|  | Feature: Sport and Leisure | No.50 May 2007 |

A Review of the Sport and Leisure Market in the Netherlands Wim Florijn |
Introduction In the last fifty years, under the influence of different social developments such as economic, political, cultural, technological and demographic variations, much has changed in the Dutch sports and leisure market. The typical private, not-for-profit oriented structure, more or less subsidised by the Government and the local authorities, which has laid an emphasis on the socio-integrative function of sports [1] is currently under pressure. This particularly applies for the competitive sports and Sport for All movement inside traditional sports clubs. Nowadays, many people have moved away from this ‘traditional’ structure (ie. the sports clubs), choosing a way that best fits their individual needs; for example on their own, with friends, in companies or in professionalised sports studios. The participation of sportsmen and sportswomen in traditional sports clubs has decreased in the Netherlands from 60% in 1991 to 53% in 2003 [2]. Aside from this, the whole concept of sport has changed too. There is hardly any difference left with related fields like the ‘leisure and recreation market’ and the ‘tourist’ sector in which also many products are aimed on free time activities, fun, experience and recreation of people. What has happened? For a better understanding it is necessary to briefly go back in history and have a look into the growth of sport and leisure markets after the Second World War in the Netherlands, as well as the position of both markets at present. The ‘50s and ‘60s The early ‘50s can be characterised by the rebuilding of Dutch society after the war. There was not much to spend and with labourers working hard for six days a week also, little free time was left for social activities like sport. Until that time sport, was connected with ‘physical education’, but in the late ‘50s it was detached from this field and sports received more and more Governmental attention as a separate field of social activities. During those years, the private not-for-profit structure was established in the Netherlands, with the establishment of the ‘Dutch Sports Federation’ in 1959 as a leading example. The definition of Sport in that time was clear: it is competitive sport especially for the well educated young men from the higher social classes. In the ’60s, further changes emerged. The five-day working week was introduced, the level of prosperity was growing and more members of the middle class had the opportunity to follow the behaviour of the higher social classes [3]. Sport, increasingly, was regarded as a social phenomenon and the participation of people was growing quickly. In the Netherlands, the Government’s ‘sportpolicy’ in the late 60’s was only focussing on sport facilities. A governmental rule for subsidising roofed sports accommodation was established, which led to the construction of various hundreds of sports halls. The ’70s and ‘80s In these years, a gradual process of democratisation emerged. Sport is no longer only a ‘target itself’, it is also a ‘means to’ the well-being of the citizens. In the ‘70s, there was continuous growing attention from the Government and in 1974, the first ‘Note Sports Policy’ of the Government was published. In this document, sport was recognised as an important field of socialisation and the Government introduced the term ‘sportive recreation’ as another way of being active aside from competitive sport. Sport was seen as something that could contribute to social contact and self-realisation of people. This period was characterised by stimulating people to be more active and many large-scale promotion campaigns were launched with a clear and simple focus on activating as many people as possible. In addition to the existing categorisation of Top level Sports and Competitive Sport, the term Sport for All (synonymous word for e.g. ‘sportive recreation’, ‘recreational sport’ and ‘leisure sport’) was created. These three categories led to the pyramid model, which until to day with all the modifications, is more or less still applicable. During the beginning of this period, the term ‘second way sport’, a term deriving from Germany from the former President of TAFISA, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Palm (2006 †) was often used in The Netherlands. In the beginning of the ‘80s, the Government shifted its emphasis by changing the term ‘sportive recreation’ into ‘sports activation’. The underlying reason of changing the terminology was to try to involve more target groups such as disabled, non-natives, youngsters and women in sports. At the end of this period, for the first time in the Netherlands the term ‘breedtesport’, synonymous for Sport for All, was introduced. The Dutch Sports Federation and the Government both had the view that the Dutch sports structure, mainly represented by the sports clubs, was the best way to guarantee the continuity of being active as well as the social activation of people. The ’90 and the beginning of the 21 century In 1991, Dr. Bart Crum, upon request of the Government, published his vision ‘On the sportification of the society’: reflections about movement cultural developments with a view to sport policy [4]. He mentioned that this sportification resulted in a continuing process of internal differentiation of sport. This process is characterised by two opposite developments: on the one hand, the ‘sportification’ of the society and on the other hand, the ‘de-sportification’ of sport. He concluded that under influence of the ‘sportification of the society’ and the ‘de-sportification’ of the traditional sport, the once relative homogeneous sport system has differentiated into a rather heterogeneous movement culture. Movement culture subsystems have developed next to each other as different shops, with different assortments and different internal rules for different groups of clients, who have different needs and expectations. Crum introduced a classification of sportive subsystems [5]: Elite sport, often commercialised and requires (semi)professional participating. Competitive club sport, a cocktail of the excitement of competition, pursuit of subjective achievement, relaxation and social contact. Recreation sport, relaxation, health and togetherness offered by sport clubs as well as by local authorities, but it’s also often privately arranged. Fitness sport, physical fitness offered by commercial agencies and also privately staged. Risk and adventure sport, mostly commercially organised. Expensive activities like diving, rafting and parachuting. Lust sport, commercially organised often together with tourism (sun, sea, sand, snow, speed and satisfaction). Cosmetic sport, the focus is on the model-appearance, commercially organised narcism of bodybuilding, -styling and shaping. As such, the concept of Sport has become extremely diffused and differentiated. This change can be explained through five different underlying causes [6]: Firstly, the commercialisation of the offer. Employers of the leisure market are continuously searching for new products and new product-market combinations in order to retain or grow their business. Secondly, the influence of the media. New ideas and initiatives globalise at a rapid pace through television and Internet and are subsequently imitated throughout the world. Thirdly, the mobility of the ‘modern’ people. On business tours or during holiday trips, people get in touch with new types of sport and sportive activities; subsequently they would like to try it back home. Fourthly, the response of the existing sports offer by sports organisations, sports clubs and sports facilities. These organisations must enter into competition in order to retain their ‘clients’ and therefore adapt themselves to the offers of the commercialised sport. Finally the effects of integration of sport with other social fields like the classification of subsystems as Crum mentioned. Current situation At present, sport is generally ‘hot’ in the Netherlands. Between 2000 and 2003, the amount of money spent on sport by Dutch households has grown by 36% from 2.5 to 3.4 million euros. In the same time, the expenses of the public sector (Government, local authorities and provinces) has increased by 24% from 725 million to 900 million euros [7]. Sport has become a part of a strong professionalised leisure market. Participants adopt themselves, like in other economic markets, as clients. They want to buy a high quality product, at a reasonable price, at the time they want and together with whom they want. Generally, the commercial agencies are better equipped to offer such activities then the traditional sports clubs. Especially the quality of the offer and the favourable times that you participate in the activities of the commercialised sport, are very important to the current individualistic oriented sportsmen and women. There is a general social trend of growing individualistic culture/attitude of people, characterised as ‘do it yourself’ culture. When it comes to being active in sports, this means that in particular activities such as walking, running, cycling, swimming, fitness and skating are currently very popular in the Netherlands. One can do it alone or with friends at any time and place they want. They use ‘meeting points’ in parks and forest areas for being active at regular times. Many people also use the current offer of travel agencies for skiing, walking, golf and bridge holidays and they choose to be active only for the reasons of fun, recreation and experience. The advantage of being active in this way, as opposed to a traditional sports club, is that one is not obliged to also be a volunteer worker (e.g. committee member or coach) inside the sports club. Various studies in the Netherlands (e.g. by De Knop and Duijvestein) confirm this way of thinking: “Till today sports clubs organised along traditional lines are in fact faced with a variety of problems today, e.g., financial and infrastructural problems, the difficulty of recruiting and retaining young people (drop out) and the problem of finding committee members and (qualified) coaches (De Knop et al., 1992b; De Knop et al.,1996b). A study by Duijvestijn (1998) showed that the strengths of commercial sport providers, compared with sports clubs, are the good coaching they offer and the favourable times that clients can take part in their sport activities”. But there are still many more developments in, for example, areas such as the ‘outdoor recreation’, ‘nature and environment conservation’, tourism and the utilisation of ‘farming-land’. About 60% of the Dutch territory has an agricultural destination, but more and more farmers are changing their profession now to become managers of a camping-site, with the opportunity for guests to do outdoor activities. The future The organised sport sector has lost, in about 50 years, its original identity as well as its dominating position; not only as being the only producer of sport, but also as a concept of the content of sport. Although the latter aspect is very much related to a social development, which generally surfaces autonomously. However, I believe that this development and process will continue in the next ten years and many more things will change. The sport and leisure markets are already closely linked to each other, but they will continue to converge more and more into one market in the future. On the one hand, the traditional sports clubs will have to change their strategy/policy continuously in order to compete with the commercialised and leisure sports market and in some cases will even have to team up with them (‘if you cannot beat them, join them’). This trend will ensure that new structures/partnerships will be created. On the other hand, the commercialised leisure market, driven by economic objectives, will continue to develop new products for new clients in new markets. The sports clubs themselves will still have the opportunity to produce a good sports offer, as long as they realise that the sport sector is the biggest social sector in the Netherlands with the largest number of organisations (28 700 in 2004), members (28% of the population aged 16 years and older) and volunteers (11% ) [7]. But the product must be of high quality and be offered against a competitive price, since consumers are critical. However the expectation is that the expenses for sport in the future will be at the least stable, with an annual economic growth in the Netherlands of about 2.5% in the coming years. All in all, the future of the Dutch sport and leisure markets will see them free and open with producers, consumers and fierce competition. Given the importance of the sport sector, an interesting topic is how the Government, from a policy perspective, will anticipate these future developments. Take the economic growth of the whole sport sector as an example, whereby the employment in the sports sector in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2003 increased by 5% (from 22 000 to 23 300 FTE) [7]. But also the value of sport in relation to general health and the battle of overweight, or sport as a means to assist in the integration of minorities, etc, etc. I believe that because the sport sector is so much intertwined with other policy fields, it will be required that the Government establish and implement an inter-departmental and integral sport policy in the future. Sport is no longer an isolated policy field but is perceived and accepted to be a wide social field for the benefit of the general wellbeing of civilians. [1] De Knop & Hoyng, 1998 [2] Rapportage Sport 2006. SCP; June 2006 [3] Van Bottenburg, 1994,209-215 [4] B.J. Crum, Ministry of Welfare, Health and Culture, 1991 [5] B.J. Crum, 1992 [6] Mark van den Heuvel – Hugo van der Poel, 1999 [7] Rapportage Sport 2006. SCP, June 2006 References Maarten van Bottenburg (1994). Verborgen competitie. Over de uiteenlopende populariteit van sporten.(Amsterdam. Bert Bakker). Hidden competition. About the divergent popularity of sports. De Knop, P & Hoyng, J. (1998). De functies en betekenissen van sport. (Functions and meanings of sport). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. B.J. Crum (1991) Over de versporting van de samenleving. Reflecties over bewegingsculturele ontwikkelingen met het oog op sportbeleid (On the sportification of the society. Reflections about movement cultural developments with a view to sportspolicy). Rijswijk: Ministry of Welfare, Health and Culture. R. Pouw (1999). 50 jaar Nationaal Sportbeleid. (Fifty years of National Sportspolicy). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. De Knop (en anderen) 1992b. Marketingtendensen in de sport. De Knop et al. Marketingtrends in sport. De Knop (en anderen) (et al.) 1996b. Sportsclubs in crisis? The Flemish situation. European Journal for Sport Management. Duijvestijn, P. (1998). Jongerenparticipatie in de sportvereniging. (Participation of youngsters in the sportsclub). Gouda: Assist. Mark van den Heuvel – Hugo van der Poel (1999): Sport in Nederland, een beleidsgerichte toekomstverkenning. (Sport in the Netherlands, a policy oriented exploration for the future). Tilburg University Press. Rapportage Sport 2006. Koen Breedveld en Annet Tiessen – Raaphorst. (Den Haag, Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, june 2006). Sportsreport 2006. Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands. Contact Wim Florijn TAFISA Board member Rhene NETHERLANDS Email: wim.florijn@hetnet.nl http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 A Review of the Sport and Leisure Market in the Netherlands Wim Florijn