The opposite is also true,
meaning that Olympic sports can increase their share of
public funds with sustained good performances.
■ The system is described as unrelenting by its critics, but
■ As a result, both elite and community sport has an
so far it has deemed to be successful and effective.
authority focusing entirely on them.
Stable funding channel for the sport sector
Rebranding of the Olympic team
■ The organisational restructuring would not have been so
■ In order to improve the visibility of the national team the
successful if it was not complemented with a new
revenue source for sports, the proceeds of the national
lottery.
British Olympic Association initiated a rebranding project
during the late 1990s.
■ They came up with the ‘Team GB’ brand which has since
■ Among all supported areas, the main beneficiary of the
redistribution of lottery profits is (elite and community)
sport.
become the semi-official name of the Association itself.
■ The new brand is consciously used in the communication
■ Olympic federations, national teams, local sport clubs and
facilities receive the major part of their funding from this
source.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
of the Olympic team and also provides an ideal promotion
vehicle for the corporate partners and sponsors of British
sport, such as Cadbury and BMW.
15
Netherlands
Introduction and scope of the study
The Netherlands achieved
Main attributes of Dutch sport
remarkable results in sports,
■
both in terms of professional
sport success and leisure
sport participation. The
■
country consistently finish
among the top 20 nations of
the Summer Olympics medal
table, while around 64% of
the population participates
in leisure sports at least on a
monthly basis, which is well
■
above the average of the
European Union (46%).
■
An important characteristic
of Dutch sport’s structure is
Highlights of the Dutch sport scene
With an estimated population of 16.8 million and an area of 41,543
km2, the Netherlands is a relatively small country. However, the
country is one of the most developed economies in Europe, based on
per capita GDP.
Population of the Netherlands
Sport participation rate (1)
64%
Sport plays an important role in the everyday life of Dutch people:
sport participation rates of the general public have been on the rise for
decades. Based on the Eurobarometer survey conducted by the
European Commission in 2009, the Netherlands was among the top5
countries in Europe in terms of leisure sport participation (64% of the
population played sports or did physical exercise at least once a
month), while close to 30% of the population was a member of a sport
club in 2013.
National sport federations
76
Elite athletes
4,600
The structure of sport and clubs has been historically organized by
the voluntary sector, without direct control from the central
government. This non-governmental sector retains its central role in
Dutch sports to this day; the most important stakeholders and
policymakers are independent from the government.
Elite coaches
26,000
However, in recent years the government has a more significant role
in the preparation of sport policies and coordination of other
organizations of their implementation.
Sport clubs
Sport club members
Commercial sport providers (2)
16,770,000
27,700
5,700,000
5,000
Source: NOC*NSF Official Website; KPMG Analysis
Note:
(1) % who takes part at least once a month
(2) Fitness centers, sport schools etc.
its bottom-up organization:
the professional sport
success of the country is
The scope of the study
Our assessment of sports in the Netherlands covers the following topics:
driven by a solid leisure
■
Governance structure and main institutions
sport base and a strong
■
Funding structure
sport culture.
■
Elite sport success
■
Infrastructure and talent development supporting elite sports
■
Leisure sport success
■
Sport Agenda 2016
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
1
Netherlands
The governance structure and main institutions (1/5)
The Dutch sport governance
Summary of the governance structure of Dutch sport
system experienced a major
International Olympic
Committee
structural change in 1993,
when the NOC*NSF was
Government
established by the merger of
two organizations.
NOC*NSF
The most important
(Netherlands Olympic
Committee * Netherlands
Sport Federations)
developments of the past
about changes in policy and
the role of the government.
Corporate sector
two decades were mainly
Ministry of Health,
Welfare and Sport
Provinces
Sport Department
Municipalities
Sport
Federations
Sport clubs
Administrative relations
Club membership
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: KPMG Analysis
2
Netherlands
The governance structure and main institutions (2/5)
NOC*NSF
■
The Netherlands Olympic Committee (NOC) was founded in 1912 and
included the federations of Olympic sports with the aim to comply
with international regulations.
■
Traditionally, many sport clubs and thus federations were organized
on a religious basis (Protestant, Catholic etc.) in the Netherlands
However, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allowed only the
official federations of Olympic sports to join the NOC, while nonOlympic and religious sport federations formed the Netherlands Sport
Confederations (NSF) in 1959. The level of cooperation was high
between the two organizations, which eventually led to the merger of
the two bodies in 1993 through the foundation of NOC*NSF, the
biggest structural reform in Dutch sport in the recent decades.
■
Since its foundation the NOC*NSF has been the umbrella
organization of Dutch sport: it functions as the most important body of
the Dutch sport governance system and also fulfills the duties of the
National Olympic Committee. NOC*NSF represents both elite and
grassroots sport and operates independently from the government.
The organization serves as the hub for sport financing at the national
level.
■
The NOC*NSF has 95 members, which can be divided into four
categories: 76 national sport federations, 15 Dutch sport organizations
(e.g. Netherlands University Sports Foundation), three honorary
members and one Dutch IOC member.
■
The NOC*NSF takes part actively in sport strategy making; the latest
national strategic plan of Dutch sport, the Sport Agenda 2016, was
launched by NOC*NSF in early 2012, after consultations with the
government (refer to page 14 for more details).
■
NOC*NSF’s most important policy is that elite sports and grassroots
sports can not improve without the other, ensuring that the two fields
both receive the required funding and attention.
■
In addition to its own core activities, the NOC*NSF supports specific
areas of sports as well. For example, in close collaboration with
InnoSportNL, NOC*NSF provides scientific background to improve
elite sport performance through delivering focused sport research.
Main objectives of the NOC*NSF
Increase sport
participation of the
general public
Achieve better results
in elite sports
(especially Olympics)
Serve as a centre for
sports expertise
Represent the Dutch
sport at national and
international levels
Source: NOC*NSF Official Website
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
3
Netherlands
The governance structure and main institutions (3/5)
Sport federations and sport clubs
■
■
■
There are 76 sport federations in the Netherlands overseen by the
NOC*NSF. Each sport federation represents and coordinates one
specific sport, including the allocation of funds, the organization of
domestic competitions and the preparation of sport specific policies,
amongst others.
Sport clubs, important building blocs of the whole sports system,
are members of their corresponding national sports federation. They
are mostly run and financed on a voluntary basis. Around 1,5 million
volunteers and only 13000 paid employees are involved in the dayto-day management of sport clubs.
Apart from professional clubs competing in elite leagues, there are
more than 27,000 sport clubs operating in the country,
accommodating over 5.7 million members. These clubs are the most
important pillars in creating sporting opportunities for the public.
Their size in terms of membership usually ranges from 10 to 1,000
members. (It should also be noted that the membership of one
person in multiple clubs might result in duplications).
Million people
Trends in participation in sport and club membership
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
■
Measuring popularity by the total number of club members of a given
sport, football is leading the rank with overall membership over 1.1
million registered players.
■
The percentage of Dutch people participating in sport (not
necessarily as a club member) has been constantly rising. The
number of people joining clubs rose by 1% between 1983 and 2007,
while general sport participation grew by 12% during the same
period.
Top 5 sports played by number of registered members (in ‘000)
Sport Federation
1983
2007
1,059
1,130
556
691
15
291
Royal Dutch Gymnastics Union (KNGU)
378
280
Royal Dutch Hockey Federation (KNHB)
117
197
52
196
Royal Dutch Ice Skating Federation (KNSB)
133
150
Royal Dutch Swimming Federation (KNZB)
158
146
Dutch Volleyball Federation (NeVoBo)
160
127
39
126
Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB)
Royal Dutch Lawn Tennis Federation (KNLTB)
Dutch Golf Federation (NGF)
Royal Dutch Equestrian Sports Federation (KNHS)
1983
1991
1999
No. of regsitered
members
2007
Dutch population aged 6-79 years
Participants in sport
Athletics Federation (Atletiekunie)
Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009]
Club membership
Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009]
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
4
Netherlands
The governance structure and main institutions (4/5)
The role of the government
■
The state played a relatively less significant role in Dutch sports
until the 1990s: only less significant policies were issued in
connection with sports, mainly focusing on its recreational aspects.
The government tried to influence the development of sport during
the 1970s, but the recession in the early 1980s stopped this
involvement as welfare budgets were cut.
■
The field of sports once gained importance on government level in
1994, when the Sport Department was founded within the newly
established Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). The
first long-term policy document was released by the Sport
Department in 1996, called ‘What sport sets in motion’,
emphasizing the effect sport has on forming the society.
■
Since its foundation, VWS has set out a number of policies focusing
on a wide range of sports matters, including opportunities for the
immigrant youth, disabled sport and increased sport participation,
amongst others. Government considers sports as beneficial for
the larger society through spill-over and multiplier effects on
healthcare and overall living conditions. In parallel with increased
government efforts, state budget for sports has also been growing
(refer to page 8 and 9 for more details).
■
■
However, the government has no direct control over the
management of the NOC*NSF or other organizations in the
voluntary (non-governmental) sport sector. Instead, its main role is
the cooperation with NOC*NSF and the national sport federations
through regular formal and informal interactions. As a result,
government policies serve as guidelines, while NOC*NSF and the
sport federations are relatively free in terms of implementation. As a
general rule, the VWS and the NOC*NSF consult each other in
devising new policies.
Apart from VWS, other ministries also support sport on a rather ad
hoc basis. For example, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
Research (controlled by the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Science) allocated close to EUR 10 million for a research
supporting athletes in the development of better performances, as
well as providing support to people with disabilities and chronic
diseases to gain more opportunities for participation in sports. It
should also be noted that aspects of this research connected to
elite sport were developed in collaboration with NOC*NSF.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Notable governmental sport policies of recent years
Year
Policy
2006
Immigrant youth sport program
Sport clubs were requested to cooperate in a program
to increase sport participation among the immigrant
youth. The VWS made grants available for clubs which
later worked out the details of the program, resulting in
many different successful ways of the implementation.
2007
The Power of Sport
As part of a large policy program run between 2007 and
2011, the Power of Sport emphasized sports’ positive
effect on society and set out goals in participation rates,
disabled sport and youth talent development among
many others.
Through the program the VWS earmarked EUR 30
million for these issues for 3 years, e.g. EUR 7.5 million
was allocated to support sport in community schools. It
also expanded the plan for the NASB (see below).
Source: VWS Website and ‘The Power of Sport [2007]
Netherlands Institute for Sport & Physical Activity (NISB)
■
NISB is an independent organization founded by the VWS.
As a knowledge institute it “strives for a vital society, where
everybody, young and old, is active in his or her own way”.
NISB organizes numerous programs aimed at various age
groups to encourage them to participate in sports.
■
One of the largest programs of NISB is the National Action
Plan Sport and Physical Activity (NASB), which provides
funds and advice for local authorities to help people
receive more opportunities for doing sports.
5
Netherlands
The governance structure and main institutions (5/5)
The role of provinces and municipalities
■
The administrative system of the Netherlands is divided into 12
provinces, which are further broken down into 408 municipalities.
Provinces are mainly responsible for matters of regional importance.
They fund non-governmental, regional sport councils, which provide
(technical and administrative) assistance to local sport clubs and
organizations.
■
Historically, municipalities provide the primary background for the
voluntary organization of sports. On average every municipality is the
home for around 67 sport clubs.
■
As the lowest level of government, municipalities are competent in a
wide range of sport related matters. Practically, they are allowed to
take on any role as long as it is not against the national policy in the
field, which helps them to organize the local sport life.
■
Most of their budget comes from the national government, the majority
of it is earmarked for specific purposes. In addition to this source,
municipalities can levy their own taxes.
■
Each year more than EUR 1 billion is spent on sports at municipality
level, mainly for the provision and maintenance of sports facilities for
public use. This process is encouraged and partly funded by the
government (see page 9 for more details).
■
The number of public sport facilities in the Netherlands is quite high:
while for example Breda has 43 such facilities controlled by the
municipality, 60% of the Dutch population lives within 5 kilometers of
sport facilities, which are usually suitable for practicing numerous
sports.
■
Apart from the provision of sport infrastructure, municipalities also
take part in the organization of the local sport life. They usually take
great pride in their notable achievements, such as the participation
rates surpassing the national average.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Bike path in Amsterdam
6
Netherlands
The funding structure of Dutch sport (1/4)
Summary of the funding structure of Dutch sport
International
Olympic Committee
NOC*NSF
Corporate sector
(Netherlands Olympic
Committee *
Netherlands Sport
Federations)
Government
Ministry of
Health, Welfare
and Sport
Provinces
Sport
Department
Municipalities
Sport
Federations
Sport clubs
Flow of funds
Club membership fees
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: KPMG Analysis
7
Netherlands
The funding structure of Dutch sport (2/4)
Direct Government Funding
■
■
Corporate Partners
Since the establishment of the Ministry of
Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) in 1994, an
increasing amount of funding has been
channeled for sports. In recent years the
government has contributed EUR 70 million
each year to the NOC*NSF budget. Half of the
contribution is spent on elite sport; the rest is
allocated to sporting opportunities for the public.
These public funds cover the financing of
facilities for elite athletes and coaches, as well
as educational programs for talented athletes.
The government also provides direct funds to
municipalities, that are earmarked for sports
(e.g. public sport infrastructure development.
The VWS often gives subsidies and grants to
clubs that participate in the implementation of
one its own policies.
■
Since its foundation, NOC*NSF has established
strong relations with the private sector:
corporate partners provide around EUR 10
million each year in various forms of funding.
Partnership contracts usually run for an Olympic
cycle of 4 years. The majority of these funding
partners has strong ties in the Netherlands.
■
There are three categories differentiated by the
level and type of support:
 Partners in Sport (e.g. Randstad)
 Project Partners (e.g. Heineken)
 Media Partners (e.g. Sanoma)
■
Official suppliers, which are companies who
deliver products and services for the elite sport
sector in the Netherlands, often link their
products to the Netherlands Olympic Team.
■
National sport federations and clubs raise a
large part of their budget from sponsorship
deals, while some of them also profit from the
sale of television rights.
Dutch Sport
Lottery Funding
■
■
The gambling organization called LOTTO was
set up in 1961 by the government. Guaranteed
by regulations, most of it proceeds are
transferred directly to the NOC*NSF budget (In
recent years this contribution amounted to EUR
50 million each year). Since the start of the
LOTTO, over EUR 1.4 billion has been used for
sport purposes in total.
NOC*NSF controls how these funds are divided
between the federations. In general, sports with
higher chances of delivering good results at
international events receive more funds.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Membership fees
■
Revenues through membership fees are the
most important funding channels for sport
clubs, accounting for half of their income.
■
This steady flow of membership fees and
sponsorship deals negotiated on their own
mean that sport clubs and federations are not
solely dependent on contributions from
NOC*NSF or the VWS.
8
Netherlands
The funding structure of Dutch sport (3/4)
Funding figures
National and municipal contributions to sport in the Netherlands
■
(in million euros)
■
■
■
The table on the right shows how the Dutch government
gradually increased funding for sport between 1999 and 2010.
The majority of the total amount went directly to the
NOC*NSF. For example, around EUR 70 million out of 113
million was the NOC*NSF’s share in 2010.
National government
Municipalities
Year
Community
Elite
Total
Total
1999
22,3
5.7
28
855
2000
45,1
15.9
61
924
2001
52,6
11.4
64
989
The table also illustrates how the government started to spend
more and more on elite sport. Currently a third of the Dutch
government’s sport financing serves this purpose.
2002
56,2
13.8
70
1062
2003
54,9
18.1
73
1158
The remaining part of the national government’s sport budget
went to projects aiming to increase the quality of the local
sport infrastructure. Municipalities had to pay at least 50% of
the cost of these project, which resulted in an increase in
municipality spending on sport. Cities and towns also started
to build and develop their facilities on their own, further
increasing their contribution to community sport.
2004
55,6
18.4
74
1159
2005
47,5
19.5
67
1166
2006
81,1
37.9
119
1241
2007
75,3
21.7
97
1276
2008
78,5
26.5
105
1369
2009
77,0
36.0
113
1488
2010
79,6
33.4
113
1499
Sport federations receive funding from the NOC*NSF, based
on their contribution to sport policy goals, not merely on the
size of their membership base. More details in the sport
Agenda 2016 section.
Source: CBS StatLine
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
9
Netherlands
The funding structure of Dutch sport (4/4)
Two notable examples of funding
Individual funding for athletes (the fund was set up in 2001)
■
Similar to the system in other countries (e.g. the United Kingdom),
the NOC*NSF divides elite athletes into three categories to
determine the amount of funding they receive. The categories are:
 A-status: elite athletes who are among the global top 8 of
their respective sport;
 B-status: athletes who belong to the global top 16;
 HP-status: athletes with extraordinary potential.
■
In order to be eligible for the backing, they has to comply with
certain regulations and are regularly assessed.
■
NOC*NSF and VWS jointly finance this program, while the former
carries out the administrative duties.
Holland Heineken House – A successful commercial partnership
■
Established in 1863 in Amsterdam, Heineken NV (one of the largest
companies in the beer industry) is a globally visible brand of the
Netherlands.
■
In 1992 the Netherlands Olympic Committee (NOC) joined forces
with the firm to establish the Holland Heineken House (HHH) at the
Olympics in Barcelona. Since then the HHH has been ever present
at the Summer and Winter Games (with the exception of 1994).
■
It serves as a meeting place for Dutch athletes, supporters and the
media, while providing a commercial (advertising) opportunity for
Heineken. The House also acts as the headquarters of NOC*NCF
during the event.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
10
Netherlands
Elite sports success (1/2)
Olympic history of the Netherlands
■
■
■
■
Most succesful Dutch sports by Olympic medals won
The Netherlands did not participate at the first modern Summer
Olympics in 1896, but since then Dutch athletes missed only two
Games (in 1904 and 1956). They have hosted the Games once, in
1928, when it was held in Amsterdam.
To date the Netherlands has won 266 medals at the Summer
Olympics: 77 gold, 85 silver and 104 bronze medals. This
respectable achievement ranks the country in the 17th position in
the all-time medal count table. Their best ever performance was
recorded in 2000, at the Sydney Olympics.
When measuring the medal count against the population, the
Netherlands ranks even better, they occupy the 15th place. Their
‘Population per Medal’ ratio was 62,901 in 2012.
The Dutch athletes also do relatively well at the Winter Olympics.
The all-time haul of 110 medals rank them as the 12th most
successful nation at the Winter Games. This consists of 37 gold, 38
silver and 35 bronze medals. It should also be noted that 106 of
these 110 medals were won in a single sport, speed skating (sprint
and short track combined).
Sport
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
1
Speed skating
35
36
35
105
2
Swimming
19
18
19
56
3
Cycling
16
16
11
43
4
Equestrian
10
10
2
22
5
Athletics
6
3
6
15
6
Rowing
5
11
11
27
7
Sailing
5
8
7
20
8
Field hockey
5
5
6
16
Source: Olympics.Org
Medal count of recent Winter Olympics
Medal count of recent Summer Olympics
14
12
Gold
12
Silver
Bronze
Gold
Silver
Bronze
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
4
6
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
Barcelona Atlanta 1996
1992
Sydney
2000
Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
London
2012
Lillehammer
1994
Nagano
1998
Salt Lake
City 2002
Turin 2006
Vancouver
2010
Sochi 2014
Source: Olympics.Org
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
11
Netherlands
Elite sports success (2/2)
Sporting succeess of popular team sports
Football
■
■
■
■
Performance of the Dutch national football team
Based on the research carried out by the Netherlands
Institute for Social Research, 14% of the population
participated in football in 2007, making it the most widely
practiced team sport in the country.
According to FIFA, the Netherlands has the 6th strongest national
team currently in Europe, while based on the ranking reported by
UEFA, the Dutch Eredivisie (the top tier of Dutch professional
football) was the 8th strongest league in Europe in late 2013.
Professional Dutch clubs regularly qualify to the most prestigious
European competitions (Champions League, Europa League);
many Dutch footballers are key players in the best European
teams.
The key factor of the success of the Dutch football relative to the
population of the country is considered to be the world-class youth
development system and coaching/tactical expertise. However, it
should also be noted that based on the information reported by
FIFA, in terms of the number of registered players the Netherlands
is the 5th in Europe.
Association (KNVB) founded
1889
Official matches played
728
Best World Cup record
Runners up (3 times)
World Cup appearances
9
Best European Championship record
Winner (1988)
European Championship appearances
9
Ballon D’Or winners
3
Source: KPMG Analysis
Field hockey
■
The Netherlands is among the top performers in field hockey at
international level: the men’s national team has won the Olympic
tournament 2 times and the World Cup on 3 occasions, while the
women’s team is even more successful with 3 Olympic golds (most
recently at London 2012) and 6 triumphs at the World Cups.
■
Similar to football, one of the key success factors of the sport is its
large athlete base: field hockey is the second most popular team
sport in the Netherlands, with the number of people who play the
sport in official clubs is estimated to be 200,000.
■
In addition to the significant number of athletes, the country has
numerous facilities that are excellent for the practice of the sport.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
12
Netherlands
Infrastructure and talent development supporting elite sports
The structure of talent development
Elite sports programs
■
The infrastructure primarily built for elite athletes also has a focus
on young talent with high potential.
■
■
Chaired by the NOC*NSF, the NL Olympic Network unites seven
regional networks. These are called ‘Organisatie Olympisc Netwerk
Nederland’ (ONNL) and operate to reinforce sport federations in
their region, nurture talented individuals and support elite athletes
in their preparation.
Sport federations are usually independent in setting goals for
themselves, the NOC*NSF provides technical support. The success
of the programs set out by the federations are monitored by
NOC*NSF through the ‘Topsport Programma Assesment’ (TPA)
and are assessed against a number of different factors (e.g.
planning and strategy, training, performance, etc.).
■
In addition to these programs, there are some nationwide projects,
that overlap sports federations since the 1990s. One of the most
significant projects is the establishment of four ‘Centres for Elite
sport and Education’ (Amsterdam, Heerenveen, Eindhoven and
Arnhem), where athletes can live, train and study at the same
location.
■
For example in Arnhem (National Sport Centre Papendal), over 250
athletes are given training each day (representing 11 different sport
federations), out of which 100 athletes also live in the Centre.
■
In addition to these multi-sport centres, there are five other major
elite sports centers, each focusing on one single sport.
■
Below the regional level, where the ONNLs operate, there is the
LOOT foundation, a partnership between secondary schools where
young talented athletes are supported in combining their education
with the sport career.
■
There are also education programs by sport federations that set out
the „career path” for young talent to become elite athletes (the
concept is largely based on the Canadian multi-year ‘Long Term
Athlete Development ‘ plan).
Coaches and experts
■
The development of the Dutch sport environment has been aided
by the ever growing support from the government since the 1990s;
before that, professional coaches did not have any significant
financial backing.
■
From the mid 1990s the situation changed: the government started
to finance numerous programs aimed at coaches, which were
executed and coordinated by the NOC*NSF. Two notable programs
of recent years were the ‘Coaches at the Top’ and ‘Talent Coaches’
programs, which provided financial support to 137 coaches by
2010.
■
In addition, in 2004 the NOC*NSF established a network consisting
of specialists, who are experts in different fields of sport science,
including nutrition, mental support and medical expertise, amongst
others. The network serves as a knowledge centre providing
support to elite athletes in order to develop their sport performance.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
13
Netherlands
Leisure sport success
Public sport participation in the Netherlands
■
Although sport clubs form the foundation of Dutch sport life, it is
estimated that some one third of people active in sports are not
registered members at any of the clubs: the prevailing trend is that
more and more people choose to pursue sports outside the club
setting.
■
According to the NOC*NSF, in 2013 around 10 million Dutch
people took part in sports with some regularity, while the number of
club members was around 5.7 million. (It should also be noted that
the membership of one person in multiple clubs might result in
duplications).
■
The most recent sport related Eurobarometer survey in the field
found that 64% of the population of the Netherlands engaged in
sporting activities at least once every month (monthly participation
is usually labeled as sport participation rate). The same survey
reports that 35% of the population takes part in some kind of sport
1-2 times a week, which might be considered relatively high as
compared to other European countries. In addition, around 84% of
the Dutch population participates in physical activities outside of
sports (e.g. dancing, gardening, etc.).
Top 10 sports practiced by the population
(aged 6-79 years; in %)
1999
2007
Swimming (33%)
Swimming (36%)
Cycling (15%)
Cycling (23%)
Participation rates in sport (at least once a year) by age groups
Fitness/aerobics (13%)
Fitness/aerobics (22%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Walking (11%)
Running/jogging (18%)
6-11
Roller skating (11%)
Walking (15%)
12-19
Football (10%)
Football (14%)
Tennis (9%)
Tennis (10%)
Running/jogging (8%)
Roller skating (7%)
Sailing, Rawing, Canoeing,
Surfing (6%)
Sailing, Rawing, Canoeing,
Surfing (7%)
Skating (6%)
Skating (6%)
20-34
35-49
50-64
65-79
1987
1995
2007
Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009]
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009]
14
Netherlands
Sport Agenda 2016
Summary of Sport Agenda 2016 – „Sport Inspires!”
Raising the sport participation rate
■
This is the fourth overall sport policy encompassing goals of both
the elite and the grassroots, leisure level. It was accepted at the
General Meeting of the NOC*NCF on 24 January 2012 and it runs
until 2016, for a full Olympic cycle.
■
The NOC*NSF’s strategy to increase participation is based on
making sports even more accessible and attractive to the general
public and creating a strong demand for regular sporting activities.
■
■
The Agenda sets out ambitious goals regarding many fields of
sports. In tight cooperation with the VWS and the sport federations,
the NOC*NCF aims to achieve significant improvement in terms of
sport participation and elite sports success.
This goal requires the cooperation of NOC*NSF, local
municipalities and local sport providers (schools, sport clubs etc.) to
work out efficient programs and projects.
■
There are specific target groups to the Agenda, like long-term
unemployed, and socially isolated people which require more
attention.
■
One of the most ambitious goals of this part of the Agenda is the
aim to increase sport participation of people with disabilities by
10%. In order to achieve this, a nationwide network will be
established to match sporting possibilities and needs of disabled
people.
■
Furthermore, the Sport Agenda emphasizes the importance of best
practices and good governance in sports. For example, as a
„condition to overall success”, at least 80% of Dutch sport
federations should achieve their sporting and organizational
development goals.
Main goals of the Agenda
Increasing the sport
participation rate of the
general public to 75%
Breaking Into the top 10
■
Upon realizing that sporting nations spend more and more on elite
sports, the NOC*NSF worked out a policy plan to make the
allocation of funds more effective and targeted at sports that have
real chance of success.
■
The Netherlands has only a handful of sports that quite regularly
achieve good results at the Olympics and World Cups. The most
obvious example is speed skating in which they have won almost
every Winter Olympics medal for the country. However, previously
only one quarter of the funding went to „successful” sports.
■
To help the situation, Sport Agenda 2016 introduced the so called
Top 10 focus criteria. In order to be eligible for significant funding,
sport federations has to work out a project with many requirements.
In addition to the need to have good chances of winning medals,
federations has to develop a full-time talent development program.
■
The Agenda focuses on every aspect of a sport, from good
governance through elite facilities to professional preparation.
Increasing sport club
membership rate to 35%
Be among the top 10 sporting
countries in the world
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
15
Netherlands
Key takeaways
Population:
Bottom-up organisation of sport
Holistic approach to athlete assistance
16 800 000
■ Sport clubs form the basis of sport in the Netherlands.
■ There are four National Sport Centres and five other
They are mainly run and funded by volunteers and
provide a wide range of sporting opportunities for
everyone.
Training Centres where elite athletes can train and use
services of sport experts.
Sport participation rate:
64%
Sport club members:
5 700 000
Funding for elite sport:
EUR 35 million (per year)
Funding for leisure sport:
EUR 80 million (per year)
■ Accommodation is provided at these facilities, enabling
■ The clubs and their facilities are easily accessible, there
is one inside a 5 km radius from the home of every Dutch
citizen.
the athletes to fully concentrate on their sport career.
These centers also help them with their education.
■ The underlining idea is that an athlete should be
■ Clubs are heavily subsidised by the state; municipalities
supported in all aspects of his or her life to reach their
sporting potential.
spend over EUR 1 billion each year on public sport
facilities initiatives.
Strong relations with the corporate sector
All-encompassing sport policy
■ National organizations, federations and sport clubs all
■ The Sport Agenda for each Olympic cycle of 4 years set
have many corporate partners, which are offered various
level sponsor packages for each Olympic cycle.
out the working framework for all important stakeholders
in Dutch sport.
■ Over the years many large Dutch companies have started
■ Goals are set in sport participation, management and
to support both elite and community sport as they realised
the benefits of being affiliated with sporting success.
elite sport performance. These are clear and attractive
enough for effective communication and help securing
the necessary public support behind them.
■ The best example is Heineken House, the traditional
headquarters of the Dutch Olympic team
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
16
Norway
Introduction and scope of the study
Main attributes of sport in Norway
■
■
■
Highlisghts f Norwegian sport
Norway is a relatively small country in Northern Europe with an area of
385,178 km2. Due to its vast oil and natural gas reserves and low
population, the country is one of the wealthiest nations in terms of
nominal GDP per capita.
Population of Norway
5 136 700
People active in sport1
3 850 000
The Norwegian welfare state promotes the importance of physical activity
among its citizens. Numerous public facilities and sport clubs provide for
the high rate of sports participation which is well above the European
average.
Weekly sports participation rate1
Since cold weather dominates Norway for a large part of the year it is
not surprising that winter sports are very popular. The most prominent
among them is skiing. Team sports, such as handball and football are
also widely practiced.
Sport club members2
■
The sports system of the country is often cited as a prime example.
Norway has managed to simultaneously develop a successful elite sports
and a physical activities program designed for every citizen.
■
In spite of the limited resources available, Norwegian athletes regularly
achieve excellent results at Olympic Games, while the development of
„sport for all” policies are also in the focus of every sports stakeholder.
This healthy balance is quite rare in today’s international sports scene as
the majority of nations give priority to the pursue of Olympic medals.
■
Whereas community sport has always been important for the
government, the catalyst for progress for elite sport has been the
establishment of a dedicated organization (Olympiatoppen) in the late
1980s, which was later integrated into the NIF. Recent changes
significantly affected the funding structure of sport.
Sport clubs2
National sports federations3
75%
11 793
2 047 000
54
Source: KPMG Analysis
Note: (1) People taking part in physical activity at least weekly
(Norsk Monitor 2009)
(2) Sport clubs that are members of the NIF.
(3) Federations that are part of the NIF structure.
The scope of the study
Our assessment of sports in Norway covers the following topics:
■
Governance structure and main institutions
■
Funding structure
■
Elite sport performance
■
Community sport
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
1
Norway
Governance structure and main institutions (1/5)
The Norwegian government
provides the financial
stability for the sport sector,
IOC
Norwegian Government
but it does not directly
influence the strategic
decisions of the main sport
stakeholders.
Norwegian Olympic
Committee and
Confederation of Sports
(NIF)
Ministry of Culture
The most significant
member of the multi-level
structure is the NIF as every
other organization is
affiliated with it. NIF has a
Olympiatoppen
high level of autonomy and
is responsible for the
allocation of public funds to
federations and clubs.
County Sport
Associations
National Sport
Federations
Every stakehdoler is
responsible for both elite
and community sport
delivery, except for
Olympiatoppen which
Local Sport Councils
County Sport
Federations
focuses only on the support
of Olympic sports.
Sport Clubs
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
2
Norway
Governance structure and main institutions (2/5)
The role of the government
The Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF)
■
The first governmental body related to sport was established in
1946. The Sport Office was under the management of the Ministry
of Social Issues. The structure has undergone some
reorganizational waves, currently the Department of Sport is part of
the Ministry of Culture.
■
The NIF (Norges Idrettsforbund) is the highest authority in
Norwegian sport. Its main predecessor, the Norwegian Confederation
of Sports was established in 1946, as a representative for both
‘’special’’ (elite) and mass/sport federations. Later, in 1996 it merged
with the Norwegian Olympic Committee creating the NIF.
■
Since the Second World War the government‘s involvement in the
sports sector was mainly characterized by the provision of sporting
facilities that are meant to be accessible to everyone.
■
■
During the 1990s the government delivered two White Papers on
sport that are still influential today. They make ‘’sport and physical
activity for all’’ the ultimate goal of the public sport policy. It means
that decisions about elite sport are not in the government’s
jurisdiction.
It operates as an independent, apolitical organisation that is largely
autonomous from the government. The NIF is an umbrella body for
lower level sport organisations in the country.
■
The main task of the NIF is to allocate public funding (lottery
revenues) to sport federations and to represent their interests at
the national level. Since the merger it also fulfills the role of the
national Olympic Committee and it selects participants and leaders for
the Games.
■
The NIF is at the top of the sporting structure of Norway. It consists
of 19 County Sport Associations (CSA) and 54 National Sport
Federations. All sport clubs are members of NIF, they constitute the
foundation of the organisation.
■
The organisation is a membership-based authority with a structure that
mirrors the democratic principles and values of the Norwegian
culture. Led by the Executive Board, it cooperates with the Department
of Sport in devising a general sport policy which functions as a
framework for the member organisations named above. The Board
comprises of a president, two vice-presidents, eight Board members,
Norwegian IOC members and one representative of NIF employees .
■
The main decision-making body is the General Assembly, held once
every four years. Apart from the Executive Board it has 75 delegates
from regional sports bodies (CSA), 75 from the national federations and
three athlete representatives (one for Olympic, Paralympic and other
sports). The largest CSAs and federations are eligible to name
additional delegates.
■
■
Today the Department of Sport is responsible for allocating
funds for sport facility development. The source of financing is
the state/owned gambling company, Norsk Tipping (refer to page ).
The Department also transfers money to NIF to cover its
administration and management expenses and also to provide
funds for sport federations.
The Norwegian government ensures a stable financial background
for the sports sector. Local authorities also support their own
sporting life.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
3
Norway
Governance structure and main institutions (3/5)
Olympiatoppen (OLT)
■
The OLT was established in 1988 as a central coordinating
organisation for the development of elite sport after the government
realized that better conditions were required if they wanted to achieve
good results at major sporting events.
■
The catalyst for change was that they did not win a single gold medal
at the 1988 Winter Olympics. Being awarded the 1994 Games was
also a major motivation. The positive effects of the new structure
became clear when Norway won 26 medals in 1994 compared to the
total of 5 in 1988.
■
In 1996 the OLT was integrated into the NIF and currently functions as
a quasi-autonomous operative arm of the umbrella organisation. It
has complete responsibility for results in Norwegian elite sport.
■
OLT is tasked with allocating and awarding grants to elite athletes.
These are aimed at athletes who otherwise lack sufficient funding
from other sources. There are three categories: A, B and
Development (under the age of 24). Category „A” athletes are those
who have won Olympic medals or finished in the top three at World
Championships. „B” athletes are seen as having the potential to
achieve the same results, while the potential future stars are put in
the Development class. The maximum grant level each year is NOK
500 000 (EUR 60 000) for every category.
■
Olympic duties are delegated to OLT from the NIF, where an
individual department is in charge of the preparation for the Games.
■
The OLT also provides medical support and a wide range of
expert services to elite sport persons, such as training experts,
physiologists, nutritionists etc. Such support is offered at the four
Olympic Sports Centres, which are financed by the government and
operated by the OLT. They combine scientific and technical resources
to enhance the performance of Norwegian athletes. National teams
also often train at these centers.
■
■
The most successful Olympic Sports Centre is the one in Trondelag,
where 15 out of 23 Olympic medalists prepared and trained prior to
the 2010 Winter Games.
The first one was established in Oslo in 1986, two years prior to the
founding of OLT.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Joy of Sport – For All (Sport Policy Document 2011-2015)
■
The latest, overarching sport policy was agreed upon in 2010. It
sets out goals for a 4-year period. It was developed by the NIF
in cooperation with the Department of Sport.
■
It serves as the primary sport policy of Norway and provides a
general framework for all sport stakeholders. Two major
challenges were identified in it: 1) Making sport more open and
inclusive 2) Securing long-term financing and infrastructure.
■
The policy says that the development of Norwegian sport
should be knowledge and value-based and should
emphasize a holistic approach to athletes.
■
Numerous measures are broadly defined in the document:
■ strengthening local and national financing,
■ supporting facility development,
■ increasing the number of sport club members,
■ ensuring access to sporting opportunities for children
and disabled groups
■
Olympic Sports Centres have built strong relationships with
public high schools operating in their area. With the support of
the OLT, the schools launch sports education programmes focused
on a single sport, such as skiing, biathlon, Nordic combined etc..
Experienced, well-educated coaches take part in the project which
has proved to be very effective.
■
It should also be noted that the OLT also offer coaching
programmes in cooperation with NTNU (Norwegian University of
Science and Technology). Researchers work with trainers and
athletes to develop optimal training programmes and continuously
improve the equipment.
4
Norway
Governance structure and main institutions (4/5)
County Sport Associations (CSA)
National and County Sport Federations
■
There are 19 different counties (regions) in Norway. These are
administrative units with limited jurisdiction below the national level.
■
■
Each county has its own CSA which acts as a collective body for
sport within the area. It oversees the implementation of sport
policy and carries out the role of NIF in the county.
Each sport federation is a national governing body for one sport.
There are currently 54 of them. Many set up federations at the
county level, because they had too many member clubs to be able
to manage them via a single entity.
■
Federations have main responsibility for the elite sport activities in
their sport. However, with the emergence of the OLT, their role is
not as significant as it was before. Previously they played a key role
in distributing funding to elite athletes, but that activity was taken
over by NIF through OLT.
■
Company sport is popular in Norway. Many workplaces promote
active lifestyles to their employees. There are more than 4000
company sport clubs that are overseen by a single sport federation.
■
According to Statistics Norway, a federation has an average of
27,000 members. By far the largest one is the Norges
Fotballforbund, the federation for football. In the second to fifth
place are skiing, golf, handball and gymnastics in the ranking.
Excluding the company sport federation, the five biggest
organisations cover half of all memberships.
■
Similar to the NIF, they are democratically governed. County sport
federations and local sport councils all have voting rights at the
meetings of a CSA.
Local Sport Councils (LSC)
■
■
Norway’s 19 counties are further divided into a total of 430
municipalities. Those that provide a home for more than three sport
clubs are required to set up an LSC.
Councils are administered by the CSAs and are tasked with
organising the development of local sport facilities. They also
serve as an important coordinating tool for the sport clubs operating
in the same municipality.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
5
Norway
Governance structure and main institutions (5/5)
The role of sport clubs
■
■
■
There are around 12,000 sport clubs in Norway which are members
of a national sport federation, a county sport association or both.
This implies that all of them are affiliated to the NIF, the lead
umbrella organisation of Norwegian sport.
Clubs fulfill an important role as they provide sporting
opportunities for the general public. Their key characteristic is
inclusiveness as all groups (children, women etc.) of society and
age groups are generally welcomed.
The number of memberships has increased rapidly since 1950,
currently there are more than 2 million active memberships.
Although people can become members of more than one club, this
is still a remarkable achievement.
■
Similarly to other sport organisations, clubs act according to
democratic principles. Nine out of ten Norwegian clubs reportedly
have an executive board and hold annual general meetings.
■
Typically the majority of them are relatively small, one third have
less than 50 members. Most of them concentrate on a single sport.
Sports generally pursued in a club setting are skiing, golf and
football.
■
■
The number of sport club memberships over the years
2 500 000
2 000 000
1 500 000
1 000 000
500 000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: Ministry of Culture
The size of sport clubs in Norway
No. of members
Share of all clubs (%)
Less than 50
31
The most important resource is the voluntary work of
members. More than two-third of club activities (coaching,
maintenance, management etc.) are performed by volunteers free
of charge.
50-99
19
100-149
12
150-199
8
Sport clubs are dependent on member-generated income
(membership fees). Local authorities (municipalities) are not
obliged by a specific law to support clubs in their area, but
commonly they do so. The most notable form of support is making
sport facilities available for free. Other types of support are
explained in the funding section.
200-249
5
250-299
4
300 and more
Average number of members per club
22
214
Source: NIF (2004)
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
6
Norway
Funding structure (1/2)
State funding for sport
Two distinctive sources can be identified: the national government and
the local municipalities. The majority of public funds at national level
come from the profit of the state-owned gambling company, while
municipalities allocate funds for sport from their own revenues (taxes)
and state transfers.
Lottery funding
■
■
■
Since the establishment of Norsk Tipping in 1948, the goal was to
channel the profit of the company into the culture, research and sport
sectors. Initially one third of the surplus was allocated for sport
purposes.
After some changes to the distribution system, sport now receives
45.5% of the gaming profits. The estimated revenue from this
source of recent years are shown in the table to the right. The Sport
Policy Document 2011-2015 set the target that sport should receive at
least 64%.
Apart from this, Norsk tipping introduced a direct way to support
grassroots sport in 2009. Players of lottery and other gambling
activities can decide that 5% of the value of their bet should go to a
voluntary organisation of their choice. In 2011 sport clubs recorded
around EUR 24 million from this scheme.
Value Added Tax (VAT) Compensation
■
In 2010 the Norwegian government introduced a system of VAT
compensation for NGOs after purchases of goods and services.
■
The sport organisations received the following amounts from this
source in 2011:
Lottery funds for sport purposes since 2000 (in EUR million)
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Sport clubs have also been able to apply for VAT compensation
regarding sport facility constructions since 2010.
The key
requirement is that the facility must be completed. The government
allocated EUR 7.5 million for this purpose in the budget of 2012. So
far this has helped over 200 facilities.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
169,2
148,8
144
144
144
124,8
102
98,4
97,4
Source: Ministry of Culture
How are the lottery funds distributed? (in EUR million)
Recipient
2001
2006
2011
Norwegian Olympic Committee
and Confederation of Sports
34,74
41,88
67,92
Local sport clubs
9,888
14,4
18,72
Children and youth sport
initiatives
0,216
0,624
1,44
Source: Ministry of Culture
■
Support for the NIF covers the cost of the umbrella
organization’s management and operation and also the funds
that the NIF distributes among the national sport federations.
■
The public funds amount to around 20% of an average
federation’s total income. These are usually not earmarked,
meaning that the organizations spend their funding according to
their own strategic plans. Federations spend around 20-40% of
their budget on elite sport.
■ Sport clubs – EUR 19.8 million
■ Sport federations and county sport associations – EUR 6 million
■ NIF – EUR 1.2 million
■
187,7
189,6
187,2
187,2
7
Norway
Funding structure (2/2)
Funding by local municipalities
■
■
■
■
Local authorities are the main contributors to local sport. They raise
revenues from local taxes and also receive transfers from the
national level.
Expenditure on local sport clubs in 2011
(in EUR million, excluding capital expenditures)
Source
Municipalities provide grants for sport clubs and teams operating
in their area and they also finance the construction and
maintenance of public sport facilities. They channel large amounts
into sport, although this is not a statutory obligation.
The scale of support is influenced by the performance of the local
economy, meaning that there can be significant differences
between the sport policies of different Norwegian cities.
Amount
Grassroots interest from lottery players
23.3
VAT compensation
19.8
Local activity funds (lottery money)
18.7
TOTAL
61.8
Source: Ministry of Culture / Norks Tipping
The income structure of local sport clubs is shown in the table on
the right.
Other sources of income for sport
■
It is obvious that for the most part Norwegian sport is dependent
on the financial support provided by the government at national and
local levels. However, there are other important sources that have
to be mentioned.
■
In spite of growing state subsidies, sport clubs still receive more
than 60% of their yearly budget from their members in the form of
membership fees. In addition, the voluntary work done by
members is vital for their operations. The financial value of the work
done by volunteers is very difficult, if not impossible. Federations
and other national sport organisations also receive a large chunk of
their income from membership fees paid.
■
Revenues from corporate partners through sponsorship deals
are becoming more and more important. This type of funding is
present at every level of the sport system, from the NIF through to
the sport clubs. Sponsorship and advertising income generate
around 30% of an average sport club’s budget.
■
The sale of commercial and broadcasting rights is not yet
centralized. Sport organisations are more or less free to negotiate
deals for themselves.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
8
Norway
Elite sport performance
Norway’s Olympic history
■
■
■
■
Most successful Olympic sports
The country has a long and successful Olympic tradition. Norway
has participated at every Olympics since 1908 except for the 1980
event in Moscow when they joined the American boycott. The
country has hosted the Winter Olympics on two occasions, in 1952
(Oslo) and 1994 (Lillehammer).
Norway has won 148 medals at the Summer and 329 at the Winter
Olympics, the latter puts them at the top of the all-time winter
medal table. They are one of only three nations that has performed
better in winter sports than in summer sports..
Disappointing results in the 1980s led to increased attention on elite
sport and contributed to the establishment of Olympiatoppen. A
positive climate was created for Olympic sports, albeit limited
resources were available. Since the Games in 1994 Norway has
usually finished in the first four places in winter sports. Summer
sports are always expected to deliver 4-7 medals.
However, Turin 2006 showed that this success can be volatile.
Given Norway’s small population, maintaining performance is an
achievement in itself and it makes the comeback at the 2010 and
2014 Games even more spectacular.
Medal count at the Summer Olympic Games
Sport
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
1
Cross-county skiing
40
38
29
107
2
Speed skating
25
28
27
80
3
Sailing
17
11
3
31
4
Biathlon
15
12
8
35
5
Shooting
13
8
11
32
6
Nordic combined
13
9
8
30
7
Alpine skiing
10
9
10
29
8
Ski jumping
9
9
12
30
9
Athletics
7
5
8
20
10
Canoeing
6
4
4
14
Source: Olympic.Org
Medal count at the Winter Olympic Games
18
16
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Gold
14
12
10
11
Silver
13
Bronze
11
10 10
10
7
8
6
4
2
8
4
2
1
2
2
3
4
5
3
5
5
3
3
0
1
1
2
5
9
9
6
5
10
8
5
2
1
1
0
Barcelona Atlanta 1996
1992
Source: Olympic.Org
Sydney
2000
Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
London
2012
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Lillehammer Nagano
1994
1998
Source: Olympic.Org
Salt Lake
City 2002
Turin 2006
Vancouver Sochi 2014
2010
9
Norway
Community sport
Statistics
■
Sport for recreational or competitive purposes plays a very
important part in the everyday life of Norwegians. Norsk Monitor
surveys the quality of life of the population and asks their views on
different issues every year. According to their findings, around
75% of the population engages in physical activities in the form
of training or exercise at least once a week or more often.
■
The proportion of people active in sport has increased steadily in
the past decades (see graph below). Sporty and healthy lifestyle
in general are encouraged by the government. The high number
of public sport facilities and the many many clubs provide sporting
opportunities for everyone. In some regions there is a sport club for
every 53 head of inhabitant. Self-organized, outdoor activities such
as hiking, are also very popular.
■
The general trend is that the proportion of people who never
exercises is dropping while the average time spent on sports is
increasing.
■
However, there are some troubling signs; for example more and
more Norwegians are overweight and only 20% of the total
population meets the recommended amount of daily physical
activity (30 minutes).
Top 10 physical activities practiced by women and men in 2007
(% of population)
Women
Men
1
Hiking in the forest (70.4%)
2
Skiing (35.,2%)
3
Cycling to work (31.4%)
Cycling to work (32.7%)
4
Strenght training (30.8%)
Strenght training (30.2%)
5
Hiking in the mountains (29.1%)
50
6
Swimming (24.2%)
40
7
Jogging (20.9%)
8
Gymnastics/Aerobics (20.5%)
9
Cycling as exercise (18.4%)
10
Dance (16.7%)
Physical activity in the form of training and exercise (1985-2007)
Proportion of people taking part at least once a week
90
80
70
60
Men
30
20
10
0
Women
1985
1991
1997
2003
2007
Source: Kjønn i endring – en tilstandsrapport om norsk idrett (2009)
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Hiking in the forest (62.4%)
Skiing (38.7%)
Hiking in the mountains (28.7%)
Jogging (27.8%)
Cycling as exercise (22.3%)
Cross country (18.3%)
Football (18.3%)
Swimming (17.3%)
Source: Kjønn i endring – en tilstandsrapport om norsk idrett (2009)
10
Norway
Key takeaways
Population:
Centralized sport system
5 100 000
■ The Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of
Sport participation rate:
75% (taking part every week)
Sport club members:
2 000 000
State of the art elite sport facilities
■ The Olympic Sport Centres look after every professional
Sports (NIF) is the highest authority of the sporting
need of an elite athlete.
structure. It is not directly influenced by the government.
The organization devises the Norwegian sports policy ■ High quality, expert services are provided in physiology,
training, coaching etc.
and sets the goals for the future.
■ Good relationships have been established with secondary
■ The main benefit of the system is that responsibilities are
schools and specific sport curriculums have been
clear at national and lower levels alike.
introduced at many of them.
■ Every task that is related to the support of elite (Olympic)
sports is delegated to the Olympiatoppen, which functions
autonomously within the NIF.
Funding for elite sport:
EUR 68 million (per year)
Funding for leisure sport:
EUR 50 million (per year)
Stable revenue source
A sporting nation
■ The proceeds of the national lottery are the main source
■ Sports and physical activities are an integral part of the
of financing for sport.
everyday life of Norwegians.
■ The share of lottery profits channeled into the sport sector
■ Numerous sport clubs, public sport facilities provide the
is increasing, the goal is to reach around 65% within the
next few years.
setting for exercise. Outdoor activities are also very
popular.
■ Participants of lottery and other gambling games can
■ Local authorities support their own sport life, although
choose a sport organization that directly receive 5% of
their bet. This scheme has proved to be very successful
since its introduction in 2009.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
they don’t have a lawful obligation to do so.
11
Denmark
Introduction and scope of the study
Main attributes of sport in Denmark
■
■
■
Highlights of the Danish sport scene
Denmark is a relatively small country in Northern Europe with an
area of 42,915.7 km2. It is generally associated with high living
standards as the country usually ranks among the wealthiest nations
in terms of nominal GDP per capita.
Population of Denmark
5,584,758
People active in sport1
3,960,000
The majority of Danish population regularly takes part in physical
activities, their participation rate is well above the European
average. Many of them pursue sports in a club setting; around one
fifth is a member of a sport club. The past 50 years brought major
changes as sport became an integral part of the everyday life of
people of all ages.
Monthly sport participation rate2
Another characteristic of the Danish sport landscape is the high
number of volunteers who manage the day-to-day running of clubs
and work as coaches. This type of bottom-up organization has
strong historical roots.
■
The most popular team sports in the country, both in terms of
participation and TV viewership are football and handball. The
origins of the latter can be traced back to Denmark. There are also
numerous individual sports with large participant bases, including
golf, tennis and swimming.
■
Denmark is a prime example for establishing an effective system for
community sports and it provides several good practices. They are
also quite successful in elite sports, given the small size of the
country. The slight drop in the performance of Danish athletes and
teams in the 1970s led to major changes. The government boosted
the support for sport federations through increased funding and the
reorganization of the institutional background.
Sport clubs3
Sport club members3
National sport federations
71%
16,000
~2,000,000
61
Source: KPMG Analysis
Note: (1) People taking part at least once a month
Eurobarometer survey (2009)
(2) Ranked 3rd out of the 27 EU member countries in 2009.
(3) DIF Website
■
The reform efforts paid off as Danish athletes started to win more
and more medals at international competitions and they have deliver
respectable medal counts at the past five Summer Olympics.
The scope of the study
Our assessment of sports in Denmark covers the following topics:
■ Governance structure and main institutions
■ Funding structure
■ Elite sport performance
■ Community sport
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
1
Denmark
Governance structure and main institutions (1/6)
Although the government of
Community sport
Elite sport
Denmark rarely intervenes in
in the economy and society,
IOC
(as they leave it to the
private and civil sector),
Denmark Government
interestingly, elite sport has
its own state institutions
(Team Danmark and Sport
Event Denmark) and specific
legislation.
Danish Company
Sports Federation
(DFIF)
Danish
Gymnastics and
Sports
Associations
(DGI)
National Olympic
Committee and
Sports
Confederation
(DIF)
Ministry of Culture
The chart shows the various
organization’s main focus.
The government is involved
in both community and elite
sport through a number of
Workplaces
National sport
federations
Local
municipalities
institutions.
National sport
federations
Team Danmark
and
Sport Event Denmark
Sport clubs
Sport clubs
Source: KPMG Analysis
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
2
Denmark
Governance structure and main institutions (2/6)
Major changes in the system
The role of the government
■
The government of Denmark has concentrated on the recreational
aspects of sport for a long time. These efforts were supported by
the system of numerous local sport clubs that were established on
a voluntary, democratic basis. Elite and Olympic sports were not a
main concern at the national level, but the Danish athletes still
performed relatively well at international events.
■
The state is a significant player in sport as it funds various bodies
and works out the legislative background. Sport is an important
theme both at the national and local level. The Ministry of Culture
handles the overarching, nationwide sport-related issues.
■
■
This changed around the 1970s when international competition
between countries at the professional level intensified and Denmark
started to lag behind.
■
The necessary changes did not come from within the sporting
society, but from the government. The Advancement of Elite
Sports Act was passed by the Danish Parliament in 1984 with
the clear goal to provide athletes with better training and funding
opportunities to be able to deliver good results at major
tournaments. However, it was emphasized that it should happen in
a sustainable way, not „at every cost”. Initiatives thus also aimed to
help athletes prepare for the labour market and help their
education.
The policies worked out by the Ministry serve as guidelines for
sport organizations. As the management of elite sport is delegated
to Team Danmark, the government mainly oversees the
development of community sport and is directly involved in the
promotion of increased sport participation.
■
The Sport for All Committee Report by the Ministry in 2009
identified the cultural, social and health dimension of the positive
effect sport has on the society. In this regard the report set out clear
priorities for the Ministry to increase and maintain a high level of
participation in the Danish population and then provide enough
sporting opportunities for children, young people and socially
vulnerable groups. To achieve these goals the government works in
close collaboration with the national sport organizations.
■
Furthermore, municipalities provide direct and indirect
support for sport clubs at the local level.. According to the Act
on Support for Sport, Culture and Leisure Activities, municipal
authorities are obliged to support sport clubs. This is discussed in
detail on page 9.
■
The 1984 law also established Team Danmark and all
responsibilities regarding the coordination and management of elite
sports was transferred to this new organization.
More details are on page 4.
■
The aforementioned actions more or less still define the sporting
life of Denmark today. Whereas Team Danmark is clearly the most
important player in elite sports, responsibility for community sports
rest with numerous organizations.
■
In addition to the extensive voluntary sport club system which
remains the foundation of ‘sport for all’, there are national umbrella
organizations, such as National Olympic Committee and Sports
Confederation of Denmark and the Danish Gymnastics and Sports
Associations that influence this sector. The national government
sees community sport as an ideal tool for the promotion of
healthy lifestyle, social cohesion and recreation.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
3
Denmark
Governance structure and main institutions (3/6)
In Denmark there are three
National organizations
Danish Company Sports Federation (DFIF)
different, nationwide
National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark (DIF)
■
umbrella organizations that
■
The DFIF has an even more specified mandate than the other
two national organizations as they coordinate and encourage
physical exercise through workplaces.
■
Through various programs and initiatives DFIF would like to
increase the number of companies that provide sporting
opportunities for their employees by setting up sport clubs.
■
The two organizations merged in 1993 to create DIF as a collective
body of sport federations. Nowadays it consists of 61 sport federations
with more than 1.9 million members distributed between over 9.000
sport clubs.
DFIF has 80 local sport associations that make up 8 regional
divisions. Around 8.000 company sport clubs with over 300.000
members are affiliated with the organization.
■
As the biggest among the three national organizations, DIF is
responsible for both elite and community sport at club levels and acts
as a representative of the elite athletes. However, its funding activities
are smaller in scale than that of the government’s. They provide
subsidies for Team Danmark, the organization they work with in many
initiatives.
It is indirectly funded by the government through proceeds of the
lottery as the work carried out by DFIF fits well the policy goal of
increased sport participation. In addition to this, corporate
sponsorships are also important.
Sport Event Denmark (Sport Event DK)
are independent from the
government. Each has its
own jurisdiction and
membership base, but
responsibilities sometimes
■
overlap.
■
Sport federations and clubs
can be members in more
than one of them.
The Danish Sports Federation was founded in 1896 by 18 sport
federations. The primary aim was to devise common rules and create
proper conditions for sport in Denmark. The government started to
subsidize the organization in 1903 with an annual payment of DKR
3,000. Meanwhile, the Danish Olympic Committee (DOC) was
established in 1905 to organize the country’s participation at the
Olympic Games.
■
One of the practices worth noting about the Danish sport system
is that they established an organization entirely dedicated to
bringing major sporting events to the country. Sport Event DK was
established and is funded by the government and the DIF.
■
Working in collaboration with national sport federations and the
proposed host cities, Sport Event DK gives expert advice and
financial support. Logistics and the promotion of the event is the
responsibility of the host city, while the federations handle
commercial matters.
■
According to their statistics they have helped the bid and
preparation for more than 250 international sport events, including
conferences congresses, European and World Championships.
75 percent of the bids assisted by them has been successful.
■
The vision is to make Denmark a preferred host country for
sport events of major significance. This not only raises their
profile on the international sport scene, but also helps the
development of facilities and further promotes sport participation.
Danish Gymnastics and Sports Associations (DGI)
Together they form the Joint
■
Sports Council (Idrættens
Fællesråd), which serves as
a place where common
issues can be discussed.
■
■
The origins of the DGI can be traced back to the 1860s, to the
shooting and gymnastics associations in rural Denmark. The
organization in its current form was founded in 1992. It operates as an
representative for amateur level and recreational sports. DGI isn’t
involved in elite sport issues.
Another distinctive characteristic of the DGI is that it consists of 15
regional departments, each responsible for their own areas. Although
the regions are autonomous to some extent, their ultimate goal is
common: encouraging sport club membership among the public.
As of 2012 DGI had over 6.000 sport clubs with a combined
membership of 1.5 million. These clubs provide the setting for the
sport participation DGI promotes. A typical DGI local club has several
sport as well as non-sport (cultural) activities.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
4
Denmark
Governance structure and main institutions (4/6)
Team Danmark (Team DK)
■
■
■
■
■
■
Core services for federations and athletes by Team Danmark
The government set up Team DK in 1984 with the Advancement of Elite
Sport Act to provide support for the country’s professional athletes. The
three decades that has passed since saw the organization become the
most important source of power in Danish elite sports. The performance
of Danish athletes at international events became much better during
this period, meaning that the restructuring was justified. In recent years
they won 40-50 medals at major tournaments.
Financial support
Access to training
facilities
Expert sport services
(physiology, nutrition,
medicine etc.)
Working career
opportunities
Team DK’s main responsibility is the overall planning of elite-level
sports. It also allocates funding between (mostly Olympic) sport
federations and maintains a system of experts in the field of
Research and
professional sport services. The organization’s approach to athlete
Media and
professional
support is best described as holistic as the civil life and career and
communication
development
personal needs of an athlete are also emphasized. Currently over 30
federations and 1100 athletes are financed by them.
The support system
The amendment of the Act on Elite Sport in 2004 gave new tasks to ■ Team DK divides the supported athletes into three categories,
Team DK regarding talent development. They cooperate with
based mainly on their chance of success on the international level.
The category decides the range of core services available for each
federations to develop comprehensive strategies for various age
beneficiary.
groups. The DIF works out the general policy in this field.
 Team Danmark Athletes: the members of this category are on
The government finances the activities of Team DK through the
the periphery of the senior national teams with potential to
proceeds of Danish Lottery (Danske Spil). In addition to this, they have
compete at the highest level in the future. They have only
temporary access to the Team DK expert system, but has the
their own revenue channel: Sport One Denmark is a joint marketing
right to use the high-quality training facilities. There are
company established by Team DK and DIF. It sells packages of
currently 644 athletes in this category.
sponsorship deals and TV rights of sport events to companies.
 Elite Athletes: they are regular members of the national teams
Another important partner of Team DK is the Ministry of Culture. A 4with direct access to the network of experts and all other offered
services (education, employment, training etc.). 314 athletes
year framework agreement is signed by the parties for every Olympic
receive this support.
cycle which sets out the goals and responsibilities regarding the
 World Class Athletes: this is the group with the highest
preparation for the Games. The state subsidy (lottery money) is also
priority. Athletes and teams who have achieved top 8 positions
quantified here. The current framework runs from 2013 until 2016.
in past World Championships or Olympics are members of this
category. They can participate in special seminars and receive
The Minister for Culture and the DIF chooses 4-4 members to the
the highest quality services available. Currently there are 142 of
Board of Team DK. The director of the organization refers to the
them
Board. Athletes and coaches are both represented in the
■ Recently a fourth, specialized category was established for young,
management..
talented athletes as well.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
5
Denmark
Governance structure and main institutions (5/6)
Sport federations
■
■
■
■
Largest federations by number of sport clubs in 2012
There are 61 sport federations in Denmark operating at the national
level who are members of the DIF, the main umbrella organization.
The majority of Denmark’s 16.000 clubs are distributed between
them, although there are some which aren’t affiliated with national
federations.
They handle the elite level responsibilities of their sport, for
example the management of the national teams. Federations
oversee the community and leisure aspect as well. They vary
greatly in size, the Danish Football Federation (DBU) is by far the
largest one in term of number of clubs. Both professional and
amateur clubs are included in the federations.
Most of them cooperate with Team DK, the number one provider of
funding and sport support services. Consultation between different
stakeholders is especially important in talent development
strategies, which is a priority of the 20123-2016 framework of Team
Danmark.
Sport Federation
No. of clubs
1
Football
1.672
2
Handball
894
3
Badminton
569
4
Cycling
557
5
Shooting
461
Source: DIF Website
Sport federations with the highest sport club membership figures
(ranked by 2012 data)
National federations represent Denmark at their respective
international sport federations and their help is also indispensable
in Danish bids for the hosting of major sport events.
Sport Federation
2002
2012
1
Football
293.749
341.342
2
Golf
104.006
157.371
3
Swimming
122.924
155.930
4
Gymnastics
148.384
151.514
5
Handball
134.782
111.675
6
Badminton
128.297
92.717
7
Cycling
72.856
70.690
8
Tennis
73.268
60.921
9
Sailing
55.351
54.780
10
Shooting
46.962
52.228
Source: DIF Website
Only federations of single sports are listed here.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
6
Denmark
Governance structure and main institutions (6/6)
In Scandinavian countries,
Sport club structure
and especially in Denmark,
the dominant form of
■
Over one third of the Danish population, around 2 million people
exercise or play sports regularly in one of the 16.000 active sport
clubs, or associations as they are often called. In some regions
there is a club for every 90 citizen. Sport clubs in Denmark
constitute the foundation of the community sport life. They are
seen as beneficial for social integration, healthty lifestyle and social
interaction.
■
The club system has strong historical and institutional traditions that
determine the current structure. As the well-being of the population
has been a priority for the government for a long time, public
policies boosted the construction of sports facilities. As a result,
Denmark has the highest number of sport facilities per capita in
Europe. This made it easier to organize sports at the local level as
the adequate locations were available.
■
As mentioned earlier, local (municipal) authorities has to
support their local sport life, which takes many forms. For
example, sport clubs can use the local facilities and venues free of
charge. The requirements of clubs are also taken into account
when a municipality decides about its spending on sport. More
information about the governmental support of clubs is on page 9.
organizing physical activities
is the sport club. This
remains true even today
when commercial
organizations (fitness
centers) and unorganized
sport become more common.
The importance of Danish
club system cannot be
overstated. They deliver a
wide range of sporting
opportunities for the general
public and implement the
government’s policy of
increased sport participation.
■
Clubs rely on the voluntary
contribution of their
members, but the sport
■
policy at the local level is
also often adapted to their
needs.
■
However, the most significant resource of sport clubs remain the
voluntary work of members. Around 80% of the clubs are run
entirely by volunteers, starting from coaching duties to positions in
the management. Membership fees also provide a large part of a
club’s budget. Moreover, the Danish culture that has developed
over the years holds voluntary work in high regard.
The strong democratic values and principles of Denmark is
mirrored in the management of clubs. Nine out of ten have an
Executive Board and hold annual meetings. Most of them also have
a written, formal set of rules.
It should be noted that clubs with professional departments that
compete in elite leagues are also counted here. However, more
than 90% of all clubs only concentrate on community sport.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The size of sport clubs in Denmark
No. of members
Share of all clubs (%)
Less than 50
29
50-99
21
100-149
12
150-199
9
200-249
7
250-299
4
300 and more
Average number of members per club
18
181
Source: Ibsen, B. (2006): Foreningsidrætten i Danmark
7
Denmark
Funding structure (1/2)
Elite sport funding
The chart shows the most
important funding relations
in Danish sport.
Contributions from the
corporate sector are
important at every level and
Denmark
Government
National Olympic
Committee and
Sports
Confederation
(DIF)
Direct (state budget) and
indirect (Danish Lottery)
thus not highlighted in this
chart!
National sport
federations
Sport clubs
Team Danmark
The elite sector is primarily
financed by the state, the
contributions are allocated
by two interconnected
organizations. Whereas the
DIF provides basic funding
for federations, Team DK
focuses on the ones with the
largest potential for success.
Community sport
funding
E.g. VAT exemption
Denmark
Government
Sport clubs
The community sport sector
is more simple, as sport
clubs receive various
support from the
government and local
Local
municipalities
E.g. free use of facilities, subsidy
after membership figures
authorities as well.
Source: KPMG Analysis
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
8
Denmark
Funding structure (2/2)
Government Support
■
The state supports sport on many levels. The
government funds many national organizations
through the Ministry of Culture. The state subsidy
almost entirely comes from lottery money.
■
Furthermore, sport clubs with revenues below EUR
6.700 are exempt from value-added tax. The fiscal
legislation also enables volunteers to be reimbursed
for expenses related to working at the sport club for
up to EUR 670 per annum.
■
Sport clubs (elite and community sport alike) are
strongly supported by local, municipal authorities.
They are allowed to use sport facilities free of charge
and receive direct monetary transfers for every
member under the age of 25 in addition to basic
financial support. Around 20% of a club’s revenue
comes from public subsidy.
Corporate Partners
■
Sponsorships and other forms of support are
becoming more and more important to Danish sport
organizations. Team DK is the one which utilized this
source the most effectively by setting up a marketing
company (Sport One Denmark) in cooperation with
the DIF. They offer sponsorship deals for corporate
partners and sell TV rights to major events. However,
the proceeds are modest (EUR 23 million annually)
and go entirely to Team DK.
■
Sport federations and clubs often sign individual
sponsorship agreements, but this source constitutes
only 10% of an average club’s budget.
■
Team DK works in partnership with many domestic
companies which provide flexible work for athletes.
Danish
Sport
Membership Fees and Volunteers
Lottery Funding
■
Established in 1949, Danske Spil A/S is the national
lottery organization. 80% of the company is owned by
the government, while both DIF and DGI owns 10%.
■
The profit from lottery and other forms of gambling is
distributed by various ministries to a number of ‘good
causes’, including sport. Every year DIF and DGI
each receive over EUR 180 million from the
proceeds of Danske Spil. They are the two largest
beneficiaries. Team DK also receives an annual
amount of EUR 16 million. Sport federations are
financed in part by these umbrella organizations.
■
The Danish gambling market was liberalized in 2012,
but Danske Spil remains the most important player in
the market, ensuring the flow of funds for sport. There
are also a number of charity lotteries that make
direct payments to sport organizations.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
■
The voluntary work of members remain the single
most important resource of sport clubs. Membership
fees make up around 70% of an average club’s
income. The cost of annual membership is relatively
low compared with the average salary of Danish
citizens. Most clubs also offer introduction periods for
newcomers to further encourage participation.
■
In addition to these initiatives, health insurance
organizations contribute to the funding of the sport
system by reimbursing part of the membership fee to
a sport or fitness club.
■
The value of voluntary work as a coach or in the
management of a club is hard to express in monetary
terms. However, according to a study by
Eurostratégies (2011) Denmark had the 5th highest
number of sport volunteers in Europe.
9
Denmark
Elite sport performance
Most successful Olympic sports
Denmark’s Olympic history
■
■
■
■
The country participated at the first Summer Olympic of the modern
era in 1896. Since then Denmark has been present at every
Summer Games, save one occasion in 1904. Their participation
record at Winter Olympics is less extensive; they are regular
participants only since 1988.
The performance of Danish athletes is much better in summer
sports; so far they have won only one medal (silver in women’s
team curling event) at Winter Games.
Denmark has won 43 gold and 68 68 silver and 68 bronze medals
at Summer Olympics which ranks them as 27th in the all-time
medal table. However, when compared to the country’s
population, Denmark is the 4th most successful nation in
terms of medals per capita, they are surpassed only by Finland,
Sweden and Hungary, respectively.
Danish athletes have good medal potential across many
disciplines,. The most successful Danish sport person at the
Olympics is Paul Elvstrøm, who won 4 gold medals and
participated at no less than 8 Games.
Medal count of the Summer Olympic Games
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Gold
Silver
Sport
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
1
Sailing
12
9
7
28
2
Cycling
7
8
8
23
3
Rowing
7
4
11
22
4
Shooting
3
10
5
18
5
Canoeing
3
5
5
13
6
Handball
3
0
0
3
7
Swimming
2
5
5
12
8
Boxing
1
5
6
12
9
Badminton
1
2
3
6
=
Fencing
1
2
3
6
Source: Olympic.Org
Medal count of the Winter Olympic Games
Gold
Bronze
Silver
Bronze
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
0
Barcelona Atlanta 1996
1992
Sydney
2000
Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
London
2012
Source: Olympic.Org
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
0
0
Lillehammer
1994
0
0
Nagano
1998
0
0
0
Salt Lake
City 2002
0
0
0
Turin 2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vancouver Sochi 2014
2010
Source: Olympic.Org
10
Denmark
Community sport (1/2)
Participation data
■
The sport participation rate of the general public is regularly measured
by the Danish Institute for Sport Studies. The data shows a
remarkable improvement in the past 50 years. The overall rate
increased from 15% in 1964 to 64% in 2011. This is the share of
people saying that they ‘normally do physical exercise or play sports’.
The Eurobarometer survey of 2009 shows an even bigger share
(71%) of the population taking part in sports at least once a month.
Sport club membership also significantly increased since 1964, from
12 to 41% of the total population.
■
As for the steady increase in the number of participants, it is important
to highlight the significant increase in participation by elderly
people. These positive developments can be mostly traced back to
the Danish welfare state and the emphasis on building sport facilities.
■
The duration of sporting activities is another important factor. 36% of
the adult population spend two-four hours a week with exercise, while
22% spend more than six. This figure also shows a gradual increase
over the past decades.
Sport participation over the years
The share of the population which answered ‘Yes’ to the following
question: ’Do you normally do exercise/sports?’.
80
Top 10 physical activities practiced by the adult (aged over
15) population (Ranked by 2011 data, in %)
Physical activity
2011
1998
1
Jogging/running
31
15
2
Strength training
24
10
3
Walking/hiking
23
15
70
16-19
4
Aerobics/zumba
12
7
60
20-29
5
Gymnastics
12
11
50
30-39
40
6
Swimming
12
18
40-49
30
50-59
7
Spinning
11
0
20
60-69
8
Football
9
6
10
70+
9
Road cycling
8
5
10
Badminton
6
8
0
1964
1998
2007
2011
Source: Danish Institute for Sports Studies – Sport participation in
Denmark 2011 (National Survey)
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: Danish Institute for Sports Studies – Sport participation in
Denmark 2011 (National Survey)
11
Denmark
Community sport (2/2)
Education reform in Denmark
■
In early 2013 the government decided to implement changes in the
Danish education system. Reforms aimed to extend the school day
and required teachers to spend a bigger share of their working
hours with teaching activities. Basically, the new rules reduced the
historical independence of teachers on planning and organization.
■
According to the Act on the Allocation on Financial Support to
General Education municipalities (cities and towns) are obliged to
manage and finance their local schools. The Municipalities
Association of 99 cities decided to close the schools for four weeks
to pressurize The Danish Teacher’s Association when it opposed
the reform. The lock-out and the protests ended in April 2013 and
the changes were passed in June. The primary school reform will
take effect in August 2014, with some elements introduced earlier.
■
Some feared that the longer school hours would mean that children
would no longer have time to take part in activities organized by
sport clubs. However, the DGI and the DIF (umbrella organizations
of clubs) said that they see this as a ‘golden opportunity’ to
improve the relations between schools and clubs.
■
■
■
Top 10 physical activities practiced by children (aged below 15)
(Ranked by the share of ‘physically active’ children taking part)
Physical exercise
Total %
1
Football
46
Voluntary sport clubs are allowed to offer their services and
programmes to primary schools who could implement them in the
school day. The key word is flexibility, as sport clubs would have
to free up capacities to accommodate the needs of the schools.
2
Swimming
38
3
Gymnastics
27
4
Jogging/running
20
In Denmark, schools can apply for a sport-supportive profile.
Such 'profile schools' offer pupils four extra lessons of age-related
training in school time twice a week. This is implemented with the
cooperation of Team DK.
5
Handball
20
6
Rollerskating/skateboard
17
7
Badminton
16
Many schools in Denmark practice ‘morning running’ before
school starts. Moreover, a concept called ‘run and read’ has been
developed. Teachers run with pupils for 20 minutes, and then they
sit down and read for the same amount of time to help the children
to concentrate.
8
Dancing
13
9
Equestrian
10
10
Walking/hiking
10
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Source: Danish Institute for Sports Studies – Sport participation in Denmark
2011 (National Survey)
12
Denmark
Key takeaways
Population:
High participation rates
Centralised elite sport management
5 600 000
■ Sport is part of the culture and the everyday life of the
■ Team Danmark is responsible for the overall planning in
population. Denmark is among the most active nations in
Europe.
the elite level sporting structure. It allocates funding to
national sport federations and athletes thus it has a large
influence on the development of the sport sector.
Sport participation rate:
71%
■ During the past 50 years the participation rate (share of
people who exercise at least monthly) significantly
increased from 15% to 64%.
■ The concentrated approach to Olympic sports has many
positive effects as all the expert knowledge and
professional experience is gathered in one place. This
system also helps to avoid the confusion over
responsibilities among national sport organisations.
■ These positive developments occurred across all age
Sport club members:
2 000 000
Funding for elite sport:
EUR 40 million (per year)
groups, even elderly people are regular sport participants.
■ Physical exercise is also important for school children.
Recent reforms aim to strengthen the relationship of
schools and sport clubs.
■ Team Danmark has its own marketing company (Sport
One Denmark) that serves as a complementary revenue
channel besides public funds.
Voluntary sport club system
Specific organization for event hosting
■ There are more than 2 million club memberships in
■ Sport stakeholders in Denmark realised the potential
Denmark, despite of a population of only 5,5 million.
Funding for leisure sport:
EUR 200 million (per year)
benefits of organising sport events through a single entity
and it led to the establishment of Sport Event Denmark.
■ Sport clubs provide the setting for organised sport for
many people. There is a sport club for roughly every 350
citizen.
■ This body is free of direct influence of other national
organisations. It is mainly responsible for assisting
federations and host cities with the bidding and
preparation for major sport events.
■ Almost every club duty (coaching, management etc.) is
fulfilled by volunteers.
■ Local authorities provide invaluable support for clubs as
■ Governmental and DIF funds are distributed through
they have a statutory obligation to do so. The most
notable form of support is that municipalities allow clubs
to use their sport facilities free of charge.
© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Sport Event Denmark for event hosting purposes.
13