|  | Current Issues | No.59 May 2010 |

Social Inequality in Sports among German Children and Adolescents
Filip Mess, Stefanie Everke Buchanan, Darko Jekauc & Alexander Woll
Introduction
Social inequality is a key issue in sociology and it has been on the political agenda ever since Rousseau’s discovery of natural equality and the French Revolution (égalité). However, other disciplines, such as research on education or health, have also long been involved in intensive research on social disparities. While in the early days of research on inequality, sociology merely analysed its three central manifestations of material wealth, power and prestige, the new dimensions of education, work, political participation as well as health have gained importance in recent years (cf. Neckermann, 2004).
One important aspect in the context of the health related discourse on inequality is health behaviour in the areas of nutrition, smoking and physical activity, as it is now generally accepted that bad health is associated with neglectful health behaviour (e.g. Currie, Hurrelmann, Settertobulte, Smith & Todd, 2000; Currie, Gabhainn, Godeau, Roberts, Smith, Currie et al., 2008). For this reason, Richter and Hurrelmann (2009) have posited that equal opportunities in health can be achieved, among others, by lessening the differences in the intermediary influencing factors of health inequality such as health behaviour. Among children and adolescents, physical activity seems to be of particular importance as the exercise patterns acquired during childhood are generally kept later in life (Malina, 1996). Children and adolescents are therefore one of, if not the most important, target groups from the point of view of prevention and health promotion.
Sport science research on social inequality investigates how disparities in the sport system perpetuate, weaken or strengthen social inequity. The current state of research in Germany, however, makes it apparent that sport participation in particular has not been the subject of a differentiated analysis for children and adolescents and must therefore be called deficient. This article aims to investigate the connections between an individual’s situation in life with physical activity in the settings of club, leisure time sport and everyday physical activity. The data set used is the Child and Adolescent Study Motorik-Modul, which is representative for Germany.
Theoretical Background
Sociology has generated a vast number of publications on theories of social inequality (cf. the overview in Grabb, 1984). Aside from conventional theories (e.g. class theory according to Marx), new theories have become established since the early 1980s and have continuously gained importance. The main advocates of these theories are Bourdieu (1987), with his concept of habitus and Beck (1992) with his theory of individualisation. Bourdieu’s assumptions seem too far-fetched in regard to social inequality so in recent years, Beck’s theory with its central terms of milieu, lifestyle and social situation has become prevalent (Hradil, 2001). A further reason for the frequent use of theories of lifestyle and milieu can probably be found in the fact that special theories, tailored for very specific forms of social inequality (e.g. risks of unemployment or health) have been constructed which can now find broad application. Thus, there are explanations for social inequality in sport as well which lead to unequally distributed participation in sport. One heuristic model for explaining leisure time behavior, which is very frequently used in Germany, was developed by Nagel (2003). He assumes that there are four mutually linked levels to explain leisure time activity (see Fig. 1): (1) the general level of development of a society, including the social background, (2) the situation, (3) the space of interaction and (4) the habitus. Nagel (2003) claims that the interplay of these four levels influences the lifestyle and leisure time activities. At the same time, he explicitly cautions that the suggested model is incomplete and does not permit a total prediction of the leisure time and activity behaviour of single individuals. This is because the magnitude of independent variables of sport participation can neither be clearly controlled nor precisely recorded in an empirical manner (p. 95).
Fig. 1: Explanatory model for sport participation (Source: Nagel, 2003, p. 96)
In the face of the topic focussed on in this article, the question arises as to which of the four levels of explanation were considered in the work on sport participation of children and adolescents published to date and whether particular lifestyles affiliated with sport can be identified. This also leads to the question of which markers from the four levels of explanation have the strongest determining effect on a sporty lifestyle.
Current state of research with regard to German Children and Adolescents
It is known from numerous international publications on social disparity and socio-economic inequalities of physical activity among children and adolescents that despite great variability in sport behaviour, certain tendencies manifest themselves on the individual, parental and environmental level (cf. Lindquist, Reynolds & Goran, 1999). Boys are usually more physically active than girls, and children tend to me more active than adolescents (Kohl & Hobbs, 1998; Seabra, Mendonca, Thomis, Peters & Maia, 2007). The influence of economic resources and family circumstances is also well documented (e.g. Van der Horst, Paw, Twisk & Van Mechelen, 2007). Furthermore, it is known that parental support can have a positive determining effect on the sport participation of adolescents (Sallis, Prochaska & Taylor, 2000).
For Germany, too, there are now numerous research findings on social inequality among children and adolescents. However, for several reasons these publications are of limited benefit for the analysis of social inequality in sport in an objective manner: a lack of representative value, undifferentiated recording of data on physical activity or non-transparent operationalisation of social inequality are but a few of the points of criticism. Nevertheless, when summing up the main insights of all these studies, the following picture currently emerges for children and adolescents:

- Boys are significantly over-represented in sport.
- Adolescents are reported to be more active than children, with the culminating point generally being set in year 7 (13-14 years of age). According to these studies, more children than adolescents are active in clubs, while the opposite is true for leisure time sports.
- The higher the type of schooling and the social status of children and adolescents, the higher their sport participation. The highest social selection threshold exists in the sports club.
- Children and adolescents from rural regions are more physically active than those from urban centres. This difference is particularly apparent in boys.

However, none of these studies have been able to remedy two fundamental research deficits in Germany: the lack of a nation-wide representative study on sport related social inequality among children and adolescents on the one hand, and a differentiation of sport participation according to the setting (e.g. club, sport outside of clubs or everyday physical activity) on the other. Therefore, the question remains whether there are also social disparities in the everyday physical activity of children and adolescents. Starting from these gaps in research, first results of the Motorik-Modul (MoMo) will be presented here, from the point of view of social inequalities.
Methods
The Motorik-Modul is a representative study for all of Germany on motor abilities and physical activity among children and adolescents. In total, 4,529 young people aged between 4 and 17 were tested and interviewed. For the recording of physical activity, Bös, Worth, Opper, Oberger and Woll (2009) implemented an extensive questionnaire on the settings of school, club, leisure time sport (outside of clubs) and everyday activity (among others, playing outside). Vertical (social status) as well as horizontal markers such as sex, age, migration status and region of residence (East/West, and urban/rural) were employed to determine the individual situation. The social status was recorded by using a multidimensional index consisting of education, occupational qualification, parental occupation and net household income.
Results
The logistical regressions initially showed that sport participation among children and adolescents is determined to different degrees by the individual setting (see table 1). Thus, the model validity recorded with the Nagelkerkes-R2 in the club (R2=0.14) and playing outside (R2=0.22) is significantly higher than in leisure time activity (R2=0.03). The chosen items can therefore only account for a three percent variance in the criterion of participation in physical activity outside of clubs. The variance explanation in membership in a sports club, however, is 14 percent, and 22 percent for playing outside.
Explanatory model for sport participation (Source: Nagel, 2003, p. 96)
In the face of the topic focussed on in this article, the question arises as to which of the four levels of explanation were considered in the work on sport participation of children and adolescents published to date and whether particular lifestyles affiliated with sport can be identified. This also leads to the question of which markers from the four levels of explanation have the strongest determining effect on a sporty lifestyle.
Current state of research with regard to German Children and Adolescents
It is known from numerous international publications on social disparity and socio-economic inequalities of physical activity among children and adolescents that despite great variability in sport behaviour, certain tendencies manifest themselves on the individual, parental and environmental level (cf. Lindquist, Reynolds & Goran, 1999). Boys are usually more physically active than girls, and children tend to me more active than adolescents (Kohl & Hobbs, 1998; Seabra, Mendonca, Thomis, Peters & Maia, 2007). The influence of economic resources and family circumstances is also well documented (e.g. Van der Horst, Paw, Twisk & Van Mechelen, 2007). Furthermore, it is known that parental support can have a positive determining effect on the sport participation of adolescents (Sallis, Prochaska & Taylor, 2000).
For Germany, too, there are now numerous research findings on social inequality among children and adolescents. However, for several reasons these publications are of limited benefit for the analysis of social inequality in sport in an objective manner: a lack of representative value, undifferentiated recording of data on physical activity or non-transparent operationalisation of social inequality are but a few of the points of criticism. Nevertheless, when summing up the main insights of all these studies, the following picture currently emerges for children and adolescents:

- Boys are significantly over-represented in sport.
- Adolescents are reported to be more active than children, with the culminating point generally being set in year 7 (13-14 years of age). According to these studies, more children than adolescents are active in clubs, while the opposite is true for leisure time sports.
- The higher the type of schooling and the social status of children and adolescents, the higher their sport participation. The highest social selection threshold exists in the sports club.
- Children and adolescents from rural regions are more physically active than those from urban centres. This difference is particularly apparent in boys.

However, none of these studies have been able to remedy two fundamental research deficits in Germany: the lack of a nation-wide representative study on sport related social inequality among children and adolescents on the one hand, and a differentiation of sport participation according to the setting (e.g. club, sport outside of clubs or everyday physical activity) on the other. Therefore, the question remains whether there are also social disparities in the everyday physical activity of children and adolescents. Starting from these gaps in research, first results of the Motorik-Modul (MoMo) will be presented here, from the point of view of social inequalities.
Methods
The Motorik-Modul is a representative study for all of Germany on motor abilities and physical activity among children and adolescents. In total, 4,529 young people aged between 4 and 17 were tested and interviewed. For the recording of physical activity, Bös, Worth, Opper, Oberger and Woll (2009) implemented an extensive questionnaire on the settings of school, club, leisure time sport (outside of clubs) and everyday activity (among others, playing outside). Vertical (social status) as well as horizontal markers such as sex, age, migration status and region of residence (East/West, and urban/rural) were employed to determine the individual situation. The social status was recorded by using a multidimensional index consisting of education, occupational qualification, parental occupation and net household income.
Results
The logistical regressions initially showed that sport participation among children and adolescents is determined to different degrees by the individual setting (see table 1). Thus, the model validity recorded with the Nagelkerkes-R2 in the club (R2=0.14) and playing outside (R2=0.22) is significantly higher than in leisure time activity (R2=0.03). The chosen items can therefore only account for a three percent variance in the criterion of participation in physical activity outside of clubs. The variance explanation in membership in a sports club, however, is 14 percent, and 22 percent for playing outside.
Table 1: Logistical regression on the influencing factors for physical activity

| Club sports (N=4428) | Physical activity outside of clubs (N=4322) | Everyday physical activity – playing outside (N=4184)
| c 2 | p | exp(b) | c 2 | p | exp(b) | c 2 | p | exp(b)
Age | 17.8 | 0.000 | 0.97 | 33.1 | 0.000 | 1.05 | 565.1 | 0.000 | 0.80
Sex (w) | 55.2 | 0.000 | 0.62 | 1.7 | 0.189 | 0.92 | 21.8 | 0.000 | 0.73
Social status | 143.9 | 0.000 |  | 50.6 | 0.000 |  | 6.8 | 0.033 |
Low | 138.3 | 0.000 | 0.34 | 41.4 | 0.000 | 0.56 | 6.8 | 0.009 | 1.29
Medium | 24.6 | 0.000 | 0.67 | 1.4 | 0.243 | 0.91 | 1.9 | 0.171 | 1.12
Migration (non-migrant) | 64.3 | 0.000 | 2.20 | 0.1 | 0.907 | 0.99 | 7.2 | 0.007 | 1.34
Region of residence (urban/rural) | 29.7 | 0.000 |  | 13.4 | 0.004 |  | 49.6 | 0.000 |
Rural | 8.4 | 0.004 | 1.34 | 7.8 | 0.005 | 1.33 | 41.6 | 0.000 | 2.04
Small town | 27.0 | 0.000 | 1.60 | 0.4 | 0.532 | 1.06 | 3.7 | 0.055 | 1.20
Midsize town | 17.6 | 0.000 | 1.45 | 0.5 | 0.495 | 0.94 | 0.6 | 0.446 | 1.08
East/West comparison (East) | 95.5 | 0.000 | 0.40 | 9.3 | 0.002 | 0.75 | 0.2 | 0.697 | 1.04
Model (Nagelkerkes) | R2=0.14 | R2=0.03 | R2=0.22

If one considers the involved characteristics of the three settings club sports, sport outside of clubs and everyday activity in an isolated manner, the following differences become apparent:
With increasing age, the probability that children and adolescents are active in clubs decreases by 3 percent for every year of life, while for playing outside (at least four times a week), the decrease amounts to 20 percent. The chance of participating in sport outside of clubs, however, increases by 5 percent for every year of life.
Significant differences also become apparent between the sexes: Both in club sports as well as in playing outside, the chance that girls participate is significantly lower (38% in clubs and 27% in playing outside). Sport outside of clubs also shows this gender specific tendency, however it is no longer statistically significant.
Children and adolescents of medium or lower social status have a 33 percent or 66 percent lower chance respectively, of participating in club sports. Sport outside of clubs also shows this disparity, however the social status only becomes statistically significant between the upper and lower social class: girls and boys with lower status have a probability that is reduced by 44 percent of participating in sport offered outside of clubs. Playing outside, on the other hand, shows a contrary participation rate: Even though the inequality between upper and lower class can be traced to repression effects, the tendency remains that children and adolescents of lower or medium social status have a higher chance of playing outside at least four times a week than those of higher status.
Migration background plays an important role in club sport and for playing outside, while it does not cause any disparities in sport outside of clubs. Thus, children without a migration background are active in a sports club 2.2 times as often and play outside 1.3 times as often (at least four times a week) than their peers with migration background.
The influence of region of residence (urban/rural) shows heterogenous results for sport participation: children and adolescents from a rural background do 1.3 times more club sport and sport outside of clubs and play outside 2.0 times as often (at least four times a week) than those from urban centres. Further statistically significant differences are only evident in participation in sports clubs: The chance that young people from small and mid-sized towns are active in sports clubs is 60 percent or 45 percent respectively, higher than for large cities.
The comparison of new and old German states demonstrates that there are disparities, in particular in participation rates in club sports and sport outside of clubs: children and adolescents from the new German states have a 60 percent lower chance of being active in a club than their peers from the old German states. For sport outside of clubs, the chance is reduced by 25 percent.
Discussion and Conclusions
This first summary of the MoMo results from the point of view of social disparities in Germany now confirms several earlier studies with nation-wide representative data. Furthermore, the MoMo results give a deeper insight into the discussion on inequality in sport and at the same time lead to a number of new findings, particularly in the two central questions of this article.
The male dominance in sport is confirmed: in all settings, however particularly in the sports club, boys do more sport than girls. The manifestation of class specific differences in sport participation already among children and adolescents is also concurrent with the findings of previous studies in Germany. The fact that sports clubs show the greatest disparities is largely consistent with the state of research. However, a clear differentiation between membership in a sports club and the amount of physical activity must be made: children and adolescents in clubs, for instance, show a comparable amount of physical activity per week independent of their social status (cf. Bös et al., 2009).
One important insight of the MoMo study is that the culmination point of membership in a sports club is to be found much earlier than previously thought – as early as 7 years of age. Afterwards, the number of children who are active in a club decreases, while at the same time the activities outside of clubs increase. This means that a change from the club into other settings takes place even earlier than previously assumed. It may be that German clubs can only partially meet the needs of young people from a certain age. The lack of flexibility of sports clubs in the design of exercise, games and sports has been named as a main cause (cf. Breuer, 2004). It is also important that the class dependency of sports varies strongly according to setting. Here, too, the assumption can be made that sports clubs have difficulty in reaching socially disadvantaged young people. Definite statements on class specific leisure time behaviour, however, are hardly possible. This is due to the fact that while in earlier times, it was mainly the lower social classes that had very little leisure time, in recent years there has been a turnaround: socially disadvantaged people have gained leisure time, while the upper classes have lost it. The latter, on the other hand, have become flexible in their time and can therefore plan their time better (cf. Hradil, 2009).
Another important aspect in this context is that in sport outside of clubs, no ethnic disparities became apparent. Children and adolescents of all nationalities do indeed have the same opportunities to participate in sport. The significant urban-rural disparities stand in stark contrast to the results presented by Baur and Burrmann (2000), particularly between rural regions and urban centres. One potential explanation for the higher activity in rural areas is the diverse opportunities of leisure time activities in the city, while leisure time in rural areas largely takes place in (sports) clubs. A last informative result relates to the differences between the old and the new German states, Disparities in sport participation only became apparent in club sport and sport outside of clubs. For playing outside, this difference could not be proven.
In summary, the MoMo results demonstrate that a differentiated investigation of activity behaviour is necessary to identify social inequalities, thus, the disparities manifest themselves mainly in sports clubs, while they are hardly present at all in unorganised sports. In spite of these new insights, sport science should, however, aim to extend to areas of research in the future. Initially, researchers should strive to identify sports preferences dependent upon the individual lifestyle. This mainly includes the identification of groups in danger (e.g. single mothers, families with many children), “who are subject to an especially great number of disadvantageous preconditions for leisure time” (Hradil, 2009, p. 318). This, however, will only succeed if in a second step the habitus, space of interaction and the lifestyle patterns of children and adolescents also become the focus of attention, as the recording of these items plays a particular role. Nagel and Ehnold (2007), for instance, found in a study with children’s sport schools that the parent’s attitude to sport is decisive for the sport participation of children – in other words, their knowledge about the significance of exercise and sport for optimal development.
Social inequality in sport has many causes, only some of which have been identified to a satisfactory level. As research continues using the Motorik-Modul, results from this ongoing study are certain to lead to new insights into starting points for overcoming disparities among children and adolescents in Germany.
References
Baur, J. & Burrmann, U. (2000). Unerforschtes Land: Jugendsport in ländlichen Regionen. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage
Bös, K., Worth, A., Opper, E., Oberger, J. & Woll, A. (2009). Motorik-Modul. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Breuer, C. (2004). Soziale Arbeit und organisierter Sport. In B. Seibel (Hrsg.), Sport und soziale Arbeit (S. 41-49). Berlin: Lit.
Currie, C., Gabhainn, S.N., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, B., Currie, D. et al., (Eds.) (2008). Inequalities in Young People’s Health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Currie, C., Hurrelmann, K., Settertobulte, W., Smith, R. & Todd, J. (Eds.) (2000). Health and Health Behaviour among Young People. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Grabb, E.G. (1984). Social Inequality. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hradil, S. (2001). Soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland (8. Aufl.). Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Hradil, S. (2009). Lagen und Milieus: Sozialstrukturanalyse in einer fortgeschrittenen Gesellschaft. In H. Solga, J. Powell & P. A. Berger (Hrsg.), Soziale Ungleichheit (S. 281-311). Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
Kohl, H.W. & Hobbs, K.E. (1998). Development of physical activity behaviors among children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 101 (3 Pt 2), 549-554.
Lindquist, C.H., Reynolds, K.D. & Goran, M.I. (1999). Sociocultural determinants of physical activity among children. Preventive Medicine, 29 (4), 305-312.
Malina, R. (1996). Tracking of physical activity and physical fitness across the lifespan. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76 (3), Supplement S1-S10.
Nagel, M. (2003). Soziale Ungleichheiten im Sport. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Nagel, S. & Ehnold, P. (2007). Soziale Ungleichheit und Beteiligung am Kindersport. Sportwissenschaft, 56 (2), 36-39.
Neckermann, K. M. (Ed.) (2004). Social Inequality. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Richter, M. & Hurrelmann, K. (Hrsg.) (2009). Gesundheitliche Ungleichheit (2., aktual. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Sallis, J.F., Prochaska, J.J. & Taylor, W.C. (2000). A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32 (5), 963-975.
Seabra, A.F., Mendonca, D.M., Thomis, M.A., Peters, T. & Maia, J.A. (2007). Associations between sport participation, demographic and socio-cultural factors in Portuguese children and adolescents. European Journal of Public Health, 18, 25-30.
Thiel, A. & Cachay, K. (2003). Soziale Ungleichheit im Sport. In W. Schmidt, I. Hartmann-Tews & W.-D. Brettschneider (Hrsg.), Erster Deutscher Kinder- und Jugendsportbericht (S.275-295). Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Van der Horst, K., Paw, M.J., Twisk, J.W. & Van Mechelen, W. (2007). A brief review on correlates of physical activity and sedentariness in youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39 (8), 1241-1250.
Contact
Dr. Filip Mess
Universität Konstanz
Sportwissenschaft – Fach D30
Konstanz, Germany
Email: filip.mess@uni-konstanz.de

http://www.icsspe.org/