In Germany, membership fees in nonprofit sports clubs are comparatively lower than fees or prices for other leisure time activities, such as sports offers from fitness clubs, music schools, or theatre visits. However, it is unclear on which basis sports clubs set their membership fees for different groups and why fees differ between clubs. Based on panel data of nonprofit sports clubs in Germany (n=1,538), this study investigates which factors influence the setting of membership fee levels using classical pricing-appro aches adapted to the nonprofit context. The results show that costs related to coaches and instructors as well as facility costs significantly determine the level of membership fees, whereas perceived competition does not. Moreover, club goals such as offering competitive sports or sports for socially vulnerable groups have an impact on the level of membership fees. Furthermore, clubs with higher revenue diversification display lower levels of membership fees two years later.
AndersonG. M., ShughartW. F., & TollisonR. D. (2004). The economic theory of clubs. In RowleyC. K. & SchneiderF. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of public choice (pp. 499–504). Boston, MA: Springer US.
BaumC. F. (2006). An introduction to modern econometrics usingStata.College Station, Texas: Stata Press.
4.
BreuerC., & FeilerS. (2015). Sport development report 2013/2014: Analysis of the situation of sports clubs in Germany (abbreviated version). Cologne, Germany: Sportverlag Strau.
5.
BreuerC., & FeilerS. (2017a). Methode. In BreuerC. (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2015/2016 (Band I): Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 780–803). Hellenthal., Germany: Sportverlag Strauß.
6.
BreuerC., & FeilerS. (2017b). Sportverein im Wandel: Zur Entwicklung der Sportvereine in Deutschland von 2005 bis 2015. In BreuerC. (Ed.), Sportentwicklungsbericht 2015/2016 (Band I): Analyse zur Situation der Sportvereine in Deutschland (pp. 243–263). Hellenthal., Germany: Sportverlag Strauß.
7.
BreuerC., & FeilerS. (2019). Sportvereine in Deutschland: Organisationen und personen. Sportentwicklungsbericht fur Deutschland 2017/2018, teil 1.Bonn, Germany: Bundesinstitut fur Sportwissenschaft.
8.
BreuerC., & WickerP. (2009). Sport development report 2013/2014: Analysis of the situation of sports clubs in Germany (abbreviated version).Cologne, Germany: Sportverlag Strauß.
9.
BreuerC., WickerP., & SwierzyP. (2016). Angemessene Mitgliedschaftsbeitriige in den FuBball: Und Leichtathletikvereinen des WFLV.Cologne, Germany: Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln.
10.
BuchananJ. M. (1965). An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32(125), 1–14.
11.
CameronA. C., & TrivediP. K. (2010). Microeconometrics usingStata (Revised edition). College Station, Texas: Stata Press.
12.
CarrollD. A., & StaterK. J. (2009). Revenue diversification in nonprofit organizations: Does it lead to financial stability?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947–966.
13.
CoatesD., & WickerP. (2017). Financial management. In HoyeR. & ParentM. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sport management (pp. 117–137). London, England: Sage.
14.
CoatesD., WickerP., FeilerS., & BreuerC. (2014). A bivariate probit examination of financial and volunteer problems of non-profit sport clubs. International Journal of Sport Finance, 9(3), 230–248.
15.
CornesR., & SandlerT. (1986). The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Deutscher Bundestag. (2019). 14 sportbericht der bundesregierung: Drucksache 19/9150.Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Bundestag.
17.
DOSB. (2018). Bestandserhebung 2018.Frankfurt, Germany: Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund.
18.
DSSV. (2018). Eckdaten der deutschen Fitness-Wirtschaft 2018. Hamburg, Germany: Arbeitgeberverband Deutscher Fitness und Gesundheits Anlagen.
19.
EmrichE., PitschW., & PapathanassiouV. (2001). Die sportvereine: Ein versuch auf empirischergrundlage.Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann.
20.
European Commission. (1999). The European model of sport. Consultation Document of Directorate-General X.Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
21.
FalkM. (2008). A hedonic price model for ski lift tickets. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1172–1184.
22.
FeilerS., WickerP., & BreuerC. (2018). Public subsidies for sports clubs in Germany: Funding regulations vs. empirical evidence. European Sport Management Quarterly. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2018.1541915
23.
FischerD., & TschurerG. M. (2011). Kostenrechnung und beitragsgestaltung im sportverein.Duisburg, Germany: Landessportbund Nordrhein-Westfalen.
24.
GoodmanA. C., & ThibodeauT. G. (2003). Housing market segmentation and hedonic prediction accuracy. Journal of Housing Economics, 12(3), 181–201.
25.
GrattonC., & TaylorP. (2000). Economics of sport and recreation.London, England: E & FN Spon.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., & AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
28.
HallmannK., FeilerS., & BreuerC. (2015). Design and delivery of sport for all programmes: Should it be market, non-profit, or state-run?International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(4), 565–585.
29.
HansmannH. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal., 89(5), 835–902.
30.
HeinemannK. (1995). Einfuhrung in die bkonomie des sports.Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann.
31.
HeinemannK. (2005). Sport and the welfare state in Europe. European Journal of Sport Science, 5(4), 181–188.
32.
HessS., SurryY., KronR., LiljenstolpeC., LindbergG., & AnderssonH. (2014). A hedonic analysis of the price for horse riding lessons in Sweden. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7–8(Supplement C), 65–74.
33.
HorchH.-D. (1992). Geld, macht und engagement in freiwilligen vereinigungen: Grundlage einer wirtschaftssoziologie von non-profit-organisationen.Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.
34.
HorchH.-D. (1994). On the socio-economics of voluntary associations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 5(2), 219–230.
35.
HuthC., & KurscheidtM. (2019). Membership versus green fee pricing for golf courses: The impact of market and golf club determinants. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(3), 331–352.
36.
KieferS. (2015). Are riding club members willing to pay or work for overall quality improvement?Managing Sport and Leisure, 20(2), 100–116.
37.
KlenkC, SchlesingerT., & NagelS. (2017). Zum zusammenhang von mitgliederinteressen und vereinszielen. In ThiemeL. (Ed.), Der sportverein: Versuch einer bilanz (pp. 273–294). Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann.
38.
KotlerP. (1997). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
LamprechtM., BürgiR., GebertA., & StammH. (2017). Sportvereine in der Schweiz: Entwicklungen, herausforderungen undpers-pektiven.Magglingen, Switzerland: Bundesamt fur Sport BASPO.
41.
LimehouseF. F., MelvinP. C, & McCormickR. E. (2010). The demand for environmental quality: An application of hedonic pricing in golf. Journal of Sports Economics, 11(3), 261–286.
42.
McCarvilleR. E. (1991). An empirical investigation of the influence of cost information on willingness to pay for public aerobics classes. Leisure Sciences, 13(2), 85–96.
43.
NagelS. (2006). Sportvereine im wandel: Akteurtheoretische analysen zur entwicklung von sportvereinen.Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann.
44.
NagelS. (2008). Goals of sports clubs. European Journal for Sport and Society, 5(2), 121–141.
45.
PawlowskiT. (2011). Hedonic prices for ski-lift passes in Europe. The Empirical Economic Letters, 10(8), 819–825.
46.
RittnerV., & BreuerC. (2004). Gemeinwohlorientierung und soziale bedeutung des sports (2nd ed.). Cologne, Germany: Sport und Buch Strauß.
47.
RosenS. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.
48.
ShankM. D., & LybergerM. R. (2015). Sports marketing: A strategic perspective (5th ed.). Oxford, England: Routledge.
49.
SRA. (2018). Sports club survey report 2017/18.London, England: Sport and Recreation Alliance.
50.
SteinbergR. (2007). Membership income. In YoungD. R. (Ed.), Financing nonprofits: Putting theory into practice (pp. 121–155). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
51.
SteinbergR. (2010). Principal-agent theory and nonprofit accountability. In HoptK. J. & Von HippelT. (Eds.), Comparative corporate governance of non-profit organizations (pp. 73–126). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SwierzyP., WickerP., & BreuerC. (2018a). The impact of organizational capacity on voluntary engagement in sports clubs: A multi-level analysis. Sport Management Review, 21(3), 307–320.
53.
SwierzyP., WickerP., & BreuerC. (2018b). Willingness-to-pay for memberships in nonprofit sports clubs: The role of organizational capacity. International Journal of Sport Finance, 13(3), 261–278.
54.
ThielA., & MayerJ. (2009). Characteristics of voluntary sports clubs management: A sociological perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(1), 81–98.
55.
UlsethA.-L. B. (2004). Social integration in modern sport: Commercial fitness centres and voluntary sport clubs. European Sport Management Quarterly, 2(4), 95–115.
56.
WickerP. (2011). Willingness-to-pay in non-profit sports clubs. International Journal of Sport Finance, 6(2), 155–169.
57.
WickerP., BreuerC, & HennigsB. (2012). Understanding the interactions among revenue categories using elasticity measures: Evidence from a longitudinal sample of non-profit sport clubs in Germany. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 318–329.
58.
WickerP., BreuerC., LamprechtM., & FischerA. (2014). Does club size matter: An examination of economies of scale, economies of scope, and organizational problems. Journal of Sport Management, 28(3), 266–280.
59.
WickerP., LongleyN., & BreuerC. (2015). Revenue volatility in German nonprofit sports clubs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 5–24.
60.
YoungD. R. (2007). Why study nonprofit finance? In YoungD. R. (Ed.), Financing nonprofits: Putting theory into practice (pp. 3–20). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
61.
YoungD. R., JungT., & AransonR. (2010). Mission:-market tensions and nonprofit pricing. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(2), 153–169.
