Scarcity of resources in German non-profit sport clubs

Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sport Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr Scarcity of resources in German non-profit sport clubs Pamela Wicker *, Christoph Breuer Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Received 15 July 2009 Received in revised form 30 August 2010 Accepted 3 September 2010 Available online 8 October 2010 Non-profit sport clubs face several challenges including those relating to human resources, financial capabilities, networks and infrastructural elements. In order for clubs to realise their capacity to respond to encountered challenges, it is imperative for club executives and sport federations to have an improved understanding of the clubs’ resource structure and ability to deploy resources. Drawing on the concept of organisational capacity as well as Resource Dependency Theory, the objectives of this study are to provide empirical evidence of the resources of non-profit sport clubs and to show that these clubs are characterised by scarce resources. A large sport club survey in Germany (n = 13,068) was used as the data set for this study. The results indicate that sport clubs seem to have organisational capacity, as they have many different types of resources at their disposal that which can be ascribed to four capacity dimensions. The analysis of longitudinal data reveals changes in resources that indicate particularly human resources (volunteers) and infrastructure resources become more scarce over the course of time. ß 2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Organisational capacity Resource Dependency Theory Volunteers Finances Infrastructure Relationships In Germany non-profit sport clubs hold a dominant position in providing sport opportunities for the population. The German Olympic Sports Confederation (GOSC) states there are more than 90,000 sport clubs comprising more than 27 million memberships (GOSC, 2009). This figure implies that almost one out of three German citizens is a member of a sport club. However, in all probability, the genuine number is lower since one person may be a member of more than one club (i.e. the 27 million members may include some who are multiple club members). Regardless, sport clubs form the base of the voluntary sports system in Germany. At present these sport clubs face many challenges such as increasing competition through commercial sport providers, increasing importance of the non-organised sports sector, decreasing public subsidies, increasing energy costs, and demographic change (Wicker, 2009). The identified challenges can have an influence on the structure and the behaviour of sport clubs because they have to meet the challenges in order to survive. Sport clubs require organisational capacity to be able to fulfil their mission (e.g., Misener & Doherty, 2009). According to Hall et al. (2003, p. 4), ‘‘the overall capacity of a non-profit and voluntary organization to produce the outputs and outcomes it desires is a function of its ability to draw on or deploy a variety of types of organizational capital’’. In other words, organisational capacity can be described as dependent on the interplay of various resources, and can hence be described as a function of the resource structure. Consequently, this paper considers that organisational capacity is composed of several interlinked dimensions to the extent that these dimensions exist within the context of sport clubs. The paper has two main objectives. The first objective is to provide empirical evidence of the resource structure of sport clubs by presenting the resources that can be attributed to each capacity dimension. The analysis is based on data from the * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 221 4982 6099; fax: +49 221 4982 8144. E-mail addresses: wicker@dshs-koeln.de (P. Wicker), breuer@dshs-koeln.de (C. Breuer). 1441-3523/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.09.001 P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 189 2007 Sport Development Report, which is a panel study of German non-profit sport clubs (n = 13,068). As the concept of organisational capacity has been chiefly analysed using qualitative data (e.g., Misener & Doherty, 2009; Sharpe, 2006), this paper purports to contribute to the current research literature using quantitative data. The second objective is to illustrate that German non-profit sport clubs are indeed characterised by scarce resources. For this analysis, subjective and objective scarcity measures will be applied. A subjective scarcity measure will be the perceived severity of a resource problem. The relative changes in resources between 2005 and 2007, which are indicated by indexes, will present an objective scarcity measure. This analysis is carried out using the longitudinal data set from 2005 and 2007 (n = 1648). The paper is structured as follows: first the characteristics of non-profit sport clubs in Germany will be outlined in order to understand non-profit sport clubs as the research context. Then a theoretical framework of the organisational capacity of sport clubs will be presented and resources will be attributed to the capacity dimensions. Subsequently, a literature review about the scarcity of resources will be provided and the method of the sport club survey, the measurement of organisational capacity, and the scarcity measures will be explained. In the results section, the organisational capacity of sport clubs will be illustrated by presenting the resources of each capacity dimension and identifying areas of scarcity. Finally, the results of this study will be discussed and compared with previous studies about the organisational capacity and resources of non-profit sport organisations. The paper concludes with a summary of the results as well as with recommendations for future research directions. 1. Research context Non-profit sport clubs form the base of the voluntary sports system in Germany. These clubs are members of the federal state sports confederation and the national governing bodies of sport. The federal state sports confederation represents the interests of sport clubs in politics and for example, organises the formation of coaches. The national governing bodies of sport also represent the interests of sport clubs and organise competitive sport (e.g., structure of sport leagues, championships). The 16 federal state sports confederations and more than 60 national governing bodies of sport are members of the German Olympic Sports Confederation (GOSC), which is the umbrella organisation of the voluntary sports sector in Germany (GOSC, 2009). Sport clubs are run by their members who want to realise common interests such as sport programmes (Nagel, 2008). This paper focuses on sport clubs and not on national governing bodies of sport. In Germany, sport clubs have 420 members on average with 84.7% of the clubs having up to 800 members and 15.3% having over 800 members. The clubs offer four sports on average and more than half are multi-sport clubs (Breuer & Wicker, 2009). In other countries sport clubs are smaller with, on average, about 230 members in the United Kingdom (Central Council of Physical Recreation [CCPR], 2009) and 133 members in Scotland (Allison, 2001). Moreover, in other countries most clubs are single sport clubs (e.g., Allison, 2001; CCPR, 2007; Scheerder & Vos, 2009). Non-profit sport clubs have several features that distinguish them from for-profit organisations. These features can be subdivided into constitutive and economic features (Horch, 1994b). Constitutive features of non-profit sport clubs are voluntariness of membership, democracy, autonomy, volunteer work, and common interests of the members. Economic features are identity of member roles, non-profit orientation, autonomous revenues, and the principle of solidarity (Horch, 1994b). The non-profit orientation signifies that the primary goal is not the maximisation of profits (Hansmann, 1986). Nevertheless, sport clubs can make profit. In contrast to for-profit organizations however and in accordance with the non-distribution constraint (Hansmann, 1986), they are not allowed to distribute the profit among the members. Non-profit organisations ‘‘might therefore be expected to be less vigilant in eliminating unnecessary expense than are their for-profit counterparts’’ (Hansmann, 1986, p. 79). Club members are required to take a variety of potentially conflicting roles. They are decision-makers, producers, consumers, and at the same time, financiers of the club’s sport supply. These features are important for understanding the structure and behaviour of non-profit sport clubs. Alongside the provision of sport opportunities for the population, sport clubs also have several other desirable functions that are appreciated by the state and the communities. These functions are for example: (1) an integrative function for children, youths, and immigrants, (2) a political function as they are democratic organisations, and (3) and a health function as some sport clubs also offer health sports (Breuer & Haase, 2007; Heinemann & Horch, 1981). Thus, sport clubs are not only important to the German sports system but also to the wellbeing of society. They accomplish tasks such as integration, promotion of democracy, sport supply, and health supply for the population that would otherwise be performed by the state. Because sport clubs contribute to these social purposes they are eligible to receive public subsidies, for example from the federal state or the community (Heinemann & Horch, 1981). Access to public subsidies depends on the policies of the federal state and the community. In some communities non-profit sport clubs receive financial subsidies according to the number of members and/or children and youths. On the federal level, sport clubs can apply for public subsidies if they want to build new facilities or to organise sport events, or when they have elite national athletes (Langer, 2006). In many other countries, for example in Canada (Berrett, 1993; Imagine Canada, 2006), in Greece (Papadimitriou, 1999), and in Belgium (Scheerder & Vos, 2009; Taks, Renson, & Vanreusel, 1999), nonprofit sport clubs or amateur sport programmes also receive public subsidies. Research shows that public subsidies are an important financial resource to non-profit sport organisations (e.g., Breuer & Haase, 2007; Horch, 1994a; Imagine Canada, 2006). Sport organisations often suffer from inadequate financial resources and public subsidies are one way to 190 P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 acquire these much needed resources (e.g., Gumulka, Barr, Lasby, & Brownlee, 2005; Lasby & Sperling, 2007), which in turn enable them to achieve their mandate of providing sport programmes. 2. Theoretical framework In this section the Resource Dependency Theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) and the concept of organisational capacity (Hall et al., 2003) will be used to further understand the scarcity of resources in non-profit sport clubs. The concept of organisational capacity has often been applied to analyse the structure and behaviour of non-profit organisations (e.g., Eisinger, 2002; Gumulka et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2003; Misener & Doherty, 2009). Organisational capacity is a multidimensional concept and refers to an organisation’s potential that can be used to achieve organisational goals. The term capacity can be defined ‘‘as a set of attributes that help or enable an organization to fulfil its mission’’ (Eisinger, 2002, p. 117). According to Hall et al. (2003) an organisation’s capacity can be described by five different capacity dimensions – human resources capacity, financial capacity, relationship and network capacity, infrastructure and process capacity, and planning and development capacity. Since organisational capacity involves the ability to deploy resources from these different capacity dimensions (Hall et al., 2003), it follows that it is imperative to understand an organisation’s resource structure to determine its capacity. Organisations gather and harness resources (Scott, 1992). According to the Resource Dependency Theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) the structure and behaviour of an organisation can be explained by its resources. The theory suggests that an organisation is unable to generate the complete quantity and quality of resources needed for survival. Thus, the organisation’s inability to produce all required resources leads to a dependence on external resources. It is important to note that those who control the critical resources have power that can influence the behaviour of the organisation. Management decisions in an organisation are influenced by internal (members of the organisation) and external stakeholders (organisations or institutions in the environment of the organisation). Hence, with an increasing dependence on external resources, the autonomy of the organisation decreases (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). As posited by Mankiw (2008, p. 3) ‘‘scarcity means that society has limited resources and therefore cannot produce all the goods and services people want to have’’. In short, scarcity is regarded as short supply of important resources (Frank, 2003). However, the perception of what short supply is might differ from organisation to organisation. Non-profit sport clubs are should be confronted with the idea of scarcity as not all resources such as volunteers for instance are available in abundance. Hence, scarcity of resources can be regarded as a critical issue for non-profit sport clubs, and the lack of important resources has a significant impact on capability to handle the associated challenges. Despite this conflict, an expectation remains that organisations will manage and respond successfully to changes in resources (Slack & Hinings, 1992). This means that when a resource becomes scarce the organisation must try to find a substitute. The dependence on external resources is perpetuated by the scarcity of internal resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In other words, if some internal resources become scarce the organisation tries to acquire additional resources externally. Thus, scarcity of resources in one area can lead to increases in resources in another area. In accordance with the Resource Dependency Theory, this shift also represents a shift in power, because, as mentioned earlier, an increasing dependence on external resources decreases the autonomy of organisations. The scarcity of resources can therefore have a strong impact on the power, the autonomy and the relationship between internal and external resources of an organisation. In this paper, the concept of organisational capacity is applied to sport clubs in order to get a picture of their resource structure within multiple dimensions of capacity. Specific links to Resource Dependency Theory are drawn throughout the following sections of the paper. A reduced and modified concept of Hall et al.’s (2003) model has been used as the theoretical framework. The general dimensions of the model have also been used and the specific elements of those dimensions have been delimited to particular resources as listed in the 2007 Sport Development Report. This resource-based quantitative analysis of organisational capacity runs hand in hand with some limitations. The fifth dimension, planning and development capacity, has not been covered by this sport club survey. In the current study, the remaining four capacity dimensions of Hall et al. (2003) are referred to as human resources capacity, financial resources capacity, network resources capacity, and infrastructure resources capacity. In previous research, the number and names of the capacity dimensions have varied, but common elements have been consistent (e.g., Eisinger, 2002; Glickman & Servon, 1998; Green & Haines, 2002; Lasby & Sperling, 2007; Sharpe, 2006). For example Sharpe (2006) analysed organizational capacity with regard to capital and used a three-dimensional concept for this purpose. As already indicated by the naming of these capacity dimensions, they are regarded from a resource perspective. Resources are needed to build capacity (Eisinger, 2002). In previous studies, the situation of sport clubs has also been analysed from a resource dependency perspective (Horch, 1994a, 1994c) and resources of sport clubs were subdivided into monetary, material, and personnel resources (Horch, 1994b). It is suggested in the current study that non-material resources like knowledge and networks are also relevant to sport clubs. In the following paragraphs the four capacity dimensions applied in this study, as well as the attributed resources will be explained in detail. 2.1. Human resources capacity The first dimension, human resources capacity, is ‘‘the ability to deploy human capital (i.e. volunteers and paid staff) within the organization’’ (Hall et al., 2003, p. 5). According to Misener and Doherty (2009), human resources as well as planning and development capacity were of relatively higher importance for the goal achievement than the other capacities. P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 191 Similarly, human resources capacity issues were the second most important concern in Hall et al.’s (2003) study. Sport clubs can have different types of human resources: volunteers, paid staff, and people in other forms of employment (e.g., trainees). In this study the focus is on volunteers who are members of the club and therefore represent internal resources.1 The research literature reveals there can be diverse types of volunteers in an organisation (e.g., Cuskelly, 2005; Doherty & Carron, 2003). According to Doherty and Carron (2003) volunteers can be subdivided into volunteers with key administrative positions and volunteers with secondary positions. In German sport clubs, central and secondary volunteers have to be distinguished. Members who do sporadic voluntary work (e.g., organisation of a club party or a sport event) are considered secondary volunteers. In contrast central volunteers have a key position on the board of the club or on the execution level. A central volunteer at the board level could be a president, a vice president, a treasurer, a secretary, a youth director, an athletic director, a spokesperson etc. These volunteers can be responsible for budgeting, for strategic planning, fundraising, and for decisions about the sport supply. On the execution level, coaches, judges, and referees are responsible for training sessions and competitions and as such are considered central volunteers. In sport clubs, paid staff members can constitute internal or external resources depending on whether they are a member of the club or not. In Germany, central volunteers and paid staff members are exclusive. This means that a person can either be a central volunteer or a paid staff member, but not both. If the person does voluntary work in the sport club (e.g., coaching), he or she is allowed earnings of up to s2100 per year from the club. If the person earns more than s2100 per year, he or she is a paid staff member. In addition to volunteers and paid staff, voluntary associations also employ short-term employees who are often not paid (Rubin & Rubin, 2008). In sport clubs, people in other forms of employment can work as short-term employees. They are considered to be external resources as they are sent to the club e.g., by the federal state sports confederation or by the employment office of the community. These people can be trainees, people doing social services,2 a social year,3 and additional jobs (e.g., for people living from state money). Previous research on sport clubs has typically focused on human resources, and in particular, volunteerism (e.g., Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye, & Darcy, 2006; Nichols, 2005b). Many non-profit organisations rely almost exclusively on volunteers and thus volunteers are an important resource to non-profit sport organisations (e.g., Doherty & Carron, 2003; Misener & Doherty, 2009; Sharpe, 2006; Smith, 2000) and to non-profit sport clubs (e.g., Nichols & Shepherd, 2006; Schubert, Horch, & Hovemann, 2007). Moreover research indicates that both the number of volunteers and their workload differ strongly from organisation to organisation (e.g., Imagine Canada, 2006; Nichols, 2005b; Schubert et al., 2007; Sharpe, 2006). In addition to volunteers, some sport organisations also employ paid staff (e.g., Horch, Hovemann, & Schubert, 2007; Imagine Canada, 2006; Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings, 1995; Taylor, Darcy, Hoye, & Cuskelly, 2006). Eisinger (2002) found that the presence of paid staff was an important factor of organisational capacity. In previous research it is suggested that voluntary associations might favour those employees from within the organisation over hired external employees (Rubin & Rubin, 2008). As an example, internal volunteers are often said to have a higher degree of loyalty to the sport club as indicated by the fact that older club members are found to maintain their interest in the club by moving from playing to volunteer roles (Nichols & Shepherd, 2006). From a resource dependency perspective, it can be argued that sport clubs would prefer internal human resources to external human resources. In instances where internal human resources are scarce, the club would find it necessary to employ additional (external) human resources. In other words, if not enough internal volunteers are available the club would employ additional human resources like paid staff or people in other forms of employment. These external resources affect the behaviour of the club as the club loses autonomy and its dependency on external institutions such as the employment bureau increases. In this case the human resources would not entirely be in the hands of the club anymore, thus indicating the link between resource dependency and human resources capacity. 2.2. Financial resources capacity The second capacity dimension is referred to as financial resources capacity in this paper because it is described by the financial resources of a sport club. In general, financial capacity is ‘‘the ability to develop and deploy financial capital’’ (Hall et al., 2003, p. 5). Financial capacity includes, i.e. revenues, expenses, assets, and liabilities (Hall et al., 2003). However, as non-profit sport clubs meet a lower accounting standard, assets and liabilities cannot be taken into account. In this study, financial resources capacity is defined by the revenues, expenses, and the budget (balance sheet) of the club. The budget presents an indicator of financial solvency and a deficit can be an indicator of scarce financial resources. Revenues of non-profit sport clubs can come from internal and external sources. In contrast to for-profit organisations that mainly have (external) sales revenues at their disposal, non-profit sport clubs have many different types of revenues. All revenues from members constitute internal revenues. Typical internal revenues are for example membership fees and 1 It has to be noted that non-members can also be volunteers of the sport club (Nichols & Shepherd, 2006), for example the parents of children who practise in the club (Donnelly & Kidd, 2003). These volunteers would present external resources. However, the contribution of non-members is not taken into account in this study. 2 In Germany, all young men who do not want to join the army have to do social services for one year. During this year, they work in several social institutions like day care facilities, kindergartens, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and sport clubs as well. 3 In Germany, some young women take a so-called social year after finishing high school. During this year, they do the same social services compared to young men (see footnote #2). 192 P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 admission fees. External revenues come from stakeholders that are in the environment of the organisation. Revenues from public subsidies and economic revenues (e.g., from sponsoring) can also constitute external revenues. However, some types of revenues are difficult to attribute to either internal or external revenues (e.g., revenues from donations, fund management, sport events, and convivial gatherings). In this paper the revenues of sport clubs will be summarised in four main groups: (1) internal revenues from members (=membership fees and admission fees), (2) external revenues from public subsidies (=from sport organisations, federal states, municipalities, the European Union, and other programmes, e.g., unemployment programmes), (3) external economic revenues (=from sponsoring, advertising, broadcasting rights), and (4) other revenues that cannot be definitely attributed to internal or external revenues (=donations, fund management, self-managed restaurants, sport events, services with costs for members and non-members, convivial gatherings, business operations, sport course fees, and raising of credit). Non-profit sport clubs have different types of expenses that can be summarised in four main categories: (1) expenses for personnel (=administrative personnel, coaches, athletes, travelling costs for competitions), (2) expenses for equipment and facilities (=sport equipment and jerseys, maintenance and rent of facilities), (3) expenses for insurances and taxes (=all kinds of taxes, Gema fee,4 insurances), and (4) other expenses (=expenses for the organisation of sport events, membership fees for sports federations, expenses for non-sporting events, debt service, accruals). It is assumed that internal revenues, external revenues, and expenses are connected. As financial solvency is important to a club’s survival it is assumed that the club strives for a balanced budget. In a case where the club’s expenses are higher than its revenues, the club tries to increase the revenues. In this context, internal and external revenues could be increased. From a resource dependency perspective, it is suggested that the club would prefer increasing internal revenues to increasing external revenues as the latter results in increasing dependence on the environment and decreasing autonomy (Horch, 1994a). 2.3. Network resources capacity In Hall et al.’s (2003) study, the third dimension is relationship and network capacity which is the ability to draw on relationships with other organisations or institutions. Interorganisational relationships are strategic partnerships that occur when organisations strive for certain goals in connection with these relationships (Cousens, Barnes, Stevens, Mallen, & Bradish, 2006; Thibault & Harvey, 1997). From a resource dependency perspective organisations initiate interorganisational relationships because they need to acquire resources that are currently scarce within their own organisation (Oliver, 1990; Thibault & Harvey, 1997). Financial pressure or a scarcity of other resources can be a reason for the establishment of interorganisational linkages (Hall et al., 2003; Thibault & Harvey, 1997). As with the other dimensions however, it must be noted that autonomy decreases with increasing dependence on external stakeholders (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Possible reasons for relationships can also be the exchange of information and knowledge (Rittner & Keiner, 2007), of infrastructure and personnel (e.g., Thibault & Harvey, 1997), or of corporate sponsorships (e.g., Berrett, 1993; Doherty & Murray, 2007). Research shows that relationship and network capacity is considered fruitful because social capital is produced that is potentially beneficial in attaining human and financial resources (e.g., Misener & Doherty, 2009; Sharpe, 2006). This capacity dimension is referred to as network resources capacity in this paper. Network resources are external resources. These resources are difficult to capture and to quantify as they are a resource proxy for the possible resources resulting from relationships with other institutions. Resources of sport clubs have mainly been grouped into monetary, financial, and material resources (Horch, 1994b). However, it is assumed that non-material resources such as network resources are also important to non-profit sport organisations. Although relationships with other institutions can result in additional financial resources, infrastructure resources, and human resources, also non-material resources such as knowledge and information (Rittner & Keiner, 2007) have to be considered. In this paper network resources are referred to as relationships with other institutions in the sense of cooperation. To this end, sport clubs can collaborate with various institutions in the community, like for instance with another sport club, with a kindergarten or a day care facility, a school, a commercial sport provider, a business enterprise, or a health insurance company. Research suggests that many sport organisations draw on relationships with several institutions of the community (e.g., Allison, 2001; Barnes, Cousens, MacLean, 2007; Breuer & Haase, 2007; Cousens et al., 2006; Frisby, Thibault, & Kikulis, 2004; Glickman & Servon, 1998; Thibault & Harvey, 1997). For example, according to the results of a Scottish study (Allison, 2001), half of the clubs were linked with other sport clubs, about one quarter with schools, and about one fifth with local community organisations and commercial companies. Policy statements in Canada even emphasised the need for more cooperation (Barnes et al., 2007). In Germany, studies revealed that sports clubs collaborated with various institutions in the community. The most frequently identified relationships were those with another sports club, with a school, or with a kindergarten/day-care facility (Breuer & Haase, 2007). 2.4. Infrastructure resources capacity The fourth dimension is infrastructure and process capacity which is ‘‘the ability to deploy or rely on infrastructure, processes, and culture’’ (Hall et al., 2003, p. 6). Possible elements in this context can be computers, databases, and elements of 4 In Germany, the Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights (GEMA) collects the so-called Gema fee so that artists and musicians are adequately reimbursed for their protected works and performances. P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 193 information technology. Eisinger (2002) reported that infrastructure resources (computerisation of records) were an important factor for organisational capacity. In this paper this capacity dimension is referred to as infrastructure resources capacity and it is restricted to sport facilities as the other aspects were not listed in the survey. In quantitative sport club research the research focus is on sport facilities (e.g., Allison, 2001; Breuer & Haase, 2007; Taks et al., 1999). Sport facilities are important to non-profit sport clubs due to their role in sport supply (Breuer & Haase, 2007). If the sport club possesses its own sport facilities, these facilities constitute internal resources. Apart from self-owned sport facilities, many non-profit sport clubs use public sport facilities which belong to the community and which are also used by public schools. Public sport facilities represent external resources. In some cases, the use of public sport facilities can be free for sport clubs, whereas in other cases, a user-pays arrangement is agreed to or clubs have to render services in return (Breuer & Haase, 2007). As many communities in Germany have financial problems and the maintenance of sport facilities is very cost-intensive, the community offers the facilities to sport clubs for purchase or maintenance. This is called public-private partnership (Breuer & Hovemann, 2006). If sport clubs use public sport facilities for free, these public sport facilities can also be regarded as indirect public subsidies. Indirect public subsidies can also be assigned to the dimension of financial resources capacity. This aspect indicates that the assignment of resources to capacities is not an exclusive process. The problem is that the amount of these indirect public subsidies cannot be monetarised appropriately (Langer, 2006). So, as the financial resources capacity in this study is restricted to monetary resources, public sport facilities are assigned to infrastructure resources. The assessment of infrastructure resources capacity from a resource dependency perspective is complex. On the one hand, there should be a tendency that sport clubs prefer internal infrastructure resources (self-owned sport facilities). If they use their own sport facilities they are independent from other facility owners such as the community. On the other hand, sport clubs need enough financial resources to enable them to finance building programmes. If the clubs cannot afford to finance their own building plans they can apply for financial resources at the community or at the federal state sports confederation (Langer, 2006). A consequence is that the clubs get more dependent on these external organisations. Research shows that many non-profit sport organisations do not possess their own sport facilities; they mainly use community sport facilities or those of other providers (e.g., Allison, 2001; Breuer & Haase, 2007; CCPR, 2007; Smith, 2000; Taks et al., 1999). For example, in the United Kingdom, only 30% of the sport clubs owned sport facilities, whereas 35% of the sport clubs used facilities owned by local authorities, 16% used facilities owned by schools or universities, and 26% used private facilities (CCPR, 2007). In Belgium only 4% of the sport facilities were owned by sport clubs (Taks et al., 1999). In a Scottish study (Allison, 2001), 26% of the clubs used their own sport facilities for training and 30% of the clubs used them for playing. Local authority leisure facilities were used by 44% of the clubs for training and by 42% for playing. 3. Scarcity of resources In this section a literature review of studies dealing with scarcity of resources is provided. In this section, subjective (perceptual) and objective (actual) findings about scarce resources will be presented for each capacity dimension. For example, the subjective impression of a certain resource problem constitutes a subjective measure while actual changes in measured resources present an objective measure. Clearly, in three of the four capacity dimensions, the research literature presents a consistent message of resource scarcity in sport clubs. However, there is a lack of studies dealing with network resources capacity. This omission might be due to the fact that from a resource dependency perspective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), relationships with other institutions are a result of scarce internal resources rather than being a scarce resource themselves. Scarcity of human resources was predominantly found in the area of volunteers. Previous research suggested that sport clubs experienced great difficulties in the area of volunteers as the recruitment and retention of volunteers was considered a big problem (e.g., Allison, 2001; Breuer & Haase, 2007; Cuskelly, 2004; Imagine Canada, 2006; Lasby & Sperling, 2007; Taks et al., 1999) presenting scarce resources from a subjective point of view. Several reasons for this problem have been identified (e.g., Cuskelly, 2004; Cuskelly et al., 2006; Lasby & Sperling, 2007; Nichols, 2005a; Sugman, Leskosek, Jost, & Rauter, 2003). One reason for increasing problems of volunteer retention was the increasing complexity of tasks that required people with specialised skills and paid staff, respectively (e.g., Cuskelly, 2004; Hall et al., 2003; Lasby & Sperling, 2007; Nichols et al., 2003; Sharpe, 2006). Some studies reported a general shortage of volunteers resulting from the fact that there were not enough people willing to volunteer (e.g., Allison, 2001; Nichols, 2005a). In addition to studies citing the subjective perception of volunteers, a decline in volunteer numbers was reported in many countries, including Australia (Cuskelly, 2005), Canada (Hall, McKeown, & Roberts, 2001; Hall et al., 2003; Imagine Canada, 2006; Sharpe, 2006), and the United Kingdom (Nichols et al., 2003). The measured decline in the number of volunteers indicates scarcity of volunteers objectively. It is important to note that subjective perceptions of volunteer scarcity can differ from objective measures. Scarcity of financial resources was reported in several studies (e.g., Breuer & Haase, 2007; Doherty & Murray, 2007; Montgomery & Carr, 1992; Papadimitriou, 1999). Research showed that sport organisations have fewer financial resources than other types of non-profit organisations (e.g., Gumulka et al., 2005; Lasby & Sperling, 2007; Smith, 2000) and that these associations operated on a low economic scale (Sharpe, 2006). With regard to the subjective perception of financial problems, the findings differ. On the one hand, financial capacity was identified as the greatest challenge for sport organisations (Hall et al., 2003) and they were found to be financially vulnerable (Lasby & Sperling, 2007). On the other hand, other studies showed that the financial situation was not a major problem to sport organisations (e.g., Allison, 2001; Breuer & Haase, 2007; CCPR, 2007, 2009; Gumulka et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2003; Imagine Canada, 2006; Sharpe, 2006; Taks et al., 194 P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 1999). Previous studies also showed that a small share of sport clubs suffered a deficit (CCPR, 2007, 2009; Hovemann, Horch, & Schubert, 2007), indicating scarce financial resources from an objective point of view. Possible reasons for financial problems were budget concerns and decreasing public subsidies (e.g., Doherty & Murray, 2007; Hall et al., 2003; Montgomery & Carr, 1992). In a Greek study, sport organisations confronted serious financial instability because of shrinking financial resources, especially revenues from public subsidies (Papadimitriou, 1999). Public subsidies for non-profit sport organisations have been reduced over the past years in many countries, for example in Canada (Berrett, 1993; Hall et al., 2003; Imagine Canada, 2006), in Greece (Papadimitriou, 1999), in Germany (Langer, 2006) and in Australia, Britain, Finland, and Poland (Berrett & Slack, 2001). The scarcity of infrastructure resources and of sport facilities, respectively, has been reported in some studies (e.g., Allison, 2001; Breuer & Haase, 2007; Taks et al., 1999). The general situation of the sport facilities was a problem for sport clubs (e.g., Allison, 2001; Taks et al., 1999) indicating subjective scarcity in this area. Problems related to sport facilities were multifaceted. Both the availability of the facilities was a problem and the facilities were found to be too expensive and of poor quality (Allison, 2001; Breuer & Haase, 2007). The literature review revealed that the current state of research would benefit from an extension of data sources and scarcity measures. For the most part subjective scarcity measures were provided based on cross-sectional samples (e.g., Allison, 2001; Papadimitriou, 1999; Taks et al., 1999). Moreover, previous studies about organisational capacity, which were mentioned in the theoretical framework, were mainly based on qualitative analyses (e.g., Misener & Doherty, 2009; Papadimitriou, 1999; Sharpe, 2006), and on relatively small samples (e.g., n = 52, Papadimitriou, 1999; n = 32, Sharpe, 2006). This quantitative study attempts to contribute to the body state of research as both cross-sectional and longitudinal data are used to provide a detailed analysis of scarcity of resources. 4. Method 4.1. Data source The data source is the Sport Development Report (Breuer, 2009), which is a nationwide panel survey of non-profit sport clubs in Germany. This project is financed by the 16 federal state sports confederations, the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB), as well as the Federal Institute of Sports Sciences (reference number IIA1-080902/07-08). In this project, sport clubs are asked about their situation every two years. The questionnaire contains questions about members and membership fees, sport programmes, sport facilities, volunteers, paid staff, other forms of employment, relationships with other institutions, convivial gatherings, finances, problems, and the importance of support. The central methodological idea is to create a panel design, whereby the same sport clubs are questioned about their situation every two years. The first two surveys of the Sport Development Report (2005/06 and 2007/08) present systematic information on the development of sport clubs in Germany for the first time. The Sport Development Report 2007/2008 was conducted by means of an online survey in Germany. The sample was based on the email addresses of sport clubs that were provided by the 16 federal state sports confederations. In 2007, out of the 90,467 existent sport clubs in Germany, 45,270 email addresses were made available. Due to more than 8000 drop-outs (incorrect or doubled email addresses, person no longer a member of the club, club does not exist anymore, etc.), 37,206 sport clubs were invited to take part in the survey. Thus, all sport clubs that had given a correct email address to the federal state sports confederation were invited to the survey. Usually the email addresses were those of the president, the executive director, or the office of the sport club. Every sport club received a personalised link so that every club had its own online questionnaire. The intention was that the survey would not be completed at one attempt by one person and instead provided opportunity for several relevant persons can use the link. For example the president could answer questions regarding the problems of the club and the treasurer could fill in the financial data. Usually the survey was completed by one or more members of the sport club’s board. Altogether, n = 13,068 sport clubs participated in the survey representing a response rate of 35.1%. The sample was representative of non-profit sport clubs in Germany with regard to size, year of foundation, and federal state. In the second wave of the German Sport Development Report there is not only access to the cross-sectional data of 2007, but also to longitudinal data from 2005 and 2007. With regard to the construction of this longitudinal database, all the sport clubs of the second survey were given unchangeable numbers (ids) that were also assigned to the first survey in 2005. This number makes possible the identification of those sport clubs that participated in both surveys. Altogether, n = 1648 sport clubs participated in both waves. This longitudinal data set enables the researcher to measure and quantify developments during 2005–2007. 4.2. Data analysis The data analysis consists of three main steps. First, scarcity of resources was analysed subjectively using the perceived severity of resource problems identified in 2007. Second, organisational capacity was analysed by presenting the resources of each capacity dimension in 2007. Third, scarcity of resources was analysed objectively using indexes that quantify the relative development of resources between 2005 and 2007. As illustrated in the scarcity of resources section differences between subjective and objective scarcity measures can occur. Therefore this study has used both objective and subjective measures of scarcity. P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 195 First, the perceived severity of resource problems is presented as a subjective scarcity measure. This analysis is based on the cross-sectional data of 2007 (n = 13,068). The problem of cross-sectional data is that the absolute amount of resources does not indicate whether a certain resource is really scarce or not. For example a certain number of volunteers does not point out whether these are enough or too few volunteers in the club. Therefore, the perceived severity of the recruitment and retention of volunteers seems to be a good scarcity measure as it gives this additional information about whether there are enough volunteers or not. In the results section the perceived size of problems regarding human resources capacity (recruitment/retention of volunteers), financial resources capacity (financial situation of the club), and infrastructure resources capacity (availability and condition of the sport facilities) is presented using mean values. There was no problem item for network resources capacity in the survey. As noted earlier, relationships with other institutions gained in importance and presented no problem to clubs. The scale of the severity of the problem goes from 1 = no problem to 5 = a very big problem. For this subjective scarcity measure indexes will also be calculated (see third step of data analysis). Second, the resource profile of each capacity dimension was analysed. This analysis is also based on the cross-sectional data of 2007 (n = 13,068). Human resources capacity was analysed using volunteers, paid staff, and other forms of employment in sport clubs. In the questionnaire the clubs were asked for both central and secondary volunteers. With regard to central volunteers, there was a question about the number of central volunteers on the board level and on the execution level as well as the number of male and female volunteers. The sport clubs were also asked for the average working hours per month of every central volunteer. The number of secondary volunteers is difficult to measure as they work only episodically and have no permanent voluntary position in the club. Therefore the sport clubs were asked to estimate what percentage of their members worked sporadically on a voluntary basis during the last year (e.g., organisation of a sport event or a festival, cleaning the club house or the sport facilities). Based on the share of members working as secondary volunteers and the total number of members, the number of secondary volunteers could be calculated (=share of secondary volunteers/100 multiplied by number of members). In the questionnaire, sport clubs were asked for paid staff and other forms of employment using closed-ended questions. The sport clubs had to state whether they employed paid staff or paid executives. In the case of paid staff, clubs were asked for the fields of activity (direction and administration; sports, training, and supervising; technology and maintenance). Afterwards sport clubs were asked for other forms of employment in their club (trainees, people doing social services or a social year, and additional jobs). Pertaining to the analysis of financial resources capacity it must be noted that the financial data always corresponds to the year before the survey. In the questionnaire sport clubs were asked for the total amount of revenues and expenses in several categories (see theoretical framework section). Financial resources capacity was illustrated by providing the average revenues in four revenue categories (revenues from members, from public subsidies, from economics, and other revenues) and the percentage of sport clubs that have revenues in this category. The same procedure is applied to the expenditure categories (expenses for personnel, for equipment and facilities, for taxes and insurances, and other expenses). Furthermore the percentage of sport clubs with a deficit in 2007 will also be presented. For this analysis the total expenses are subtracted from the total revenues. If the revenues are smaller than the expenses, the club suffers a deficit. Network resources capacity was analysed by means of relationships with other community institutions. In the survey sport clubs were asked to state whether they collaborated with several institutions in their community. They were asked to indicate if they had a relationship with another sport club, a school, a kindergarten/day care facility, a health insurance company, a health office, a youth office, a business enterprise, and a commercial sport provider. The share of sport clubs that have a relationship with these institutions was presented. Infrastructure resources capacity was illustrated through information about facility ownership and the use of public sport facilities. In the survey the sport clubs were asked to state whether they owned sport facilities and whether they used public sport facilities. In the case of the latter, sport clubs were asked to state whether they had to pay user fees or whether the club had to render services such as key authority and maintenance of the facilities in return. Third, scarcity of resources was measured objectively using indexes. The advantage of this quantitative approach is that it allows both subjective and objective scarcity measures. In contrast, qualitative interviews would only allow subjective measures resulting from (subjective) statements of the respondents (Bryman & Bell, 2007). In general, indexes are useful measures that are able to quantify changes in time-series data (Fleming & Nellis, 1994). The indexes quantify the relative changes in resources between 2005 and 2007. For the calculation of the indexes, the longitudinal data set (n = 1648) is used. Thus, all the tables showing changes between 2005 and 2007 are based on 1648 cases. These changes could only be measured within a short period of two years. Indexes are percentage values with a reference to a base period. In this study, the base period in the longitudinal dataset is 2005 and accordingly, an index of +12 would equal an increase of 12% compared to the value of 2005. Moreover, it was checked whether these changes were statistically significant using paired t-tests. In the results section only significant indexes are presented. In general, resources can remain stable, increase, or decrease over the course of time. If a resource decreased over a certain period of time, it can be assumed that this resource became increasingly more scarce. The application of such objective scarcity measures is important because these measures are not biased by subjective perceptions. In fact they give information about the real development. 5. Results The subjective scarcity measure shows that problems in the field of human resources capacity are considered the main problems of sport clubs in 2007. Sport clubs stated an average size of 3.30 for the problem of the recruitment and retention of P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 196 Table 1 Human resources capacity of non-profit sport clubs in 2007 (part 1; central and secondary volunteers). Volunteers Mean Index (2005 = 0) Central volunteers On the board level On the execution level Male Female 10.7 12.3 15.6 7.4 15.0*** 27.5*** 20.5*** 19.3*** Overall Working hours per central volunteer (h/month) 23.0 17.6 20.1*** +13.2* Secondary volunteers 73.1 Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Table 2 Human resources capacity of non-profit sport clubs in 2007 (part 2; paid staff and other forms of employment). Share of sport clubs (%) Index (2005 = 0) Paid staff (incl. paid executives) Paid executives 32.4 4.4 7.7* +57.2*** Paid staff according to field of activity Direction and administration Sports, training, supervision, etc. Technology, maintenance, etc. 13.0 25.9 16.9 +11.9* 7.8* 2.4 1.1 3.3 8.0 +125.0* Other forms of employment Trainees Social services Social year Additional jobs +49.9* +118.1*** volunteers. An index of +3.1* indicates that the severity of this problem increased by 3.1% between 2005 and 2007. Financial resources are considered a midsize problem as the average severity of the problem was 2.26. Problems concerning the infrastructure resources of the sport club are perceived as rather smaller problems with an average size of the problem of 2.09 for the availability of sport facilities and of 2.05 for the condition of sport facilities. The perceived severity of the problem concerning the condition of sport facilities decreased significantly by 4.1% between 2005 and 2007. All in all, it can be noted that, from a subjective point of view of the clubs, problems pertaining to human resources are bigger than problems regarding financial or infrastructure resources. Thus, it can be assumed that sport clubs perceived human resources (volunteers) as being especially scarce. In the following paragraphs the resource profiles of the four capacity dimensions will be presented. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the resource profile in the area of human resources capacity. On average a sport club had 23 central volunteers, comprised of 10.7 on the board level (e.g., president, vice president, treasurer, secretary etc.) and 12.3 on the execution level (e.g., coaches, judges, referees). On average a central volunteer worked 17.6 h/month for the sport club. However, the displayed indexes show that the number of volunteers significantly decreased by 20.1% from 2005 to 2007. This significant decrease in volunteers indicates that volunteers became increasingly scarce between 2005 and 2007 from an objective point of view. Interestingly, there is a convergence between the subjective and the objective scarcity measure as the subjective scarcity of volunteers is confirmed by the objectively measured scarcity. During the same time the average working hours per volunteer increased by 13.2%. Aside of central volunteers, there are on average about 73 secondary volunteers per club who do sporadic voluntary work (Table 1). Table 2 shows the human resources capacity with regard to paid staff and other forms of employment. Almost one out of three clubs (32.4%) employed paid staff and 4.4% of the clubs had paid executives. Although the percentage of sport clubs with paid staff significantly decreased between 2005 and 2007, the proportion of sport clubs employing paid executives significantly increased by 57.2% during the same time. The reduction in sport clubs with paid staff can be ascribed to the decreasing proportion of sport clubs employing paid staff in the field of sports, training, and supervision. From a scarcity point of view the indexes indicate that paid staff in the field of sports, training, and supervision became more scarce between 2005 and 2007. On the contrary, the proportion of sport clubs employing paid staff in the field of direction and administration significantly increased by almost 12%. With regard to other forms of employment, high augmentations can be observed. The indexes show that the share of sport clubs employing trainees significantly increased by over 100% between 2005 and 2007, the share of clubs employing people doing a social year significantly augmented by almost 50%, and the share of clubs employing people in additional jobs (e.g., people living from state money) significantly increased by over 100% during the same time. However, it has to be noted that the overall proportions of sport clubs employing people in other forms of employment were not very high at all (Table 2). P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 197 Table 3 Financial resources capacity of non-profit sport clubs in 2007. Revenue category Members Public subsidies Economics Other revenues Expenditure category Personnel Equipment and facilities Insurances and taxes Other expenses Share of sport clubs (%) Mean (s) Index mean (2005 = 0) 100.0 76.2 35.4 90.6 27,403 5575 2295 21,913 +12.9* 81.7 89.1 72.7 96.8 19,892 12,246 2447 17,443 +24.7* +25.3* Note: 1s corresponds to approximately 1.51AUD, 1.48USD, and 1.41CAD. Table 4 Network resources capacity of non-profit sport clubs in 2007. Relationship with . . . Share of sport clubs (%) Index (2005 = 0) Another sport club A school A kindergarten/day care A business enterprise A health insurance company A youth office A commercial sport provider A health office 79.4 69.9 46.7 44.8 41.7 36.3 36.2 28.9 +7.8*** +9.4*** +46.1*** +57.4*** +63.5*** +34.9*** +58.3*** +105.7*** The financial resources capacity of German sport clubs in 2007 can be seen in Table 3. All sport clubs had revenues from members, which on average amounted to about s27,400 in 2007. The index shows that these revenues significantly increased by 13% between 2005 and 2007. About 76% of the German sport clubs received public subsidies in 2007 that on average amounted to s5575. Revenues from economic activities were on average about s2300 and other revenues amounted to almost s22,000. Only 35.4% of the sport clubs had revenues from economic activities in 2007. With regard to expenses, four out five clubs had expenses for personnel in 2007 that on average amounted to about s20,000. Nine out of ten clubs spent money on equipment and facilities with an average spending of s12,246. In 2007, almost 73% of the clubs had expenses that amounted to more than s2400 for insurances and taxes. The indexes show that both expenses for personnel and expenses for insurances and taxes have increased by about 25% between 2005 and 2007 (Table 3). The increasing expenses indicate that financial resources became more scarce over this course of time. During the same time only internal revenues from members increased significantly. A closer look at the budgets shows that 33.7% of all sport clubs had a deficit in 2007. This objective scarcity measure indicates that the overall income was smaller than the overall expenditure in every third club. Table 4 displays the network resources capacity of German sport clubs. Almost 80% of the clubs collaborated with another sport club in 2007, almost 70% with a school, and almost 47% with a kindergarten or a day care facility. In fourth place are relationships with a business enterprise (about 45% of the clubs), followed by relationships with a health insurance company (41.7% of the clubs), a youth office (36.3% of the clubs), and a commercial sport provider (36.2% of the clubs). The lowest share, only about 29% of clubs, cooperated with a health office. The indexes show that the share of cooperating sport clubs increased significantly between 2005 and 2007 across all types of relationships. The strong increases in relationships indicate that network resources do not seem to be a field of scarce resources in German sport clubs. The resource profile of infrastructure resources of non-profit sport clubs in Germany can be seen in Table 5. More than 42% of the clubs owned sport facilities in 2007. This figure has not changed significantly between 2005 and 2007. A total of 61.4% of all sport clubs used public sport facilities in 2007. As the index shows, the share of sport clubs using public sport facilities significantly decreased by 4.7% between 2005 and 2007. For the use of these public sport facilities, 26.3% of all sport clubs have to pay user fees. However, the percentage of sport clubs that had to pay user fees increased by about 25%. Only 17.9% of all sport clubs were allowed to use public sport facilities for free nor had to provide service in return (e.g., care, Table 5 Infrastructure resources capacity of non-profit sport clubs in 2007. Share of sport clubs (%) Self-owned sport facilities Use of public sport facilities For user fees For service in return Free use (no service in return) 42.3 61.4 26.3 29.2 17.9 Index (2005 = 0) 4.7** +24.9*** 16.5* 198 P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 maintenance, key authority). During the same time, the share of these sport clubs significantly decreased by 16.5% (Table 5). These results reveal that the use of public sport facilities became more expensive for an increasing number of sport clubs. In terms of scarcity of resources the indexes indicate that public sport facilities became scarce resources for some sport clubs. 6. Discussion This study provided quantitative evidence of the resources of sport clubs assigned to each dimension of organisational capacity. Moreover, scarcity of resources was measured both subjectively and objectively. The salient results are that some types of human resources (volunteers) and infrastructure resources (public sport facilities) became more scarce between 2005 and 2007. In contrast, other types of human resources (paid executives, people in other forms of employment) and network resources increased during that time. Before discussing the results of the study in detail, the limitations of the study need to be stressed. The analysis of change was only over a short period of two years and therefore long-term changes could not be analysed. Moreover, there are some limitations that go along with the use of quantitative data. Unfortunately the data could not answer the question as to whether there was a relationship between changes in resources and the goal achievement of the club. Additionally, possible connections between dimensions of resources can only be assumed as they could not be proven empirically. Furthermore, the data gave no information about the reasons for the measured changes in resources, whether the changes were detrimental for the club, and whether there was a need for compensation for decreasing resources. Only the subjective scarcity measures gave a first impression of the severity of the resource problems. The limitations of the study show that additional qualitative information would have been helpful to address these issues. The subsequent discussion is structured by capacity dimensions. The subjective scarcity measure of human resources showed that the recruitment and retention of volunteers was a big problem for clubs. This finding is in accordance with previous research on volunteers (e.g., Cuskelly, 2004; Hall et al., 2001; Imagine Canada, 2006). Interestingly, the subjective scarcity was confirmed by the objective scarcity measure. The perceived severity of the volunteer problem has significantly increased between 2005 and 2007 and the number of central volunteers has significantly decreased during the same time. As there was no significant change in the number of secondary volunteers over this course of time, the volunteer problem seems to count only for central volunteers. It is suggested that members are more likely to participate episodically in the club than to hold a voluntary position. This suggestion can be confirmed by previous research (e.g., Cuskelly, 2005; Hall et al., 2003; Lasby & Sperling, 2007). As the average voluntary workload of every central volunteer has significantly increased, it can be suggested that fewer central volunteers worked more. One Canadian study also reported that the main part of voluntary work came from a few volunteers (Lasby & Sperling, 2007). Interestingly, an Australian study reported that an increasing number of volunteers went along with a decrease in working hours (Cuskelly, 2005). Moreover, according to the significant increases in paid executives and people in other forms of employment, it can be suggested that the decreasing number of central volunteers was compensated for by paid staff and other forms of employment. This suggestion can be confirmed by previous research as shifts from volunteers to paid staff have also been observed in a Canadian study (Imagine Canada, 2006). From a resource dependency perspective it can be concluded that clubs might get more dependent on the environment when they employ paid staff or people in other forms of employment. The perceived severity of the problem related to the financial situation of the club is perceived smaller than the problem regarding the recruitment and retention of volunteers. From a subjective perspective, the clubs consider financial resources less scarce than volunteers and more scarce than infrastructure resources. This finding can be confirmed by one previous study about sport clubs in Germany (Breuer & Haase, 2007). However, further confirmation of this finding is difficult as many studies did not analyse the relative scarcity of resources. Nevertheless, sport organisations also expressed financial problems in previous studies (e.g., Imagine Canada, 2006; Lasby & Sperling, 2007; Taks et al., 1999). The analysis of the clubs budgets indicated that every third sport club had a deficit in 2007. This proportion is relatively high compared to the results of two studies in the United Kingdom where 16% (CCPR, 2007) and 26% of the clubs suffered a deficit (CCPR, 2009). Compared to the subjective scarcity of financial resources that on average was considered only a moderate problem, for some clubs, the actual situation seems to be more problematic. However, it must be noted that a deficit does not necessarily indicate a scarcity. It is possible that the deficit is extremely small in proportion to the overall income and expenditure and that the club has a surplus in the following year. It is suggested that one reason for a deficit might be the non-profit orientation. As already noted, non-profit organisations are more likely to make unnecessary expenses (Hansmann, 1986). The indexes showed that there were significant changes in financial resources between 2005 and 2007. The expenses for personnel and insurances/taxes as well as the revenues from members have significantly increased over this course of time. From a resource dependency perspective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), it can be suggested that the clubs preferred increases in internal revenues to increases in external revenues, because they did not want to become more dependent on the environment. Research showed that increasing external revenues such as public subsidies can have an impact on the club’s autonomy (Horch, 1994a). Regardless of this seemingly negative effect, organisations were recommended to increase their revenues from government funds that represent external resources (Lasby & Sperling, 2007). More research is needed to confirm this suggestion. The findings on network resources capacity show that sport clubs drew on relationships with many community institutions and that these relationships have significantly increased between 2005 and 2007. This result is in accordance with previous studies that reported that sport organisations initiated relationships with many institutions (e.g., Allison, 2001; Barnes et al., 2007; Breuer & Haase, 2007; Cousens et al., 2006; Frisby et al., 2004). According to the Resource Dependency Theory (Pfeffer & P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 199 Salancik, 1978), it is suggested that these relationships are a result of scarce resources (Glickman & Servon, 1998; Slack & Hinings, 1992; Thibault & Harvey, 1997). An increase of external resources such as network resources increases the dependence from the environment and as a consequence decreases the autonomy of the organization (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). As already noted network resources were a proxy for all types of required resources. To provide an example, it is suggested that relationships with business enterprises are a result of scarce financial resources. The business enterprise might give money to the club and in return place its logo on the clothing or on the sport facilities of the club. This is confirmed by previous research that reported that sport organisations initiated strategic partnerships in order to gain financial resources (Berrett, 1993; Hall et al., 2003). However, more research is needed in the field of network resources. The results on infrastructure resources capacity show that the perceived severity of problems regarding sport facilities was smaller when compared with problems related to volunteers and financial resources. Thus, infrastructure resources were perceived less scarce than other types of resources. This finding can be confirmed by previous research (Breuer & Haase, 2007). Other studies documented that sport clubs had problems with regard to sport facilities (e.g., Allison, 2001; Taks et al., 1999); however, more research is needed to analyse the relative severity of problems related to sport facilities compared to other problems. Compared with previous research in other countries (e.g., Allison, 2001; Taks et al., 1999), a relatively high share of sport clubs in Germany owned sport facilities. Nevertheless, many sport clubs used public sport facilities that were community owned. Previous research also showed that sport clubs mainly used community sport facilities or those of other providers (e.g., Allison, 2001; CCPR, 2007; Smith, 2000). The objective scarcity measure indicates that the share of clubs that used public sport facilities had significantly decreased between 2005 and 2007. During the same time, the use of public sport facilities became more cost-intensive for sport clubs as more sport clubs had to pay user fees and fewer clubs can use the facilities for free. It is suggested that financial problems of the community were one reason for the increasing number of clubs that had to pay user fees. This suggestion can be confirmed by previous research (Breuer & Hovemann, 2006). From a resource dependency perspective, the decreasing share of clubs using public sport facilities indicates that less clubs depend on external infrastructure resources. On the contrary, it is suggested that those clubs that used public sport facilities and that had to pay user fees, experienced additional constraints related to financial resources. In this context, more research is needed to give an insight into the connections between different types of resources. Several policy implications for sport clubs can be derived from this study. With regard to human resources, sport clubs could be encouraged to appropriately support the remaining fewer volunteers who are taking a larger proportion of the work. Important factors of volunteer retention such as recognition of voluntary work, personal contact, and respect have been identified in previous studies (e.g., Cuskelly et al., 2006; Nichols, 2005a). Moreover, sport clubs should try to convert secondary volunteer numbers to central volunteers. In this context, a precise description of the position and the expected tasks might be useful. In the area of financial resources there is a need to diversify sources of finance if, for example, public subsidies are reduced. This recommendation has also been given to sport organisations in previous research (Lasby & Sperling, 2007). From a resource dependency perspective, it can be recommended that sport clubs pay attention to the ratio of internal and external resources because increases in external resources might have a negative impact on the clubs’ autonomy (Horch, 1994a). 7. Conclusion This quantitative study gave empirical evidence of the organisational capacity and the resource profile of non-profit sport clubs in Germany in 2007. The study indicated that sport clubs seem to have organisational capacity, as they have many different types of resources at their disposal that can be attributed to four capacity dimensions. Scarcity of resources was measured using subjective measures (changes in perceptions; perceived severity of problems) and objective measures (measures of changes between 2005 and 2007). The study showed that German sport clubs are indeed characterised by scarce resources, especially in the field of human resources (central volunteers) and infrastructure resources (public sport facilities). Increases were found in the area of network resources, paid staff, and other forms of employment. Future research might provide sport clubs with insights into the connections between resources and the relative importance placed on different types of resources. Moreover, network resources have to be specified and should not be measured with proxy variables. In this context, a combination of quantitative and qualitative research designs could be fruitful as reasons for developments can be better identified in qualitative approaches. With regard to scarcity of resources, future research should focus on longitudinal samples because they are highly important for measuring scarcity of resources objectively. The analysis of scarce resources would particularly benefit from long-term longitudinal samples. Acknowledgements We want to thank the anonymous reviewers for their precious comments on the paper and for being so generous with their time. References Allison, M. (2001). Sports clubs in Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: SportScotland. Barnes, M., Cousens, L., & MacLean, J. (2007). From silos to synergies: A network perspective of the Canadian sport system. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2, 555–571. Berrett, T. (1993). The sponsorship of amateur sport—Government, national sport organizations, and corporate perspectives. Society and Leisure, 16(2), 323–346. 200 P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 Berrett, T., & Slack, T. (2001). A framework for the analysis of strategic approaches employed by non-profit sport organizations in seeking corporate sponsorship. Sport Management Review, 4, 21–45. Breuer, C. (Ed.). (2009). Sportentwicklungsbericht 2007/2008. Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland[nl]Sport development report 2007/2008. Analysis of the sports clubs’ situation in Germany. Cologne: Sportverlag Strauß. Breuer, C., & Haase, A. (2007). Sportvereine in Deutschland. In C. Breuer (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2005/2006. Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 313–330). Cologne: Sportverlag Strauß. Breuer, C., & Hovemann, G. (2006). Finanzierung von Sportstätten. Perspektiven der Sportvereine und Kommunen. Mainz: Lindner. Breuer, C., & Wicker, P. (2009). Methode. In C. Breuer (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2007/2008. Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland [nl]Sport development report 2007/2008. Analysis of the sports clubs’ situation in Germany (pp. 639–666). Cologne: Sportverlag Strauß. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR). (2007). Sports club survey 2007 Retrieved 09.01.07 http://www.ccpr.org.uk/OneStopCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer.aspx?resource=81979A80-E131-432A-A49D-3C1C2C064C81&mode=link&guid=cdc695da57e0418eb45f95641977338e. Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR). (2009). Sports club survey 2009. London: CCPR. Cousens, L., Barnes, M., Stevens, J., Mallen, C., & Bradish, C. (2006). Who is your partner? Who is your ally? Exploring the characteristics of public, private, and voluntary recreation linkages. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24, 32–55. Cuskelly, G. (2004). Volunteer retention in community sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4(2), 59–76. Cuskelly, G. (2005). Volunteer participation trends in Australian sport. In G. Nichols & M. Collins (Eds.), Volunteers in sports clubs (pp. 87–104). Eastbourne, UK: Antony Rowe. Cuskelly, G., Taylor, T., Hoye, R., & Darcy, S. (2006). The advantage line: Identifying better practice for volunteer management in community rugby clubs Retrieved 13.11.08 http://www.rugby.com.au/verve/_resources/The_Advantage_Line_(final_report_ed.)_April_2006.pdf. Doherty, A. J., & Carron, A. V. (2003). Cohesion in volunteer sport executive committees. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 116–141. Doherty, A., & Murray, M. (2007). The strategic sponsorship process in a non-profit sport organization. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 49–59. Donnelly, P., & Kidd, B. (2003). Realizing the expectations: Youth, character, and community in Canadian sport. The sport we want: Essays on current issues in community sport, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. pp. 25–44. Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 115–130. Fleming, M. C., & Nellis, J. G. (1994). Principles of applied statistics. London, UK: Routledge. Frank, R. H. (2003). Microeconomics and behaviour (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Frisby, W., Thibault, L., & Kikulis, L. (2004). The organizational dynamics of under-managed partnerships in leisure service departments. Leisure Studies, 23, 109– 126. German Olympic Sports Confederation (GOSC). (2009). Bestandserhebung 2008 des Deutschen Olympischen Sportbundes Retrieved 19.05.09 http://www.dosb.de/ fileadmin/fm-dosb/downloads/bestandserhebung/2008.3_Bestandserhebung.pdf. Glickman, N. J., & Servon, L. J. (1998). More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation capacity. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 497–513. Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2002). Asset building & community development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gumulka, G., Barr, C., Lasby, D., & Brownlee, B. (2005). Understanding the capacity of sports & recreation organizations Retrieved December 8.12.07 http:// www.sportmatters.ca//Images/Voluntary%20sector/2Understanding_Capacity_of_Sports_&_Rec%20Report.pdf. Hall, M. H., McKeown, L., & Roberts, K. (2001). Caring Canadians, involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2000 national survey of giving, volunteering and participating. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Hall, M. H., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., & Embuldeniya, D. (2003). The capacity to serve: A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Hansmann, H. (1986). The role of nonprofit enterprise. In S. Rose-Ackerman (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions. Studies in structure and policy (2nd ed., pp. 57–84). New York: Oxford University Press. Heinemann, K., & Horch, H.-D. (1981). Soziologie der Sportorganisation. Sportwissenschaft, 11, 123–150. Horch, H.-D. (1994a). Does government financing have a detrimental effect on the autonomy of voluntary associations? Evidence from German Sport Clubs. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29(3), 269–285. Horch, H.-D. (1994b). On the socio-economics of voluntary associations. Voluntas, 5(2), 219–230. Horch, H.-D. (1994c). Resource composition and oligarchization: Evidence from german sport clubs. European Journal for Sport Management, 1(2), 52–67. Horch, H.-D., Hovemann, G., & Schubert, G. (2007). Bezahlte Mitarbeit im Sportverein. In C. Breuer (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2005/2006—Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 166–195). Köln: Sportverlag Strauß. Hovemann, G., Horch, H.-D., & Schubert, M. (2007). Sportvereine und Finanzen. In C. Breuer (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2005/2006—Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 144–165). Köln: Sportverlag Strauß. Imagine Canada. (2006). A portrait of sports and recreation organizations in Canada Retrieved 20.11.08 http://nonprofitscan.imaginecanada.ca/files/en/synthesis/ sr_executive_s.pdf. Kikulis, L. M., Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1995). Does decision making make a difference? Patterns of change within Canadian national sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 273–299. Langer, M. (2006). Öffentliche Förderung des Sports. Eine ordnungspolitische Analyse, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Lasby, D., & Sperling, J. (2007). Understanding the capacity of Ontario sports and recreation organizations. Toronto, Ontario: Imagine Canada. Mankiw, G. N. (2008). Principles of economics. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2009). A case study of organizational capacity in nonprofit community sport. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 457–482. Montgomery, B., & Carr, R. (1992). The politics of sport clubs: Positioning your program in an era of dwindling resources. NIRSA Winter, 16(2), 3–6. Nagel, S. (2008). Goals of sports clubs. European Journal for Sport and Society, 5(2), 121–141. Nichols, G. (2005a). Issues arising from Sport England’s survey off volunteers in sport 2002–3. In G. Nichols & M. Collins (Eds.), Volunteers in sports clubs (pp. 1–14). Eastbourne, UK: Antony Rowe. Nichols, G. (2005b). Stalwarts in sport. World Leisure, 47(2), 31–37. Nichols, G., & Shepherd, M. (2006). Volunteering in sport: The use of ratio analysis to analyse volunteering and participation. Managing Leisure, 11(4), 205–216. Nichols, G., Taylor, P., James, M., King, L., Holmes, K., & Garrett, R. (2003). Pressures on sports volunteers arising from partnerships with the central government. Loisir et Société, 26(2), 419–430. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265. Papadimitriou, D. (1999). Voluntary boards of directors in Greek sport governing bodies. European Journal for Sport Management, Special Issue, 1999, 78–103. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. B. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row. Rittner, V., & Keiner, R. (2007). Kooperationen der Sportvereine und kommunale Integration. In C. Breuer (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2005/2006. Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 226–258). Köln: Sportverlag Strauß. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2008). Community organizing and development (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Scheerder, J., & Vos, S. (2009). Panel van sportclubs in Vlaanderen anno 2008. Eerste resultaten[nl]The Flemish Sports Club Panel 2008. First results. Leuven: KU Leuven/ Research Unit of Social Kinesiology and Sport Management. Schubert, G., Horch, H.-D., & Hovemann, G. (2007). Ehrenamtliches Engagement in Sportvereinen. In C. Breuer (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2005/2006—Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 196–225). Köln: Sportverlag Strauß. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations. Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. P. Wicker, C. Breuer / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 188–201 201 Sharpe, E. K. (2006). Resources at the grassroots of recreation: Organizational capacity and quality of experience in a community sport organization. Leisure Sciences, 28, 385–401. Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1992). Understanding change in national sport organizations: An integration of theoretical perspectives. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 114–132. Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sugman, R., Leskosek, B., Jost, B., & Rauter, M. (2003). A sample based membership analysis of sport clubs in Slovenia. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 9(1), 66–73. Taks, M., Renson, R., & Vanreusel, B. (1999). Organised sport in transition: Development, trends and structure of sport in Belgium. In K. Heinemann (Ed.), Sport clubs in various European countries (pp. 183–223). Schorndorf: Hofmann. Taylor, T., Darcy, S., Hoye, R., & Cuskelly, G. (2006). Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(2), 123–147. Thibault, L., & Harvey, J. (1997). Fostering interorganizational linkages in the Canadian Sport Delivery System. Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 45–68. Wicker, P. (2009). Price elasticity in sport clubs. Measurement and empirical findings. Saarbrücken: SVH.