Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations KPMG Sport Advisory KPMG Advisory Ltd

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1 Canada Introduction and scope of the study Main attributes of Canadian sport ■ Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of area (9,984,670 km2). It has a developed economy, according to the International Monetary Fund; in 2012 Canada was the eight wealthiest country in terms of nominal GDP per capita.

■ The population is generally very interested in sports, but this shows mostly in high viewership of sporting broadcasts. There are many national television and radio stations devoted entirely to sports. However, there is much room for improvement in the participation rate of the general public in sports, which has shown a decreasing trend across all age groups, according to government sources.

■ The most popular sport of Canada is ice hockey. Lacrosse is also widely practiced during the summer season. A federal law in 1994 identified hockey and lacrosse as „national sports of Canada”. ■ Canadian sport has strong ties with the United States. The largest professional leagues, the National Hockey League (NHL), National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB) and Major League Soccer (MLS) are predominantly based in the US, only a few franchises (teams) are from Canada. ■ Canada has hosted the Olympics on three occasions so far, once the Summer (Montreal, 1976) and twice the Winter Games (Calgary, 1988 and Vancouver, 2010).

However, the country failed to win a gold medal in the first two Olympics it organized. This disappointment boosted the efforts to ensure success in 2010 and was a catalyst for structural changes in the sport system. The scope of the study Our assessment of sports in Canada covers the following topics: ■ Governance structure and main institutions ■ The effect of major event hosting ■ Funding structure ■ Elite sport performance ■ Community sport Population of Canada 35,158,300 People active in sport1 11,950,000 Monthly sport participation rate2 34.0% Weekly sport participation rate3 25.8% National sport federations 61 Highlights of the Canadian sport scene Source: KPMG Analysis Note: (1) % taking part at least once a month (2) Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute – Sport Monitor 2011-12 (3) Canadian Heritage – Sport Participation 2010 - Research Paper

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (1/7) The political governance structure of Canada is divided into three distinct levels: • Federal • Provincial/Territorial • Municipal Organizations at all levels have some role in Canadian sport, but that of the federal government is the most extensive and significant. Sport related tasks and responsibilities of the provincial/territorial and municipal governments are discussed in detail in the following section.

Source: KPMG Analysis Summary of the governance structure of Canadian sport at the federal level Federal government Department of Canadian Heritage Canadian Olympic Committee National sport federations Sport clubs Sport Canada Own the Podium IOC Canadian Sport Institutes Provincial/territorial government Municipal government Details on pages 4 and 5.

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 3 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (2/7) The structure of Canadian federalism ■ Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy consisting of ten provinces and three territories (Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut). The federal government is at the top of the structure. ■ The main difference between territories and provinces is that the formers derive their powers from the federal government, whereas provinces receive authority directly from the Constitution Act, thus they have more power in their own areas. Municipalities (cities and towns) also have their own governing bodies.

■ Provinces have jurisdiction over many issues, including education, welfare. They receive transfers from the federal government and are allowed to levy their own taxes. The role of the federal government ■ A key turning point in the history of sport policy in Canada came in 1961, when the ‘Fitness and Amateur Sport Act’ was passed. Through this policy the federal government officially committed itself to encourage, promote and develop sport. This Act was the main guideline for Canadian sport until the first Canadian Sport Policy in 2002 and the Physical Activity and Sport Act in 2003. ■ The following decades saw a series of legislation and policies, bringing Canadian sport more and more under state influence through funding channels and control mechanisms.

The two main parts of the federal policy were Sport Canada (developing high- performance, elite sports) and Recreation Canada (focusing on the public’s participation in all kinds of physical activities) ■ After many changes, the system reached its current form in the early 1990s. The Sport Canada organization became part of the newly founded Department of Canadian Heritage in 1993, which is responsible for various fields (e.g. culture, media, sports). The federal government supports the national sport federations and Olympic sports entirely through Sport Canada. The Department of Health (established in 1996) assumed the tasks of the now defunct Recreation Canada; their role is to encourage Canadians to lead a healthy life, which includes regular physical activity.

However, sport is not a primary concern for them, just part of an active lifestyle., The Physical Activity and Sport Act (2003) ■ The federal government’s involvement in sport is defined by the Physical Activity and Sport Act (PASA).

■ The PASA identifies two main pillars covering the government’s objectives regarding sport. The first one is about „encouraging more people to take part in physical activity”, while the other „promotes excellence in high-performance sport”. Through this approach they target all Canadians (casual sport participants) and elite athletes as well. ■ It should be noted, that the realization of the two pillars of the PASA is not the sole responsibility of the federal government, as several organizations work in this field. The PASA is only the backdrop for the more detailed policies, for example the Canadian Sport Policy 2012-2022, which is a general guide for stakeholders in Canadian sport (more details on page 4) Participation Increase physical activity participation by integrating sport into the daily life of Canadians Excellence Promote and support high- performance sports and build capacity for it n the sport system Two pillars of the PASA

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (3/7) The role of governments of provinces/territories ■ Although sport is not defined in the Constitution Act as an issue in which provinces have a clear jurisdiction, the majority of them have been organizing their own sport life for many decades. Provinces and territories have their own governments, usually with a minister responsible for sport.

■ As the federal government became more and more active in sport policy, greater cooperation between the two levels was required. After long debates it was settled that the provinces and territories are responsible for community sport through launching regional initiatives for increased participation and financing infrastructure development for major events held in the province. Elite sports are generally supported and funded at the federal level. ■ Provinces mostly support provincial sport federations and also fund youth development at their level. However, in some cases competences overlap, for example Québec provides financial support for their „own” athletes.

It should be noted that, while provinces have relative autonomy in implementing their own programs for community sports and sport participation, the federal government through the PASA and the Canadian Sport Policy still sets national goals in this field.

■ The extent of the provinces efforts is highly varied. For example, British Columbia has longer traditions and more experience in organizing voluntary sports than many others. Intergovernmental cooperation – Canadian Sport Policy ■ After two years of consultations, the first Canadian Sport Policy (CSP) was agreed upon in 2002. The policy was a result of the close collaboration of federal, territorial and provincial sport ministers, ultimately committing all levels of political power to the same goals in both community and elite sport. The CSP gives a coherent and unified framework for governmental involvement in sport at every level.

■ The revision of the first CSP was overseen by Sport Canada between 2010 and 2012 and the evaluation report further strengthened the belief in the usefulness of the policy. Based on the findings, the second CSP was worked out for the period between 2012 and 2022. The vision of CSP 2012 is to create „a dynamic and innovative culture that promotes and celebrates participation and excellence in sport.” Five overall goals of CSP 2012 1. Introduction to sport Canadians have the skills, knowledge and attitudes to participate in sport. 2. Recreational sport Canadians participate in sport for fun, social interaction , recreation etc.

3. Competitive sport Canadians have the opportunity to systematically improve and measure their performance against others in competition in a safe and ethical manner. 4. High performance sport Canadians are systematically achieving world-class results at the highest levels of international competition through fair and ethical means. 5. Sport for development Sport is used as a tool for social and economic development, and the promotion of positive values

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 5 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (4/7) The role of municipal governments ■ Situated below the provincial/territorial level, municipal governments are generally involved in local transportation, education, public utilities issues. Most of them have the authority to levy their own taxes to cover the costs of these functions and they also receive transfers from their respective provincial government.

■ Management of city parks and recreational centers is the responsibility of municipalities, thus they are heavily involved in the community sport life. Facilities for public use are usually developed and financed at the municipal level. This system operates effectively, almost every city has numerous ice hockey rinks for use by local, amateur teams.

■ According to a survey carried out by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) in 2013, Canada has around 2600 indoor and 5000 outdoor hockey rinks, accounting for almost half of all rinks in the world. ■ The successful performance of Canadian athletes in other sports has boosted the efforts to build more multi-sport facilities as well. Sport federations (national and provincial/territorial) ■ Sport federations are responsible for their own sports and mainly operate by the same principles as every country’s federations. However, the Canadian system identifies federations at both the national and the provincial level.

■ There around 60 national sport or disabled sport federations, while many more operate in the provinces and territories. National federations are the representative bodies of sport clubs and they concentrate on overarching, nationwide policies and programs. For example, Badminton Canada is responsible for the national team and the overall structure of badminton in Canada. Provincial federations (e.g. Badminton Ontario) promote the sport in their region and ensure there are enough facilities. ■ The governance structure of national federations is more formal and professional; provincial federations are often run by volunteer Boards of Directors.

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (5/7) Sport Canada ■ As mentioned earlier, Sport Canada, established in the 1960s is a branch at the Department of Canadian Heritage. They are the body that carries out the federal government's commitments and tasks regarding both elite and community sport. Sport Canada is active in policymaking and planning (CSP 2002 and 2012), business operations and management.

This organization is the main channel through which the federal level invests in sport. ■ Sport Canada is also responsible for allocating and administering federal government funding through various sport programs. Their role is crucial in the system, since most sport organizations operation depend on this type of financial backing. The power of the Canadian sport policy sector concentrates in Sport Canada. ■ Although the officially Sport Canada is also competent in supporting the sport participation of the public, it mostly concentrates on elite (Olympic) sports. Some criticism aimed at the organization demanded more attention on the nationwide promotion of participation in sport.

■ Other Sport Canada initiatives include research activities about public sport policy (surveys, impact studies, statistics), and the Long-Term Athlete Development Program, which sets out a seven-stage career path for future elite athletes. Main programs of Sport Canada The organization supports the realization of the goals set out in the Canadian Sport Policy by providing substantial funding to various players of the Canadian sport scene. Three grants and contributions programs should be highlighted. It should be noted, that Sport Canada does not make technical decisions; it is up to the expertise of the federations how they invest the funds, but they are still held responsible for their effective and sensible use of the support.

Information on the funding figures of these programs are on page 11. ■ Sport Support Program (SSP): this initiative has various target groups, the main beneficiaries are athletes, coaches and other sport participants at the national team level. Funding is distributed to sport federations, multisport service organizations, sport centers and other institutions that provide professional sport services for athletes.

The Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) is used by Sport Canada to determine who can receive the funding. Recipients are required to implement accountability measures to ensure that their operation is aligned with the goals of Sport Canada. ■ Athlete Assistance Program (AAP): the primary target group of this program are Canadian high performance athletes, who are usually required to live and train in the country. Living and training allowances are awarded to help them combine their sport, academic and working careers.

Generally athletes from high performance sports funded through the SFAF are eligible for AAP backing, guaranteeing accountability.

■ Hosting Program (HP): sport federations are assisted in hosting and organizing the Canada Games and international sport events in Canada. The sporting, economic, social and cultural legacies of such events are managed together. Contributions through the HP are only awarded to federations operating by the SFAF. This is the only Sport Canada program that supports the building and developing of sporting infrastructure.

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (6/7) Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) ■ The national Olympic committee of Canada is independent from the governments at every level. Its main task is to represent Canadian athletes at the international sport level and look out for the interests of the country at the International Olympic Committee.

The COC’s budget relies on private contributions.

■ Around 50 national federations of Olympic sports are members of the COC. The organization cooperates with them to prepare the Canadian teams and individual athletes for the Olympic, Youth Olympic and Pan American Games. They conduct site visits and hold preparation seminars for the athletes, among many other activities. ■ The COC is managed by a Board of Directors, which has 20 members: the Chief Executive Officer, 12 elected and 7 ex officio members (two IOC members, two athlete representatives, one coach representative, the chair of the Canadian Olympic Foundation, and the Immediate Past President).

■ Although the COC does not have direct influence on the allocation of government funds (Sport Canada), it is a highly respected organization with a long history. Their main role is to coordinate the efforts related to the Olympic movement, but during the last decade the COC also took up a role in financing Olympic sports through the ‘Own the Podium’ initiative. Own the Podium (OTP) ■ When in 2003 Canada was awarded the right to host the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, every stakeholder in Canadian sport agreed that they must avoid the failure of the two previous Olympics hosted by the country, where they did not win a single gold medal.

■ The Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), the Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC), Sport Canada and the organizing committee of the Vancouver Games established Own the Podium (OTP) in 2004, after extensive consultation with 13 winter sport federations. Later summer sports also became involved through the Road to Excellence program. The program for winter and summer sports were merged in 2009 , keeping the Own the Podium name. ■ OTP currently operates as a non-profit, multi-sport organization, which serves as an advisory board in the funding of Olympic and Paralympic sports. This organization helps selecting the federations that should receive funding by assessing their potential for Olympic success then making investment recommendations for the funding partners (see below).

OTP is an important part of the ‘Excellence’ pillar of the PASA. ■ Contributions come from Sport Canada (Sport Support Program), COC private fundraising and sponsorships. Sport Canada transfers around USD 68 million each year to federations through OTP. In addition, the COC provides a wide range of professional services to federations of Olympic and Paralympic sports through the program. ■ OTP is credited with the success of Canadian athletes at the 2006 and 2010 Winter Games, where they finished third and first in the medal table, respectively. The main and widely communicated goal is to contend for the first position at every Winter Olympics and be among the top 12 nations at the Summer Games.

■ Detailed information about the funding of sport federations through OTP is on page 12.

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8 Canada Governance structure and main institutions (7/7) Canadian Sport Institutes (CSI) ■ Also known as Canadian Sport Centres, the first CSI was established in Calgary in 1994. Later six others were founded in the regions of Montreal, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canada and Pacific Canada.

The network of these institutes spans the whole country.

■ CSIs were created by the partnership of Sport Canada, the COC, the coaching association of Canada and the respective provincial governments. Their main responsibility is to support high performance (Olympic) sport excellence by providing sport science, research, training and medical services to elite athletes. Experts are employed in nutrition, physiology, conditioning and mental Preparation. ■ The network of CSIs operate mostly on funding from the federal government through Sport Canada and Own the Podium. Financial backing from provinces is also important.

■ The Institutes have successfully positioned themselves as the main providers for Olympic sport federations preparing for the Games,.

The table below shows the contribution of the Canadian Sport Institute of Ontario (CSIO) to Olympic success since 2004. Winter Sport Institute (WinSport) ■ Branded as the „world’s leading winter sport institute”, WinSport is based in Calgary and tasked with managing the legacy of the 1988 Winter Olympics. This include the maintenance and operation of several facilities, chief among them the Canada Olympic Park, which is the primary base of the CSI of Calgary. They also fund two-thirds of the budget of Olympic Oval, a speed- skating venue.

■ WinSport also has a stake in the operation of the National Sport School (More details on page 15) ■ WinSport venues do not only support the preparation of Canadian elite athletes for the Winter Olympics, but also helps the efforts to introduce winter sports to Canadians. Year Event % of athletes trained at CSIO % of medals won by CSIO athletes 2012 London Summer Olympics 42.5% ( 118 / 277 ) 50% (1 Gold, 4 Silver, 4 Bronze) 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics 23.3% ( 48 / 206 ) 26.9% (4 Gold, 2 Silver, 1 Bronze) 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics 34.9% ( 116 / 332 ) 50% (1 Gold, 4 Silver, 4 Bronze) 2006 Turin Winter Olympics 15.3% ( 30 / 196 ) 33.3% (3 Gold, 4 Silver, 1 Bronze) 2004 Athens Summer Olympics 42.9% ( 113 / 263 ) 41.6% (1 Gold, 3 Silver, 1 Bronze) Source: Canadian Sport Institute Ontario Website

Benchmarking Analysis on Sport Organizations

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 9 Canada The effect of major event hosting Vancouver 2010 – Winter Olympic Games ■ Winning the rights to host the Winter Olympics and Paralympics led to structural and policy changes in the Canadian elite sport sector. As mentioned earlier, the ‘Own the Podium’ programme was initiated in 2004 to advise Sport Canada and other contributors on how to finance Olympic sports.

■ Every player related to Canadian sport policy worked together to ensure the sporting success at Vancouver in 2010. This joint effort by governments at all levels was reflected in consultations and the alignment of policy goals. ■ Canada performed exceptionally at the Games, finishing at the top of the medal table. After the good results the public perception of sports changed among Canadians as they established a strong emotional connection with national teams, which was practically non-present before.

■ The Vancouver Olympics also left a strong legacy in infrastructure. Six completely new venues were built for the Games: Cypress Mountain (ski sports), Richmond Olympic Oval (indoor arena, multi-sport), UBC Thunderbird Arena (ice hockey), Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre, Whistler Olympic Park, and The Whistler Sliding Centre (bobsleigh, luge, skeleton).

Other arenas and sport facilities were renovated. These venues provide adequate training opportunity for athletes and also help in bidding for future sporting events.

Toronto 2015 – Pan American Games ■ Pan American Games are held every four years, just before the year of the Summer Olympics. Canada has hosted it on two occasions so far (1967 and 1999, both in Winnipeg). The next one will be in July 2015 in Toronto. ■ The Games will have 41 participating nations in 36 different sports. In terms of the number of athletes and sports, the Pan American Games will be significantly bigger than the Vancouver Winter Olympics. ■ Although no large, new venues are being constructed in Toronto, the existing (sporting) infrastructure will be thoroughly renovated. Policymakers hope that it will provide a boost for the sporting life of the Toronto region.

■ The estimated cost of the Games (USD 1,55 million) is divided between the three administrative levels. Federal and provincial (Ontario) governments pay 35% each, while the municipality level covers the remaining 30%.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 10 Canada Funding structure (1/3) The following chart shows the most important funding channels that define the Canadian sport system.

The federal government is the biggest contributor to elite sport, while community and leisure sport are mostly financed at provincial, territorial and municipal levels.

Federal government Sport Canada Provincial/territorial government Municipal government Own the Podium National sport federations Canadian Olympic Committee Provincial/territorial sport federations Sport clubs Sport facilities Canadian Sport Institutes Source: KPMG Analysis Elite sport funding Community sport funding

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

11 Canada Funding structure (2/3) The funding system of Sport Canada ■ Sport Canada uses federal government funds to support national sport federations, elite athletes and the hosting of major sporting events through three distinctive programs. ■ The total amount of financing divided between the programs more than tripled between 2002 and 2008, which could be attributed to the increased efforts prior to the Vancouver Olympics. Since then the funding of the Hosting Program significantly decreased due to the lack of major international events organized in Canada. ■ However, the funds made available for sport federations (Sport Support Program) still shows an increasing trend, signaling the intent of Canada to be among the top sporting nations of the world.

The Athlete Assistance Program also remains high on the agenda of the federal government.

■ The current trend in the ‘global sporting arms race’ is that more and more money goes to the support Olympic athletes. This also seems to be the priority of Sport Canada, while the financing of community sport is left almost entirely to the provinces and municipalities. Funding figures of Sport Canada programs (in Canadian dollars, million) Funding of Sport Canada programs visualized 50 100 150 200 250 300 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Canadian Dollar, millions Hosting Program Athlete Assistance Program Sport Support Program Total Year Hosting Program Athlete Assistance Sport Support Total 2002-03 16,1 15,1 48,3 79,5 2003-04 29,7 15,2 56,7 101,6 2004-05 80,3 19,8 83,3 183,4 2005-06 51,6 24,8 93 169,4 2006-07 126,5 25,3 94 245,8 2007-08 118,7 25,3 103,1 247,1 2008-09 44,5 26,5 111,9 182,9 2009-10 58,5 26,1 113,7 198,3 2010-11 23,8 25,9 154,4 204,1 2011-12 23,1 26,8 148,8 198,7 Source: Public Accounts of Canada: Transfer Payments Source: Public Accounts of Canada: Transfer Payments

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 12 Canada Funding structure (3/3) Funding of elite sports through Own the Podium ■ As discussed earlier, Sport Canada provides the majority of the funds that are distributed among Olympic and Paralympic sport federations through the Own the Podium initiative. ■ Funding through this programme is divided into four categories:  National Team: contributing to the training and competing costs of national teams.

 SSSM: funding to cover sport science and medical services through Canadian Sport Centres or other providers.  Coaching: financing of world class coaches.  Administration: support staff salaries and various administrative costs that are related to the programme. ■ OTP supports both winter and summer sports. As a general rule, those with a higher chance of Olympic success and better past results receive more funding. Top 10 winter sports by OTP funding for 2013-2014 (million Canadian dollars) Top 10 summer sports by OTP funding for 2013-2014 (million Canadian dollars) Sport Funding 1 Speed skating 3.537 2 Freestyle skiing 3.253 3 Alpine skiing 2.976 4 Ice hockey 2.801 5 Bobsleigh/skeleton 2.454 6 Snowboard 2.448 7 Cross county skiing 1.966 8 Curling 1.892 9 Ski Cross 1.468 10 Luge 1.088 Sport Funding 1 Rowing 4.285 2 Swimming 4.180 3 Athletics 3.625 4 Cycling 3.500 5 Canoeing 2.700 6 Diving 2.600 7 Soccer (women) 2.250 8 Rugby 7s (women) 1.700 9 Wheelchair basketball 1.400 10 Wrestling 1.300

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 13 Canada Elite sport performance Canada’s Olympic history ■ As mentioned in the introduction, Canada has hosted three Olympics, once the Summer (Montreal, 1976) and twice the Winter Games (Calgary, 1988 and Vancouver, 2010). The first two events brought no success in terms of gold medals won, but in 2010 Canada managed to finish at the top of the medal table at the Winter Olympics.

■ The country has participated at every Olympics, except for the first modern Summer Games in 1896 and they boycotted the competition in 1980. From the 1930s until the 1990s Canadian athletes usually won only one or two gold on every occasion, complemented with a couple of other medals. Their best performance at the Summer Olympics (10 gold) came in 1984, when the majority of Communist countries did not compete. ■ In the last 15 years Canada has established itself as a top nation in winter sports; they always finished in the top 5 at the medal table since 1998. Their two best performances came at the last two Games.

Although their main focus is on winter sports, they usually achieve good results in summer sports as well.

■ Canada’s main strength is perhaps that they have realistic medal chances in a wide range of sports. The last 10 Summer Olympics gold medals were delivered across 8 different sports. Sport Gold Silver Bronze Total 1 Athletics 13 14 26 53 2 Ice hockey 13 5 2 20 3 Rowing 9 16 15 40 4 Speed skating 8 12 15 35 5 Short-track speed skating 8 11 9 28 6 Swimming 7 14 22 43 7 Curling 5 3 2 10 8 Figure skating 4 10 11 22 9 Canoeing 4 10 10 24 10 Shooting 4 3 2 9 Medal count of the Summer Olympic Games Medal count of the Winter Olympic Games Most successful Olympic sports 7 3 3 3 3 1 4 11 3 6 9 5 7 8 8 3 6 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004Beijing 2008 London 2012 Gold Silver Bronze 3 6 7 7 14 10 6 5 3 10 7 10 4 4 7 7 5 5 Lillehammer 1994 Nagano 1998 Salt Lake City 2002 Turin 2006 Vancouver 2010 Sochi 2014 Gold Silver Bronze Source: Olympics.Org Source: Olympics.Org Source: Olympics.Org

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 14 Canada Community sport (1/2) Participation statistics ■ Although Canada has achieved great results in elite sports in recent years, the weak participation statistics are still a great concern for policymakers. The evaluation of the first Canadian Sport Policy carried out by Sport Canada found that almost every elite sport goal was met, but only half of the participation goals were achieved.

■ According to Canadian Heritage, only 26% of the population aged over 15 years old took part in sporting activities on a weekly basis, which is a significant, 17% decline since 1992. Obesity among young people is also a problem. ■ Meanwhile, Sport Canada spent only 13% of its the Sport Support Program on community sport purposes. It is clear, that Sport Canada’s main goal is to support elite sports, but due to the decreasing trend in public sport participation the organization is urged to focus more on community sport.

■ Other stakeholders, including provincial and municipal governments and Health Canada focus on sport participation, but the almost all federal level fund is still aimed at the ‘Excellence’ pillar of the PASA. Top 10 most practiced sports in Canada (% of adult population, aged 15+ regularly pursuing a sport) Sport participation (at least once a week) by age groups 1992 2010 1 Ice hockey (6.4%) Golf (5.2%) 2 Skiing (6.3%) Ice hockey (4.4%) 3 Swimming (6.2%) Soccer (3.5%) 4 Golf (5.9%) Baseball (2.1%) 5 Baseball (5.6%) Volleyball (1.9%) 6 Volleyball (3.8%) Basketball (1.8%) 7 Basketball (2.9%) Skiing (1.6%) 8 Badminton (1.9%) Cycling (1.4%) 9 Soccer (1.8%) Swimming (1.4%) 10 Cycling (1.0%) Badminton (1.1%) Source: Canadian Heritage – Sport Participation 2010 – Research Paper 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1992 1998 2005 2010 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-54 55- Source: Canadian Heritage – Sport Participation 2010 – Research Paper

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 15 Canada Community sport (2/2) Involvement of young people ■ Although there is no program that directly targets the participation of young people in sports, there are some initiatives that indirectly serve this purpose. ■ As mentioned earlier, Canada has the most ice hockey rinks in the world; most of them are free for public use. The youth development in ice hockey thus is well equipped with adequate facilities.

■ Education in Canada is a provincial jurisdiction, meaning that primary and secondary schools receive funding from the provincial governments. Physical education programs and school sports are therefore not financed by an overarching, federal program. ■ It is up to the municipalities to provide sporting opportunities for young people. There is not much collaboration between provincial or national sport federations to organize programs. School Sport Canada (SSC) ■ As the biggest, structured sport organization in the country, the School Sport Canada reaches more than 750,000 students, 52,000 volunteer PE teachers and 3,200 schools.

■ SSC has numerous member provinces and territories, where it operates individual offices. The organization mainly serves as a representative lobby group for school sports, but also has an important role in organizing interscholastic sport events and competitions in Canada. Canada Games ■ The Canada Games is a multi-sport competition held biannually, which was launched in 1967. It has a Winter and Summer Games edition. ■ All participating athletes are amateurs. Over the years the Games has established itself as the most important developmental event for young athletes between the age of 15 and 17.

Teams are selected on a provincial basis. The events generally take place at community sport facilities.

■ Many ot the Canadian superstars of today has gone through this system, for example Sydney Crosby (ice hockey) or Steve Nash (basketball) ■ The competition is overseen and managed by the Canada Games Council, which supports the hosting cities in technical, organizational planning, marketing and sponsorship issues.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

16 Canada Key takeaways Elite sport assessment system ■ The ‘Own the Podium’ initiative decides the amount of funding an Olympic sport federation receives. The assessment is based on performance potential and many variables are taken into account.

■ A mechanism called Sport Funding and Accountability Framework holds the federations accountable for the use of funds they receive from the program. ■ The financing of the federations is used to cover numerous costs ranging from training, management, medical and other expert services. Large number of sport facilities ■ Both the general public and elite athletes have sufficient means to exercise and train. Canada has the most indoor and outdoor ice hockey rinks in the world, the majority of them is for public use.

■ Hosting of major events, such as the Winter Olympics (Vancouver, 2010) and the Pan American Games (Toronto, 2015) helped the development and maintenance of elite sport training centers and facilities.

Cooperation between different levels of government ■ In Canada the federal, regional and municipal authorities all have a say in the development of the sport sector. ■ Their jurisdictions and responsibilities are not always clear, but they have created some overarching systems and frameworks that help coordinating their efforts. ■ The most notable among these is the Canadian Sport Policy which sets the basic principles of intergovernmental cooperation. Youth competition opportunities ■ Although there is no detailed youth sport policy in the country, there are some notable initiatives. ■ For example, the Canada Games, a multi-sport event taking place every two years, pitches teams of young, amateur athletes against each other.

The groups of athletes are chosen on a regional basis. ■ The competition gives valuable experience for the participants. Many of them later become professionals and represent Canada at the highest sporting levels. Population: 35 200 000 Sport participation rate: 34% Funding for elite sport: CAD 90 million (per year) Funding for leisure sport: CAD 150 million (per year)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1 United Kingdom Introduction and scope of the study Introduction to sport in the UK ■ The United Kingdom has a developed economy in terms of both nominal and per capita GDP. London has hosted the Summer Olympic Games three times, more than any other city. The modern version of many sports have developed out of the UK, including football, cricket, rugby, tennis and snooker.

Today these sports are still very popular in the country.

■ In addition to rich sporting past, the UK is one of the most significant players in the international sports scene. Every year the country is home to many major sporting events, for example the historic tennis tournament in Wimbledon. The Premier League is the top-tier football competition in England, which generates world-wide interest. ■ Following disappointing Olympic displays in the 1980s and the 1990s, the governance and funding system of sport in the UK went through significant changes. UK Sport was established and other organizations saw their roles becoming clearly defined.

■ At the same time, with the advent of the National Lottery, unprecedented amounts of funding were made available for sport.

■ The first real test of the new system came in 2002, when Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games. The newly reorganized institutions proved that they could cooperate and ensure the success of a major sporting event. The winning bid in 2005 to host the 2012 Olympics also significantly helped the development of British sport life. The scope of the study Our assessment of sports in the UK covers the following topics: ■ The governance structure and main institutions ■ Major reforms in the UK sport system ■ The funding structure ■ Elite sport success ■ Public sport participation in the UK Population of the United Kingdom 62,641,000 People active in sport1 32,500,000 Sport participation rate2 52% National sport federations3 320 Sport clubs2 151,000 Sport club members2 12,380,000 Olympic sports receiving government funding 19 Highlights of the UK sport scene Source: KPMG Analysis; Sports Club Survey (2013) Note: (1) who takes part at least once a month Eurobarometer survey (2009) (2) Ranked 12th out of the 27 EU member countries (3) including every home nation (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England), Sport and Recreation Alliance Website

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2 United Kingdom The governance structure and main institutions (1/5) The majority of the organizations active in British sport have a clear mandate; they either focus on community sport participation or elite sports. Naturally, the government through its connections is involved in both aspects.

The two institutions with the largest influence are Sport England (promoting and supporting public sport participation in England) and UK Sport (allocating funds to and reviewing the operation of sport federations).

UK Government Department of Culture, Media and Sport UK Sport Sport N. Ireland Sport Scotland Sport Wales Sport England British Olympic Association Welsh government Scottish government N. Irish government County sports Partnerships Sport and Recreation Alliance Sport federations Sport clubs IOC Sport clubs Source: KPMG Analysis Community sport Elite sport

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 3 United Kingdom The governance structure and main institutions (2/5) Home Nation Sport Councils ■ These national organizations are tasked with promoting sport participation among the general public. Every home nation has its own council competent in their area. These are:  Sport England (English Sports Council)  Sport Northern Ireland (Northern Irish Sports Council)  Sport Scotland (Scottish Sports council)  Sport Wales (Welsh Sports Council) ■ They are affiliated with their corresponding governments, for example Sport Northern Ireland is under the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, which is part of the Northern Irish government.

■ The councils are responsible for working out the details of government policies and they are also responsible for allocating funds between community sports projects aimed at increasing participation. Funding ends up in the hands of local sports clubs who can put it to use to improve local facilities and access to sport. ■ Councils operate in close cooperation with sport federations (national governing bodies - NGBs). They also play an important role in talent development by identifying potential early on, and providing them with sufficient sporting opportunities. In this sense councils provide access for young people to become elite athletes.

Because of this, they work in partnership with UK Sport (the organization for elite sports) to make sure their goals and investments are aligned.

■ A good example of council projects is the ‘Active Places' website by Sport England, which is designed to help the public find sports facilities anywhere in England. Searching can be through an interactive map to discover more information about public facilities. The two pillars of sport in the UK ■ The development and funding of elite sports is the sole responsibility of UK Sport, which is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, an institution controlled by the government of the UK.

■ The allocation of responsibilities is different in community sport. The UK consists of four „home nations”, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, each with its own government (England’s is the common UK government).

In this setting certain issues (including sports) are qualified as devolved matters for which home nation governments are responsible. Community sport tasks are the responsibility of sport councils in each home nation. The largest council is Sport England, both in terms of size, budget and influence over community sport policies in England. Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) ■ The DCMS is responsible for a wide range of issues, including tourism, media and the national lottery. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the department. ■ The DCMS oversees and funds the two important sports organizations, namely UK Sport and Sport England, and also plays an important coordinating role between them, in order to make the overall operation of the sport system more effective.

■ The DCMS can set out policies for both the community and the elite sport sector, for example to increase the number of people playing sports, or making elite (Olympic) sports more successful. However, it should also be noted, that the DCMS is involved only indirectly in the realization of these goals though the bodies mentioned previously. The exact allocation of funding between projects or sport federations is not the role of the DCMS. ■ In addition to these general tasks, the department supports the bidding process for major sport events, protects UK’s sporting interest abroad.

■ The DCMS is also the lead government body regarding the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics. The Government Olympic Executive is a unit within the department which was focused on the preparation for the Games and since then they are responsible for the management of the legacy of the Olympics.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4 United Kingdom The governance structure and main institutions (3/5) Community sport in England Compared to other home nations, England has the most extensive community sport system, therefore this part of the case study concentrates on their example.

County Sports Partnerships (CSPs) ■ These networks comprise of local agencies active in the sport life of given region. Authorities, schools, sport federations, community sport networks and other agencies work together to develop sporting opportunities for the local population. For example, in England there are around 49 different CSPs,, covering almost the whole country. ■ Sport England contracts these partnerships to carry out the actions of the overall community sport plan at the regional level. For example, the goal to increase sport participation in England is achieved through the diligent work of these CSPs.

School Sports Partnerships (SSPs) ■ Numerous schools have formed partnerships on a voluntary basis in order to work together in creating sporting opportunities of young people. These are usually led by a partnership development manager with sport coordinators at participating schools. ■ In 2010, the government decided to cut two-thirds of the budget available for SSPs through Sport England, which resulted in a drop in the number of active partnerships. There are now around 200 school sports partnerships in England instead of 400. ■ To make up for this setback, another, complementary, programme was launched in 2013 with the aim to distribute funds directly to schools.

Currently GBP 150 million is set aside for school sports every year between 2015 and 2020. The funding comes from the Department of Education and the DCMS. A average primary school with 250 pupils receive a yearly lump sum of GBP 10,000. ■ The school headmasters are free to decide how they use the money to improve the quality of physical education in schools. For example, they can hire specialist coaches and sport teachers. National sport federations also offer coaching and skill development programmes. The schools are held accountable for how they spend the funding by Ofsted, an inspectorate body Example of CSP activity – The Copeland Physical Activity Project The North Country Leisure organization, which operates in the Borough of Copeland, successfully applied for a GBP 91,800 investment from Sport England in 2013.

This amount, which comes from the National Lottery, was complemented with support from local partners.

The programme builds on a pilot project and provides fitness and exercise sessions in Cleator Moor (a small town in Copeland) for adults and children of all ages.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 5 United Kingdom The governance structure and main institutions (4/5) UK Sport ■ UK Sport (UKS) was set up in 1997 by Royal Charter as a non- departmental body of the DCMS; since then it has established itself as an organization of vital importance in the UK sport system.

■ With no responsibilities towards community or grassroots sport, UKS concentrates only on elite (Olympic) sports. The overall budget of UKS increased significantly in recent years, from GBP 30 million in 2005 to the current amount of 127 million, consisting of: ■ Exchequer funds directly through DCMS – GBP 40 million ■ National Lottery funds – GBP 87 million ■ UKS is managed and overseen by the UK Sport Board which includes representatives from the four home nations along with independent members. UKS being the most important organization in elite sports policy, it is essential that every home nation has a say in its operation.

■ The organization acts as the strategic lead body for elite sports through allocating funds between Olympic and Paralympic sports. This is achieved through the World class Performance Programme, for which the „No Compromise” policy is used as a guideline. As a result, only federations of sports with realistic chance of success receive funding from UKS. (More details on page 11). ■ UKS works in partnership with numerous institutions to provide elite athletes with the necessary support for Olympic preparation. These services include high quality training opportunities, coaching , and sport performance research.

■ Through the Gold Event Series programme running from 2013 to 2019, UKS helps sport federations (NGBs) in bidding for and hosting international sporting events in the United Kingdom. ■ Finally, UKS supports federations in building relationships with their international partners and other regulatory bodies. This is aimed to represent British interest on the international scene, ■ It should be noted that Sport Scotland, Sport Northern Ireland and Sport Wales complement the work of UKS in their corresponding home nations through coordinating the support of their „own” elite athletes.

Core responsibilities of UK Sport Effectively invest in Olympic and Paralympic sports Develop a supportive background for elite sports through partnerships Bring major, international sporting events to the UK Aid the international sporting representation of the UK

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6 United Kingdom The governance structure and main institutions (5/5) Umbrella organizations of sport federations British Olympic Association (BOA) ■ Unlike many other countries, the Olympic Committees of the UK plays less significant role in policy-making and elite sports funding decisions. ■ The main task is to help athletes in preparing for the Olympics by implementing programs, but it should be noted that direct funding of Olympic sport federations and athletes is the responsibility of UK Sport.

The BOA represents the Olympic movement in the country and organizes the participation of UK athletes at the Games.

■ The sport federations of Olympic sports are customary members of the BOA, which is independent from the government. ■ Every Olympic sport can send a representative to the BOA. Six people from the representatives are elected to the Board, which oversees the decision-making process of organization. Sport and Recreation Alliance (SRA) ■ This umbrella organization serves to bring together the interests of the sport federations. Currently it represents the views of and speaks on behalf of its more than 320 members. This number includes even major federations, like the Football Association or the Rugby Football Union.

Through its members, the SRA represents more than 150,000 clubs and 8 million regular sport participants (club members). ■ The SRA is strictly independent from the government and political parties. Their aim is to ensure that sport and recreation remains to be high on the political agenda in the UK. They essentially campaign on issues affecting sports in general (e.g. Olympic legacy, regulations, access to facilities etc.).

■ Members are divided into five different divisions based on their common characteristics: 1. Games and Sports 2. Major Spectator Sports, 3. Movement and Dance 4. Outdoor Pursuits 5.Water Recreation. This setup covers every type of physical activity. Services provided by SRA for sport federations and clubs Category Examples Leadership Convention Annual event where chair and executives of sport and recreation can get together and discuss the biggest issues. Training and networking Workshops, seminars etc. Governance advice Wide range of resources to help members improve their governance structures.

Business support Access to approved commercial partners, HR and payroll shared services and a free business support helpline.

Information Daily news summary, publication of research findings etc. Source: Sport and Recreation Alliance Website – Who We Are

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7 United Kingdom Major reforms in the UK sport system (1/2) The reorganizing efforts of the 1990s significantly improved the governance structure of British sport. Reallocating tasks resulted in each organization being able to focus their resources on a well-defined field of sport policy.

The fine tuning of the system has continued throughout the past decade, as the responsibilities of UK sport and the home nation sport councils became more clearly defined.

The preparation for the London Olympics resulted in larger contribution from to government and the private sector for elite sports. Restructuring in the 1990s ■ As a result of the disappointing performances at the Olympics of the 1980s and 1990s, the UK sport system went through a series of reforms, which brought substantial changes in the structure of both funding and governance. ■ Governance: prior to the 1990s, the now defunct Sports Council was responsible for almost every aspect of sport in the country. In 1994 it was decided that the system should be revised. The United Kingdom Sports Council was formed in 1997, which was later renamed to UK Sport.

As mentioned earlier, this organization had a clear mandate to concentrate only on elite (Olympic and Paralympic) sports. Another important part of the restructuring was that tasks and responsibilities for community and grassroots sports were completely transferred to the Home Nation Sport Councils (Sport Wales, Sport Scotland etc.) between 1997 and 2000. Today they are the most important actors in the field of mass-participation sports in their respective countries.

■ Funding: the National Lottery was launched in 1994 when the UK government granted license for its operation to Camelot Group, a private company. Some part of the revenues was designated for investments in both community and elite sports. All of a sudden the UK sport system gained access to substantial funding, which they lacked during the previous decades. Meanwhile, the plan was to cut back on the number of sport disciplines receiving government funding and increase the budget for the remaining ones. After 1997 number of sports funded by the government or the Lottery decreased from 110 to less than 30, enabling the more effective use of financing.

■ In addition to reforms in funding and governance responsibilities, positive changes started in other fields, too. The UK sport system lacked the proper sporting infrastructure, however this significantly improved after increased efforts by policymakers to channel funds for infrastructure development.

Developments of the 2000s ■ Exact, well-defined goals were set by the early 2000s, by which the success of the system could be judged. The most important ones aimed to improve the medal tally of the British Olympic Team and to win the bid for hosting the 2012 Olympics. The communication of these goals to the public was well-organized and this lent credibility to the whole British sport policy. The organizations built a unified narrative around the sport policies at every level, resulting in that they communicated in the same way.

■ The Commonwealth Games in 2002, hosted in Manchester, were the first event that required the extensive collaboration of the newly restructured organizations.

The successful hosting proved that the system was functional and the stakeholders couldwork together. It was also a catalyst for later hosting bids, for example the 2012 Olympics, which were awarded to London in 2005 and the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. ■ The sport councils and UKS experienced additional changes during the 2000s, but on a much smaller scale. Actions mostly aimed to further streamline the system. Sport England was significantly downsized between by 2006, when their responsibilities became clearer. In 2009 the Regional Sports Boards was disbanded, making the decision-making process of Sport England more centralized.

The London Olympics ■ UK Sport established a strategic alliance with the London organizing committee, and the BOA in order to launch the first-ever UK fundraising programme for elite athletes. It was called Team 2012 and provided a third stream of private sector income alongside National Lottery and Government funding. As mentioned earlier, the budget of UKS was increased to support the preparation of British athletes for the 2008 and 2012 Games.

■ The success of sports at the Olympics and other competitions made them more popular and enabled the public to “emotionally connect” with them. This process was also encouraged by the active participation of athletes and clubs in promoting sports “off the field”. ■

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8 United Kingdom Major reforms in the UK sport system (2/2) The rebranding of the Olympic Team ■ After the 1996 Olympics, the British Olympic Association (BOA) decided to create a strong brand for the Olympic team, which could help create a „team feeling” among athletes and supporters alike and could be instantly recognizable.

■ The BOA finally introduced the ‘Team GB’ brand in 1999 and since then it has been the official name for the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic team. It is also a registered trademark of the BOA, which often uses the name to identify itself. The reception of the brand was generally positive, but there were some who said the Team GB name virtually excludes Northern Ireland, and therefore the name should be ‘Team UK’. ■ During the build-up to the London Olympics, the brand proved to be a useful tool to make the British population more interested in the Games. The BOA came up with the ‘Our Greatest Team’ campaign to create and identity for ‘Team GB’.

They enlisted 27 ambassadors, including members of the Royal Family, who promoted the team. Further promotion concentrated on social networks (Facebook, Twitter etc.), because of limited funds (the BOA is not financed by the government).

■ The campaign was very effective and successful, interest in ‘Team GB’ rose measurably. Commercial sponsors, companies such as Cadbury and BMW also used 'The Greatest Team' in their communications. An example of commercial use of the Team GB Brand – Cadbury

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 9 United Kingdom The funding structure (1/4) Source: KPMG Analysis UK Government Department of Culture, Media and Sport UK Sport Home nation sport councils Sport England Home nation governments Sport federations County Sports Partnerships Sport clubs (elite and community sports alike) Corporate sector British Olympic Association The funding of most British sport organizations is largely dependent on contributions from the government, either directly (Exchequer funds and home nation budgets) or indirectly (National Lottery, which is licensed by the UK government).

However, financing from corporate sources, for example sponsorship deals and private fundraising plays an important role at many levels. National Lottery

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 10 United Kingdom The funding structure (2/4) UK sport system ■ The National Lottery, which started in 1994, provides an indirect form of funding for sport in the UK.

Through the ‘Good Causes’ programme Lottery money is given out by twelve independent organizations, each with specialist knowledge of their sectors. Five of them are related to sports (UKS and the four home nation sport councils). ■ Sport federations, clubs and even individuals can apply for grants. Funds are used for both the elite and community sport projects. Olympic federations are financed by the UKS (receiving GBP 87 million of its yearly budget from the Lottery) using this source, while community sport facilities are developed by grants provided by Sport England and others. From 2009 until December 2013, Sport England distributed more than GBP 920 million for community sport.

■ In the year ending 31 March 2013, 28% of total National Lottery revenue was returned to the ‘Good Causes’. 20% of the contribution went for sports (GBP 360 million). As a special project, GBP 2.2 billion was used to stage the Olympics. ■ The UK government earmarks significant Exchequer funds in its yearly budget for sport purposes, During the Rio Olympic cycle (2012-2016) UKS receives GBP 40 million every year from this source. Exchequer money is also used to finance community sport projects through Sport England and other sport councils. From 2009 until December 2013, Sport England distributed more than GBP 430 million for community sport.

■ Primary and secondary schools will receive GBP 150 million each year from the DCMS and the Department for Education to improve the quality of school sports.

■ The amount of direct government funding was negligible for long decades, but during preparation for the London Olympics it increased significantly. In exchange, ‘Team GB’ athletes funded by the government are asked to promote school sports five days a year, free of charge. ■ The 2000s saw an increase in funding coming from the private sector as more companies wanted to be associated with the London Olympics and the British team. Through the initiative called ‘Team 2012’ more than GBP 18 million were raised for the Olympic preparation of athletes between 2009 and 2012. In the final 100 days leading up to the Games, another GBP 750,000 was distributed.

■ The ‘Team 2012’ programme was jointly launched by UKS, and BOA and was sponsored by Visa, a financial services company. The funds were used to cover the costs of coaches, medical support, training camps, international travel, equipment and facilities. More than 1200 elite athletes from 47 sports received this type of financial backing. ■ The British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association relies on private sponsorships and donations. Direct government funding Indirect government funding: National Lottery Corporate partners

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 11 United Kingdom The funding structure (3/4) World Class Performance Programme ■ As mentioned before, the main role of UKS is to finance elite sports to maximize the performance of UK athletes Shorty after it was established in 1997, the World Class Performance Programme (WCPP) was launched, which is the most important funding source for sport federations. UKS invest only in federations of Olympic and Paralympic sports that have a good chance to succeed at the Games. Performance is thus measured by the number of medals won.

■ Sport federations are required to devise their own programmes, the UKS only supports those with a detailed plan set out already. Their governance structure and operation is closely scrutinized in order to ensure that WCPP funds are channeled to the right places. Federations are accountable for the delivery of their programmes. ■ Currently there are two levels of funding available for federations and their athletes:  Podium: the highest level of funding, which is awarded to sports that are deemed capable of winning medals at the Olympics and/or gold medal at the Paralympics within four years (Paralympic silver and bronze medal prospects do not count).

 Podium Potential: sports with the potential to compete for medals at the next Olympics or Paralympics. ■ UKS realizes that it can take a long time for talent to fulfill potential. With that in mind, the WCPP is seen as a long-term investment. ■ In addition to WCPP funds, sport federations are required to finance a minimum percentage of their sport budgets from their own income channels (e.g. sponsorships, membership fees). ■ Federations use the contribution from the UKS to either fund their athletes directly or pay for the back-up services they require (see ‘Home Nation Institutes of Sport’ box).

Home Nation Institutes of Sport ■ Every home nation has its own Institute of Sport, which were set up during the late 1990s, as a part of the reforms of the period.  English Institute of Sport (EIS)  Sport Institute Northern Ireland (SINI)  Sportscotland Institute of Sport (SIS)  Welsh Institute of Sport (WIS) ■ Their core function is to provide expert services to Olympic, Paralympic and a range of other sports (e.g. Premier League football, Premiership rugby etc.). These services include innovative sport medicine, sport science solutions aimed to increase the performance of the athletes.

■ Over the previous Olympic cycle (2008-2012), the EIS delivered more than 4,000 hours of medical and science support to over 1,500 Olympic and Paralympic athletes every week. Sport federations that receive funding from the UKS through the World Class Performance Programme are able to pay for the services of the four Institutes of Sport. ■ The funding year for the WCPP runs from 1 December to the end of November. ■ Reviews by UKS are conducted annually when the performance of the federations is measured against agreed milestones. In case they under or over-perform, it is possible to realign the amount of investment, meaning that the level of UKS support can fluctuate or even completely diminish during an Olympic cycle for a given sport.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 12 United Kingdom The funding structure (4/4) Individual funding for athletes Athlete Personal Award (APA) ■ Beside the WCPP, the Athlete Personal Award is another important funding channel for elite athletes. It serves as a contribution towards personal living and sporting costs and is paid directly to them.

■ Individuals has to apply at the UK Sport for APA financing through an application form.

The amount awarded depends on the athlete’s performance category (Podium and Development) and any other income they receive. ■ The average APA payment to athletes on the Podium level in 2013 was around £18,500 per annum, the average figure for Development level athletes was £7,500. Sports with the largest contribution from UKS through the World Class Performance Programme (ranked by Rio 2016 funding, in GBP million) Sportsaid ■ As part of private financing, Sportsaid, a charity fund established in 1976, aims to support young talent between the age of 12 and 18, who train in one of the Olympic or Paralympic sports on an amateur basis but have potential to become successful in the future.

■ This project relies on fund raising from the corporate sector and private individuals.

Other forms of athlete financing ■ Financing is also channeled to professional sportsmen from private sponsorship deals. ■ These funds either flow through the sport federations and sports clubs, or are directly signed between the sportsmen and the sponsoring companies on a one-by-one basis. ■ For example, Chris Hoy, a cyclist received USD 1,5 million in 2012 from the likes of Adidas, Harrods and Kellogg’s. Sport London 2012 Rio 2016 Change 1 Rowing 27,3 32,6 +19,4% 2 Cycling 26,0 30,6 +17,7% 3 Athletics 25,1 26,8 +6,8% 4 Sailing 22,9 25,5 +11,4% 5 Swimming 25,1 20.8 -17,1% 6 Canoeing 16,2 20,0 +23,5% 7 Equestrian 13,4 18.0 +34,3% 8 Field hockey 15,0 16,1 +7,3% 9 Gymnastics 10,8 14,6 +35,2% 10 Boxing 9,6 13,8 +43,8% 11 Taekwando 4,8 8,1 +68,8% 12 Triathlon 5,3 7,5 +41,5% 13 Diving 6,5 7,5 +15,4% 14 Judo 7,5 7,4 -1,3% 15 Pentathlon 6,3 7,0 +11,1% Source: UK Sport Website and BBC.co.uk Note: four sports lost the financial support of UKS after the London Olympics, because of below par performances, meaning that they will have to completely rely on private funds.

These were: basketball, synchronized swimming, water polo, weightlifting.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 13 United Kingdom Elite sports success The United Kingdom’s Olympic history ■ The UK was among the nations that participated in the first Summer Games of the modern age in 1896. They have competed at every Summer and Winter Olympics since then.

■ The country’s capital, London has welcomed athletes from all around the world as the host of the Games three times (1908, 1948 and 2012).

The most recent occasion proved to be the most successful for Team GB since 1908; their athletes won 29 gold, 17 silver and 29 bronze medals and finished third in the overall medal table. ■ During the first half of the 20th century the British were among the top sporting nations. The following decades saw them constantly lagging behind the likes of the United States, the Soviet Union, and even Germany, Italy and France. The worst performance came in 1996 with a 36th position at the medal table. ■ The restructuring of elite sports funding dramatically turned trends around and the government and UK Sport’s aim is to maintain the good results at the Rio Olympics in 2016.

■ The red line below signals the period when the reforms of the British elite sport system were initiated. 5 1 11 9 19 29 3 8 10 9 13 17 12 6 7 12 15 19 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004Beijing 2008 London 2012 Gold Silver Bronze 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 Lillehammer 1994 Nagano 1998 Salt Lake City 2002 Turin 2006 Vancouver 2010 Sochi 2014 Gold Silver Bronze Sport Gold Silver Bronze Total 1 Athletics 53 79 62 194 2 Rowing 28 22 13 63 3 Cycling 26 26 23 75 4 Sailing 25 18 11 54 5 Tennis 17 15 12 44 6 Boxing 17 12 24 53 7 Swimming 15 23 30 67 8 Shooting 13 15 16 44 9 Equestrian 9 10 13 32 10 Figure skating 5 3 7 15 Medal count of the Summer Olympic Games Medal count of the Winter Olympic Games Most successful Olympic sports Source.

Olympic.Org Source. Olympic.Org Source. Olympic.Org

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 14 16,8 18,3 13,9 15,5 9,4 10,9 6,3 7,5 4 8 12 16 20 2005/6 2012/13 At least monthly At least weekly At least twice a week At least three times a week United Kingdom Public sport participation in the UK Statistics and findings ■ According to the latest physical activity related Eurobarometer survey carried out in 2009, around 52% of the UK population took part in sports at least once a month, which was slightly better than the average 46% rate across the 27 EU countries.

■ In comparison, 46% of the population participated in sports at least monthly in 1996, just before the year when the sport reforms were launched.

■ ‘The Statistics on Obesity, Physical Activity and Diet’ survey found that 15.5 million adults participated in sport at least once a week (30 minutes of exercise) in 2011/12. It also said that 77% of school children (aged 5-15 years) had taken part in competitive sport in school during the same period. This survey was commissioned by The Health and Social Care Information Centre. ■ A recent analysis by Sport England compares statistics on sports participation between 2005/06 and 2012/2013. The figures cover only England and show that:  15.5 million adults (16+) played sport at least once a week in 2013 in England.

That’s 1.5 million more than in 2005/6.  Over 900,000 14-15 year olds played sport at least weekly  17.4% of all adults took part in at least three sport sessions a week – up from 15.5% in 2005/6  However, 52% of adults did not play any sport in 2013. ■ The Summer Olympic Games held in London in 2012 significantly increased the number of people playing sports at least once a week (by 750,000). It remains to be seen whether this effect will prove to be permanent.

■ Cycling was the one of the sport which seen a large rise in its popularity after the recent Games. The ‘Olympic Cycling Effect’ report by Alexander Grous says that 52% of the respondents to a specific survey were motivated to cycle after the inspiring achievements of the Team GB cycling team at London 2012 (8 gold, 2 silver and 2 bronze medals). According to the same report, British Cycling estimated that participation in cycling has increased by 20% since the Beijing Games in 2008. The strategy of Sport England The current strategy regarding public sport participation in England (not including other home nations) runs from 2012 until 2017 and sets out ambitious goals for Sport England.

The most important are the following:  Invest GBP 500 million in 46 sport federations to help them increase the number of people who play their sports below the elite level. This investment, coming from National Lottery and Exchequer funds, also aims to support talent development.

 Provide every secondary school in England with a direct link to one or more sports. Help them set up facilities for local community use.  Invest GBP 265 million in sport facilities across England.  Invest GBP 10 million in sport projects for disabled people.  Engage 2,000 young people „on the margins of the society” through giving them sporting opportunities Number of adults taking part in sports in England by frequency Source: Sport England – Active People survey 7 (2013)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 15 United Kingdom Key takeaways Effective restructuring ■ During the 1990s the sport structure of the United Kingdom experienced major changes that were long overdue. ■ New organizations were established and existing ones were reorganized. The entire responsibility for the development of Olympic sports was transferred to UK Sport, while the tasks regarding „sport for all” were overtaken by new authorities in each home nation. ■ As a result, both elite and community sport has an authority focusing entirely on them.

„Brutal” elite sport redistribution system ■ Sport federations are assessed by their Olympic performance and funds are given to those with the highest chance of success. ■ Failure to reach the pre-set goals can easily result in the complete withdrawal of funds. The opposite is also true, meaning that Olympic sports can increase their share of public funds with sustained good performances. ■ The system is described as unrelenting by its critics, but so far it has deemed to be successful and effective. Stable funding channel for the sport sector ■ The organisational restructuring would not have been so successful if it was not complemented with a new revenue source for sports, the proceeds of the national lottery.

■ Among all supported areas, the main beneficiary of the redistribution of lottery profits is (elite and community) sport. ■ Olympic federations, national teams, local sport clubs and facilities receive the major part of their funding from this source. Rebranding of the Olympic team ■ In order to improve the visibility of the national team the British Olympic Association initiated a rebranding project during the late 1990s. ■ They came up with the ‘Team GB’ brand which has since become the semi-official name of the Association itself. ■ The new brand is consciously used in the communication of the Olympic team and also provides an ideal promotion vehicle for the corporate partners and sponsors of British sport, such as Cadbury and BMW.

Population: 62 600 000 Sport participation rate: 52% Sport club members: 12 380 000 Funding for elite sport: GBP 130 million (per year) Funding for leisure sport: GBP 400 million (per year)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1 Netherlands Introduction and scope of the study Main attributes of Dutch sport ■ With an estimated population of 16.8 million and an area of 41,543 km2, the Netherlands is a relatively small country.

However, the country is one of the most developed economies in Europe, based on per capita GDP.

■ Sport plays an important role in the everyday life of Dutch people: sport participation rates of the general public have been on the rise for decades. Based on the Eurobarometer survey conducted by the European Commission in 2009, the Netherlands was among the top5 countries in Europe in terms of leisure sport participation (64% of the population played sports or did physical exercise at least once a month), while close to 30% of the population was a member of a sport club in 2013. ■ The structure of sport and clubs has been historically organized by the voluntary sector, without direct control from the central government.

This non-governmental sector retains its central role in Dutch sports to this day; the most important stakeholders and policymakers are independent from the government. ■ However, in recent years the government has a more significant role in the preparation of sport policies and coordination of other organizations of their implementation.

The scope of the study Our assessment of sports in the Netherlands covers the following topics: ■ Governance structure and main institutions ■ Funding structure ■ Elite sport success ■ Infrastructure and talent development supporting elite sports ■ Leisure sport success ■ Sport Agenda 2016 The Netherlands achieved remarkable results in sports, both in terms of professional sport success and leisure sport participation. The country consistently finish among the top 20 nations of the Summer Olympics medal table, while around 64% of the population participates in leisure sports at least on a monthly basis, which is well above the average of the European Union (46%).

An important characteristic of Dutch sport’s structure is its bottom-up organization: the professional sport success of the country is driven by a solid leisure sport base and a strong sport culture.

Population of the Netherlands 16,770,000 Sport participation rate (1) 64% National sport federations 76 Sport clubs 27,700 Sport club members 5,700,000 Elite athletes 4,600 Elite coaches 26,000 Commercial sport providers (2) 5,000 Highlights of the Dutch sport scene Source: NOC*NSF Official Website; KPMG Analysis Note: (1) % who takes part at least once a month (2) Fitness centers, sport schools etc.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 2 Netherlands The governance structure and main institutions (1/5) The Dutch sport governance system experienced a major structural change in 1993, when the NOC*NSF was established by the merger of two organizations. The most important developments of the past two decades were mainly about changes in policy and the role of the government. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport NOC*NSF (Netherlands Olympic Committee * Netherlands Sport Federations) Government Sport Department Provinces Municipalities Sport Federations Sport clubs Club membership Corporate sector International Olympic Committee Administrative relations Source: KPMG Analysis Summary of the governance structure of Dutch sport

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 3 Netherlands The governance structure and main institutions (2/5) NOC*NSF ■ The Netherlands Olympic Committee (NOC) was founded in 1912 and included the federations of Olympic sports with the aim to comply with international regulations. ■ Traditionally, many sport clubs and thus federations were organized on a religious basis (Protestant, Catholic etc.) in the Netherlands However, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allowed only the official federations of Olympic sports to join the NOC, while non- Olympic and religious sport federations formed the Netherlands Sport Confederations (NSF) in 1959.

The level of cooperation was high between the two organizations, which eventually led to the merger of the two bodies in 1993 through the foundation of NOC*NSF, the biggest structural reform in Dutch sport in the recent decades. ■ Since its foundation the NOC*NSF has been the umbrella organization of Dutch sport: it functions as the most important body of the Dutch sport governance system and also fulfills the duties of the National Olympic Committee. NOC*NSF represents both elite and grassroots sport and operates independently from the government. The organization serves as the hub for sport financing at the national level.

■ The NOC*NSF has 95 members, which can be divided into four categories: 76 national sport federations, 15 Dutch sport organizations (e.g. Netherlands University Sports Foundation), three honorary members and one Dutch IOC member. ■ The NOC*NSF takes part actively in sport strategy making; the latest national strategic plan of Dutch sport, the Sport Agenda 2016, was launched by NOC*NSF in early 2012, after consultations with the government (refer to page 14 for more details). ■ NOC*NSF’s most important policy is that elite sports and grassroots sports can not improve without the other, ensuring that the two fields both receive the required funding and attention.

■ In addition to its own core activities, the NOC*NSF supports specific areas of sports as well. For example, in close collaboration with InnoSportNL, NOC*NSF provides scientific background to improve elite sport performance through delivering focused sport research. Main objectives of the NOC*NSF Increase sport participation of the general public Achieve better results in elite sports (especially Olympics) Serve as a centre for sports expertise Represent the Dutch sport at national and international levels Source: NOC*NSF Official Website

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 4 Sport federations and sport clubs ■ There are 76 sport federations in the Netherlands overseen by the NOC*NSF. Each sport federation represents and coordinates one specific sport, including the allocation of funds, the organization of domestic competitions and the preparation of sport specific policies, amongst others.

■ Sport clubs, important building blocs of the whole sports system, are members of their corresponding national sports federation. They are mostly run and financed on a voluntary basis. Around 1,5 million volunteers and only 13000 paid employees are involved in the day- to-day management of sport clubs. ■ Apart from professional clubs competing in elite leagues, there are more than 27,000 sport clubs operating in the country, accommodating over 5.7 million members. These clubs are the most important pillars in creating sporting opportunities for the public. Their size in terms of membership usually ranges from 10 to 1,000 members.

(It should also be noted that the membership of one person in multiple clubs might result in duplications). Netherlands The governance structure and main institutions (3/5) Trends in participation in sport and club membership 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1983 1991 1999 2007 Dutch population aged 6-79 years Participants in sport Club membership Million people Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009] Sport Federation No. of regsitered members 1983 2007 Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) 1,059 1,130 Royal Dutch Lawn Tennis Federation (KNLTB) 556 691 Dutch Golf Federation (NGF) 15 291 Royal Dutch Gymnastics Union (KNGU) 378 280 Royal Dutch Hockey Federation (KNHB) 117 197 Royal Dutch Equestrian Sports Federation (KNHS) 52 196 Royal Dutch Ice Skating Federation (KNSB) 133 150 Royal Dutch Swimming Federation (KNZB) 158 146 Dutch Volleyball Federation (NeVoBo) 160 127 Athletics Federation (Atletiekunie) 39 126 Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009] ■ Measuring popularity by the total number of club members of a given sport, football is leading the rank with overall membership over 1.1 million registered players.

■ The percentage of Dutch people participating in sport (not necessarily as a club member) has been constantly rising. The number of people joining clubs rose by 1% between 1983 and 2007, while general sport participation grew by 12% during the same period. Top 5 sports played by number of registered members (in ‘000)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

5 Netherlands The governance structure and main institutions (4/5) The role of the government ■ The state played a relatively less significant role in Dutch sports until the 1990s: only less significant policies were issued in connection with sports, mainly focusing on its recreational aspects. The government tried to influence the development of sport during the 1970s, but the recession in the early 1980s stopped this involvement as welfare budgets were cut.

■ The field of sports once gained importance on government level in 1994, when the Sport Department was founded within the newly established Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). The first long-term policy document was released by the Sport Department in 1996, called ‘What sport sets in motion’, emphasizing the effect sport has on forming the society. ■ Since its foundation, VWS has set out a number of policies focusing on a wide range of sports matters, including opportunities for the immigrant youth, disabled sport and increased sport participation, amongst others. Government considers sports as beneficial for the larger society through spill-over and multiplier effects on healthcare and overall living conditions.

In parallel with increased government efforts, state budget for sports has also been growing (refer to page 8 and 9 for more details).

■ However, the government has no direct control over the management of the NOC*NSF or other organizations in the voluntary (non-governmental) sport sector. Instead, its main role is the cooperation with NOC*NSF and the national sport federations through regular formal and informal interactions. As a result, government policies serve as guidelines, while NOC*NSF and the sport federations are relatively free in terms of implementation. As a general rule, the VWS and the NOC*NSF consult each other in devising new policies.

■ Apart from VWS, other ministries also support sport on a rather ad hoc basis.

For example, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (controlled by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science) allocated close to EUR 10 million for a research supporting athletes in the development of better performances, as well as providing support to people with disabilities and chronic diseases to gain more opportunities for participation in sports. It should also be noted that aspects of this research connected to elite sport were developed in collaboration with NOC*NSF. Year Policy 2006 Immigrant youth sport program Sport clubs were requested to cooperate in a program to increase sport participation among the immigrant youth.

The VWS made grants available for clubs which later worked out the details of the program, resulting in many different successful ways of the implementation. 2007 The Power of Sport As part of a large policy program run between 2007 and 2011, the Power of Sport emphasized sports’ positive effect on society and set out goals in participation rates, disabled sport and youth talent development among many others.

Through the program the VWS earmarked EUR 30 million for these issues for 3 years, e.g. EUR 7.5 million was allocated to support sport in community schools. It also expanded the plan for the NASB (see below). Notable governmental sport policies of recent years Netherlands Institute for Sport & Physical Activity (NISB) ■ NISB is an independent organization founded by the VWS. As a knowledge institute it “strives for a vital society, where everybody, young and old, is active in his or her own way”. NISB organizes numerous programs aimed at various age groups to encourage them to participate in sports.

■ One of the largest programs of NISB is the National Action Plan Sport and Physical Activity (NASB), which provides funds and advice for local authorities to help people receive more opportunities for doing sports. Source: VWS Website and ‘The Power of Sport [2007]

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6 Netherlands The governance structure and main institutions (5/5) The role of provinces and municipalities ■ The administrative system of the Netherlands is divided into 12 provinces, which are further broken down into 408 municipalities. Provinces are mainly responsible for matters of regional importance. They fund non-governmental, regional sport councils, which provide (technical and administrative) assistance to local sport clubs and organizations.

■ Historically, municipalities provide the primary background for the voluntary organization of sports. On average every municipality is the home for around 67 sport clubs. ■ As the lowest level of government, municipalities are competent in a wide range of sport related matters. Practically, they are allowed to take on any role as long as it is not against the national policy in the field, which helps them to organize the local sport life. ■ Most of their budget comes from the national government, the majority of it is earmarked for specific purposes. In addition to this source, municipalities can levy their own taxes.

■ Each year more than EUR 1 billion is spent on sports at municipality level, mainly for the provision and maintenance of sports facilities for public use. This process is encouraged and partly funded by the government (see page 9 for more details). ■ The number of public sport facilities in the Netherlands is quite high: while for example Breda has 43 such facilities controlled by the municipality, 60% of the Dutch population lives within 5 kilometers of sport facilities, which are usually suitable for practicing numerous sports.

■ Apart from the provision of sport infrastructure, municipalities also take part in the organization of the local sport life.

They usually take great pride in their notable achievements, such as the participation rates surpassing the national average. Bike path in Amsterdam

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7 Netherlands The funding structure of Dutch sport (1/4) Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport NOC*NSF (Netherlands Olympic Committee * Netherlands Sport Federations) Government Sport Department Provinces Municipalities Sport Federations Sport clubs Club membership fees Corporate sector International Olympic Committee Flow of funds Summary of the funding structure of Dutch sport Source: KPMG Analysis

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8 Netherlands The funding structure of Dutch sport (2/4) Dutch Sport ■ Since the establishment of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) in 1994, an increasing amount of funding has been channeled for sports. In recent years the government has contributed EUR 70 million each year to the NOC*NSF budget. Half of the contribution is spent on elite sport; the rest is allocated to sporting opportunities for the public.

These public funds cover the financing of facilities for elite athletes and coaches, as well as educational programs for talented athletes. ■ The government also provides direct funds to municipalities, that are earmarked for sports (e.g. public sport infrastructure development. The VWS often gives subsidies and grants to clubs that participate in the implementation of one its own policies.

■ The gambling organization called LOTTO was set up in 1961 by the government. Guaranteed by regulations, most of it proceeds are transferred directly to the NOC*NSF budget (In recent years this contribution amounted to EUR 50 million each year). Since the start of the LOTTO, over EUR 1.4 billion has been used for sport purposes in total. ■ NOC*NSF controls how these funds are divided between the federations. In general, sports with higher chances of delivering good results at international events receive more funds. ■ Since its foundation, NOC*NSF has established strong relations with the private sector: corporate partners provide around EUR 10 million each year in various forms of funding.

Partnership contracts usually run for an Olympic cycle of 4 years. The majority of these funding partners has strong ties in the Netherlands. ■ There are three categories differentiated by the level and type of support:  Partners in Sport (e.g. Randstad)  Project Partners (e.g. Heineken)  Media Partners (e.g. Sanoma) ■ Official suppliers, which are companies who deliver products and services for the elite sport sector in the Netherlands, often link their products to the Netherlands Olympic Team. ■ National sport federations and clubs raise a large part of their budget from sponsorship deals, while some of them also profit from the sale of television rights.

■ Revenues through membership fees are the most important funding channels for sport clubs, accounting for half of their income. ■ This steady flow of membership fees and sponsorship deals negotiated on their own mean that sport clubs and federations are not solely dependent on contributions from NOC*NSF or the VWS. Direct Government Funding Corporate Partners Lottery Funding Membership fees

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 9 Netherlands The funding structure of Dutch sport (3/4) National and municipal contributions to sport in the Netherlands (in million euros) Funding figures ■ The table on the right shows how the Dutch government gradually increased funding for sport between 1999 and 2010. The majority of the total amount went directly to the NOC*NSF. For example, around EUR 70 million out of 113 million was the NOC*NSF’s share in 2010. ■ Sport federations receive funding from the NOC*NSF, based on their contribution to sport policy goals, not merely on the size of their membership base.

More details in the sport Agenda 2016 section.

■ The table also illustrates how the government started to spend more and more on elite sport. Currently a third of the Dutch government’s sport financing serves this purpose. ■ The remaining part of the national government’s sport budget went to projects aiming to increase the quality of the local sport infrastructure. Municipalities had to pay at least 50% of the cost of these project, which resulted in an increase in municipality spending on sport. Cities and towns also started to build and develop their facilities on their own, further increasing their contribution to community sport. Year National government Municipalities Community Elite Total Total 1999 22,3 5.7 28 855 2000 45,1 15.9 61 924 2001 52,6 11.4 64 989 2002 56,2 13.8 70 1062 2003 54,9 18.1 73 1158 2004 55,6 18.4 74 1159 2005 47,5 19.5 67 1166 2006 81,1 37.9 119 1241 2007 75,3 21.7 97 1276 2008 78,5 26.5 105 1369 2009 77,0 36.0 113 1488 2010 79,6 33.4 113 1499 Source: CBS StatLine

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 10 Netherlands The funding structure of Dutch sport (4/4) Individual funding for athletes (the fund was set up in 2001) ■ Similar to the system in other countries (e.g. the United Kingdom), the NOC*NSF divides elite athletes into three categories to determine the amount of funding they receive. The categories are:  A-status: elite athletes who are among the global top 8 of their respective sport;  B-status: athletes who belong to the global top 16;  HP-status: athletes with extraordinary potential.

■ In order to be eligible for the backing, they has to comply with certain regulations and are regularly assessed. ■ NOC*NSF and VWS jointly finance this program, while the former carries out the administrative duties.

Holland Heineken House – A successful commercial partnership ■ Established in 1863 in Amsterdam, Heineken NV (one of the largest companies in the beer industry) is a globally visible brand of the Netherlands. ■ In 1992 the Netherlands Olympic Committee (NOC) joined forces with the firm to establish the Holland Heineken House (HHH) at the Olympics in Barcelona. Since then the HHH has been ever present at the Summer and Winter Games (with the exception of 1994). ■ It serves as a meeting place for Dutch athletes, supporters and the media, while providing a commercial (advertising) opportunity for Heineken.

The House also acts as the headquarters of NOC*NCF during the event.

Two notable examples of funding

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 11 Netherlands Elite sports success (1/2) Olympic history of the Netherlands ■ The Netherlands did not participate at the first modern Summer Olympics in 1896, but since then Dutch athletes missed only two Games (in 1904 and 1956). They have hosted the Games once, in 1928, when it was held in Amsterdam.

■ To date the Netherlands has won 266 medals at the Summer Olympics: 77 gold, 85 silver and 104 bronze medals. This respectable achievement ranks the country in the 17th position in the all-time medal count table. Their best ever performance was recorded in 2000, at the Sydney Olympics. ■ When measuring the medal count against the population, the Netherlands ranks even better, they occupy the 15th place. Their ‘Population per Medal’ ratio was 62,901 in 2012. ■ The Dutch athletes also do relatively well at the Winter Olympics. The all-time haul of 110 medals rank them as the 12th most successful nation at the Winter Games.

This consists of 37 gold, 38 silver and 35 bronze medals. It should also be noted that 106 of these 110 medals were won in a single sport, speed skating (sprint and short track combined).

Most succesful Dutch sports by Olympic medals won Medal count of recent Summer Olympics Medal count of recent Winter Olympics 2 4 12 4 7 6 6 5 9 9 5 6 7 10 4 9 4 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004Beijing 2008 London 2012 Gold Silver Bronze 5 3 3 4 8 1 4 5 2 1 7 3 2 4 3 9 Lillehammer 1994 Nagano 1998 Salt Lake City 2002 Turin 2006 Vancouver 2010 Sochi 2014 Gold Silver Bronze Sport Gold Silver Bronze Total 1 Speed skating 35 36 35 105 2 Swimming 19 18 19 56 3 Cycling 16 16 11 43 4 Equestrian 10 10 2 22 5 Athletics 6 3 6 15 6 Rowing 5 11 11 27 7 Sailing 5 8 7 20 8 Field hockey 5 5 6 16 Source: Olympics.Org Source: Olympics.Org

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 12 Football ■ Based on the research carried out by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research, 14% of the population participated in football in 2007, making it the most widely practiced team sport in the country. ■ According to FIFA, the Netherlands has the 6th strongest national team currently in Europe, while based on the ranking reported by UEFA, the Dutch Eredivisie (the top tier of Dutch professional football) was the 8th strongest league in Europe in late 2013.

■ Professional Dutch clubs regularly qualify to the most prestigious European competitions (Champions League, Europa League); many Dutch footballers are key players in the best European teams.

■ The key factor of the success of the Dutch football relative to the population of the country is considered to be the world-class youth development system and coaching/tactical expertise. However, it should also be noted that based on the information reported by FIFA, in terms of the number of registered players the Netherlands is the 5th in Europe. Field hockey ■ The Netherlands is among the top performers in field hockey at international level: the men’s national team has won the Olympic tournament 2 times and the World Cup on 3 occasions, while the women’s team is even more successful with 3 Olympic golds (most recently at London 2012) and 6 triumphs at the World Cups.

■ Similar to football, one of the key success factors of the sport is its large athlete base: field hockey is the second most popular team sport in the Netherlands, with the number of people who play the sport in official clubs is estimated to be 200,000. ■ In addition to the significant number of athletes, the country has numerous facilities that are excellent for the practice of the sport. Performance of the Dutch national football team Association (KNVB) founded 1889 Official matches played 728 Best World Cup record Runners up (3 times) World Cup appearances 9 Best European Championship record Winner (1988) European Championship appearances 9 Ballon D’Or winners 3 Sporting succeess of popular team sports Netherlands Elite sports success (2/2) Source: KPMG Analysis

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 13 Netherlands Infrastructure and talent development supporting elite sports The structure of talent development ■ The infrastructure primarily built for elite athletes also has a focus on young talent with high potential. ■ Chaired by the NOC*NSF, the NL Olympic Network unites seven regional networks. These are called ‘Organisatie Olympisc Netwerk Nederland’ (ONNL) and operate to reinforce sport federations in their region, nurture talented individuals and support elite athletes in their preparation.

■ Below the regional level, where the ONNLs operate, there is the LOOT foundation, a partnership between secondary schools where young talented athletes are supported in combining their education with the sport career. ■ There are also education programs by sport federations that set out the „career path” for young talent to become elite athletes (the concept is largely based on the Canadian multi-year ‘Long Term Athlete Development ‘ plan). Coaches and experts ■ The development of the Dutch sport environment has been aided by the ever growing support from the government since the 1990s; before that, professional coaches did not have any significant financial backing.

■ From the mid 1990s the situation changed: the government started to finance numerous programs aimed at coaches, which were executed and coordinated by the NOC*NSF. Two notable programs of recent years were the ‘Coaches at the Top’ and ‘Talent Coaches’ programs, which provided financial support to 137 coaches by 2010. ■ In addition, in 2004 the NOC*NSF established a network consisting of specialists, who are experts in different fields of sport science, including nutrition, mental support and medical expertise, amongst others. The network serves as a knowledge centre providing support to elite athletes in order to develop their sport performance.

Elite sports programs ■ Sport federations are usually independent in setting goals for themselves, the NOC*NSF provides technical support. The success of the programs set out by the federations are monitored by NOC*NSF through the ‘Topsport Programma Assesment’ (TPA) and are assessed against a number of different factors (e.g. planning and strategy, training, performance, etc.). ■ In addition to these programs, there are some nationwide projects, that overlap sports federations since the 1990s. One of the most significant projects is the establishment of four ‘Centres for Elite sport and Education’ (Amsterdam, Heerenveen, Eindhoven and Arnhem), where athletes can live, train and study at the same location.

■ For example in Arnhem (National Sport Centre Papendal), over 250 athletes are given training each day (representing 11 different sport federations), out of which 100 athletes also live in the Centre. ■ In addition to these multi-sport centres, there are five other major elite sports centers, each focusing on one single sport.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

14 Netherlands Leisure sport success Public sport participation in the Netherlands ■ Although sport clubs form the foundation of Dutch sport life, it is estimated that some one third of people active in sports are not registered members at any of the clubs: the prevailing trend is that more and more people choose to pursue sports outside the club setting.

■ According to the NOC*NSF, in 2013 around 10 million Dutch people took part in sports with some regularity, while the number of club members was around 5.7 million. (It should also be noted that the membership of one person in multiple clubs might result in duplications). ■ The most recent sport related Eurobarometer survey in the field found that 64% of the population of the Netherlands engaged in sporting activities at least once every month (monthly participation is usually labeled as sport participation rate). The same survey reports that 35% of the population takes part in some kind of sport 1-2 times a week, which might be considered relatively high as compared to other European countries.

In addition, around 84% of the Dutch population participates in physical activities outside of sports (e.g. dancing, gardening, etc.).

1999 2007 Swimming (33%) Swimming (36%) Cycling (15%) Cycling (23%) Fitness/aerobics (13%) Fitness/aerobics (22%) Walking (11%) Running/jogging (18%) Roller skating (11%) Walking (15%) Football (10%) Football (14%) Tennis (9%) Tennis (10%) Running/jogging (8%) Roller skating (7%) Sailing, Rawing, Canoeing, Surfing (6%) Sailing, Rawing, Canoeing, Surfing (7%) Skating (6%) Skating (6%) Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1987 1995 2007 6-11 12-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65-79 Participation rates in sport (at least once a year) by age groups Source: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research - Sport in the Netherlands [2009] Top 10 sports practiced by the population (aged 6-79 years; in %)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 15 Netherlands Sport Agenda 2016 Raising the sport participation rate ■ The NOC*NSF’s strategy to increase participation is based on making sports even more accessible and attractive to the general public and creating a strong demand for regular sporting activities. ■ This goal requires the cooperation of NOC*NSF, local municipalities and local sport providers (schools, sport clubs etc.) to work out efficient programs and projects.

■ There are specific target groups to the Agenda, like long-term unemployed, and socially isolated people which require more attention. ■ One of the most ambitious goals of this part of the Agenda is the aim to increase sport participation of people with disabilities by 10%. In order to achieve this, a nationwide network will be established to match sporting possibilities and needs of disabled people. Breaking Into the top 10 ■ Upon realizing that sporting nations spend more and more on elite sports, the NOC*NSF worked out a policy plan to make the allocation of funds more effective and targeted at sports that have real chance of success.

■ The Netherlands has only a handful of sports that quite regularly achieve good results at the Olympics and World Cups. The most obvious example is speed skating in which they have won almost every Winter Olympics medal for the country. However, previously only one quarter of the funding went to „successful” sports. ■ To help the situation, Sport Agenda 2016 introduced the so called Top 10 focus criteria. In order to be eligible for significant funding, sport federations has to work out a project with many requirements. In addition to the need to have good chances of winning medals, federations has to develop a full-time talent development program.

■ The Agenda focuses on every aspect of a sport, from good governance through elite facilities to professional preparation. Summary of Sport Agenda 2016 – „Sport Inspires!” ■ This is the fourth overall sport policy encompassing goals of both the elite and the grassroots, leisure level. It was accepted at the General Meeting of the NOC*NCF on 24 January 2012 and it runs until 2016, for a full Olympic cycle.

■ The Agenda sets out ambitious goals regarding many fields of sports. In tight cooperation with the VWS and the sport federations, the NOC*NCF aims to achieve significant improvement in terms of sport participation and elite sports success. ■ Furthermore, the Sport Agenda emphasizes the importance of best practices and good governance in sports. For example, as a „condition to overall success”, at least 80% of Dutch sport federations should achieve their sporting and organizational development goals.

Main goals of the Agenda Be among the top 10 sporting countries in the world Increasing the sport participation rate of the general public to 75% Increasing sport club membership rate to 35%

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 16 Netherlands Key takeaways Bottom-up organisation of sport ■ Sport clubs form the basis of sport in the Netherlands. They are mainly run and funded by volunteers and provide a wide range of sporting opportunities for everyone. ■ The clubs and their facilities are easily accessible, there is one inside a 5 km radius from the home of every Dutch citizen.

■ Clubs are heavily subsidised by the state; municipalities spend over EUR 1 billion each year on public sport facilities initiatives. Holistic approach to athlete assistance ■ There are four National Sport Centres and five other Training Centres where elite athletes can train and use services of sport experts. ■ Accommodation is provided at these facilities, enabling the athletes to fully concentrate on their sport career. These centers also help them with their education. ■ The underlining idea is that an athlete should be supported in all aspects of his or her life to reach their sporting potential.

Strong relations with the corporate sector ■ National organizations, federations and sport clubs all have many corporate partners, which are offered various level sponsor packages for each Olympic cycle. ■ Over the years many large Dutch companies have started to support both elite and community sport as they realised the benefits of being affiliated with sporting success. ■ The best example is Heineken House, the traditional headquarters of the Dutch Olympic team All-encompassing sport policy ■ The Sport Agenda for each Olympic cycle of 4 years set out the working framework for all important stakeholders in Dutch sport.

■ Goals are set in sport participation, management and elite sport performance. These are clear and attractive enough for effective communication and help securing the necessary public support behind them. Population: 16 800 000 Sport participation rate: 64% Sport club members: 5 700 000 Funding for elite sport: EUR 35 million (per year) Funding for leisure sport: EUR 80 million (per year)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 1 Norway Introduction and scope of the study Main attributes of sport in Norway ■ Norway is a relatively small country in Northern Europe with an area of 385,178 km2. Due to its vast oil and natural gas reserves and low population, the country is one of the wealthiest nations in terms of nominal GDP per capita.

■ The Norwegian welfare state promotes the importance of physical activity among its citizens. Numerous public facilities and sport clubs provide for the high rate of sports participation which is well above the European average. ■ Since cold weather dominates Norway for a large part of the year it is not surprising that winter sports are very popular. The most prominent among them is skiing. Team sports, such as handball and football are also widely practiced. ■ The sports system of the country is often cited as a prime example. Norway has managed to simultaneously develop a successful elite sports and a physical activities program designed for every citizen.

■ In spite of the limited resources available, Norwegian athletes regularly achieve excellent results at Olympic Games, while the development of „sport for all” policies are also in the focus of every sports stakeholder. This healthy balance is quite rare in today’s international sports scene as the majority of nations give priority to the pursue of Olympic medals. ■ Whereas community sport has always been important for the government, the catalyst for progress for elite sport has been the establishment of a dedicated organization (Olympiatoppen) in the late 1980s, which was later integrated into the NIF.

Recent changes significantly affected the funding structure of sport. The scope of the study Our assessment of sports in Norway covers the following topics: ■ Governance structure and main institutions ■ Funding structure ■ Elite sport performance ■ Community sport Population of Norway 5 136 700 People active in sport1 3 850 000 Weekly sports participation rate1 75% Sport clubs2 11 793 Sport club members2 2 047 000 National sports federations3 54 Highlisghts f Norwegian sport Source: KPMG Analysis Note: (1) People taking part in physical activity at least weekly (Norsk Monitor 2009) (2) Sport clubs that are members of the NIF.

(3) Federations that are part of the NIF structure.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2 Norway Governance structure and main institutions (1/5) Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) IOC The Norwegian government provides the financial stability for the sport sector, but it does not directly influence the strategic decisions of the main sport stakeholders.

The most significant member of the multi-level structure is the NIF as every other organization is affiliated with it.

NIF has a high level of autonomy and is responsible for the allocation of public funds to federations and clubs. Every stakehdoler is responsible for both elite and community sport delivery, except for Olympiatoppen which focuses only on the support of Olympic sports. County Sport Associations National Sport Federations Olympiatoppen Local Sport Councils County Sport Federations Sport Clubs Norwegian Government Ministry of Culture

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 3 Norway Governance structure and main institutions (2/5) The role of the government ■ The first governmental body related to sport was established in 1946. The Sport Office was under the management of the Ministry of Social Issues. The structure has undergone some reorganizational waves, currently the Department of Sport is part of the Ministry of Culture.

■ Since the Second World War the government‘s involvement in the sports sector was mainly characterized by the provision of sporting facilities that are meant to be accessible to everyone. ■ During the 1990s the government delivered two White Papers on sport that are still influential today. They make ‘’sport and physical activity for all’’ the ultimate goal of the public sport policy. It means that decisions about elite sport are not in the government’s jurisdiction.

■ Today the Department of Sport is responsible for allocating funds for sport facility development. The source of financing is the state/owned gambling company, Norsk Tipping (refer to page ).

The Department also transfers money to NIF to cover its administration and management expenses and also to provide funds for sport federations. ■ The Norwegian government ensures a stable financial background for the sports sector. Local authorities also support their own sporting life. The Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) ■ The NIF (Norges Idrettsforbund) is the highest authority in Norwegian sport. Its main predecessor, the Norwegian Confederation of Sports was established in 1946, as a representative for both ‘’special’’ (elite) and mass/sport federations. Later, in 1996 it merged with the Norwegian Olympic Committee creating the NIF.

■ It operates as an independent, apolitical organisation that is largely autonomous from the government. The NIF is an umbrella body for lower level sport organisations in the country. ■ The main task of the NIF is to allocate public funding (lottery revenues) to sport federations and to represent their interests at the national level. Since the merger it also fulfills the role of the national Olympic Committee and it selects participants and leaders for the Games. ■ The NIF is at the top of the sporting structure of Norway. It consists of 19 County Sport Associations (CSA) and 54 National Sport Federations.

All sport clubs are members of NIF, they constitute the foundation of the organisation.

■ The organisation is a membership-based authority with a structure that mirrors the democratic principles and values of the Norwegian culture. Led by the Executive Board, it cooperates with the Department of Sport in devising a general sport policy which functions as a framework for the member organisations named above. The Board comprises of a president, two vice-presidents, eight Board members, Norwegian IOC members and one representative of NIF employees . ■ The main decision-making body is the General Assembly, held once every four years. Apart from the Executive Board it has 75 delegates from regional sports bodies (CSA), 75 from the national federations and three athlete representatives (one for Olympic, Paralympic and other sports).

The largest CSAs and federations are eligible to name additional delegates.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4 Norway Governance structure and main institutions (3/5) Olympiatoppen (OLT) ■ The OLT was established in 1988 as a central coordinating organisation for the development of elite sport after the government realized that better conditions were required if they wanted to achieve good results at major sporting events.

■ The catalyst for change was that they did not win a single gold medal at the 1988 Winter Olympics.

Being awarded the 1994 Games was also a major motivation. The positive effects of the new structure became clear when Norway won 26 medals in 1994 compared to the total of 5 in 1988. ■ In 1996 the OLT was integrated into the NIF and currently functions as a quasi-autonomous operative arm of the umbrella organisation. It has complete responsibility for results in Norwegian elite sport. ■ OLT is tasked with allocating and awarding grants to elite athletes. These are aimed at athletes who otherwise lack sufficient funding from other sources. There are three categories: A, B and Development (under the age of 24).

Category „A” athletes are those who have won Olympic medals or finished in the top three at World Championships. „B” athletes are seen as having the potential to achieve the same results, while the potential future stars are put in the Development class. The maximum grant level each year is NOK 500 000 (EUR 60 000) for every category.

■ Olympic duties are delegated to OLT from the NIF, where an individual department is in charge of the preparation for the Games. ■ The OLT also provides medical support and a wide range of expert services to elite sport persons, such as training experts, physiologists, nutritionists etc. Such support is offered at the four Olympic Sports Centres, which are financed by the government and operated by the OLT. They combine scientific and technical resources to enhance the performance of Norwegian athletes. National teams also often train at these centers.

■ The most successful Olympic Sports Centre is the one in Trondelag, where 15 out of 23 Olympic medalists prepared and trained prior to the 2010 Winter Games.

■ The first one was established in Oslo in 1986, two years prior to the founding of OLT. Joy of Sport – For All (Sport Policy Document 2011-2015) ■ The latest, overarching sport policy was agreed upon in 2010. It sets out goals for a 4-year period. It was developed by the NIF in cooperation with the Department of Sport. ■ It serves as the primary sport policy of Norway and provides a general framework for all sport stakeholders. Two major challenges were identified in it: 1) Making sport more open and inclusive 2) Securing long-term financing and infrastructure. ■ The policy says that the development of Norwegian sport should be knowledge and value-based and should emphasize a holistic approach to athletes.

■ Numerous measures are broadly defined in the document: ■ strengthening local and national financing, ■ supporting facility development, ■ increasing the number of sport club members, ■ ensuring access to sporting opportunities for children and disabled groups ■ Olympic Sports Centres have built strong relationships with public high schools operating in their area. With the support of the OLT, the schools launch sports education programmes focused on a single sport, such as skiing, biathlon, Nordic combined etc.. Experienced, well-educated coaches take part in the project which has proved to be very effective.

■ It should also be noted that the OLT also offer coaching programmes in cooperation with NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology). Researchers work with trainers and athletes to develop optimal training programmes and continuously improve the equipment.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 5 Norway Governance structure and main institutions (4/5) County Sport Associations (CSA) ■ There are 19 different counties (regions) in Norway.

These are administrative units with limited jurisdiction below the national level. ■ Each county has its own CSA which acts as a collective body for sport within the area. It oversees the implementation of sport policy and carries out the role of NIF in the county. ■ Similar to the NIF, they are democratically governed. County sport federations and local sport councils all have voting rights at the meetings of a CSA.

National and County Sport Federations ■ Each sport federation is a national governing body for one sport. There are currently 54 of them. Many set up federations at the county level, because they had too many member clubs to be able to manage them via a single entity. ■ Federations have main responsibility for the elite sport activities in their sport. However, with the emergence of the OLT, their role is not as significant as it was before. Previously they played a key role in distributing funding to elite athletes, but that activity was taken over by NIF through OLT.

■ Company sport is popular in Norway.

Many workplaces promote active lifestyles to their employees. There are more than 4000 company sport clubs that are overseen by a single sport federation. ■ According to Statistics Norway, a federation has an average of 27,000 members. By far the largest one is the Norges Fotballforbund, the federation for football. In the second to fifth place are skiing, golf, handball and gymnastics in the ranking. Excluding the company sport federation, the five biggest organisations cover half of all memberships. Local Sport Councils (LSC) ■ Norway’s 19 counties are further divided into a total of 430 municipalities.

Those that provide a home for more than three sport clubs are required to set up an LSC.

■ Councils are administered by the CSAs and are tasked with organising the development of local sport facilities. They also serve as an important coordinating tool for the sport clubs operating in the same municipality.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6 Norway Governance structure and main institutions (5/5) The role of sport clubs ■ There are around 12,000 sport clubs in Norway which are members of a national sport federation, a county sport association or both.

This implies that all of them are affiliated to the NIF, the lead umbrella organisation of Norwegian sport.

■ Clubs fulfill an important role as they provide sporting opportunities for the general public. Their key characteristic is inclusiveness as all groups (children, women etc.) of society and age groups are generally welcomed. ■ The number of memberships has increased rapidly since 1950, currently there are more than 2 million active memberships. Although people can become members of more than one club, this is still a remarkable achievement. ■ Similarly to other sport organisations, clubs act according to democratic principles. Nine out of ten Norwegian clubs reportedly have an executive board and hold annual general meetings.

■ Typically the majority of them are relatively small, one third have less than 50 members. Most of them concentrate on a single sport. Sports generally pursued in a club setting are skiing, golf and football.

■ The most important resource is the voluntary work of members. More than two-third of club activities (coaching, maintenance, management etc.) are performed by volunteers free of charge. ■ Sport clubs are dependent on member-generated income (membership fees). Local authorities (municipalities) are not obliged by a specific law to support clubs in their area, but commonly they do so. The most notable form of support is making sport facilities available for free. Other types of support are explained in the funding section.

The number of sport club memberships over the years - 500 000 1 000 000 1 500 000 2 000 000 2 500 000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: Ministry of Culture The size of sport clubs in Norway No.

of members Share of all clubs (%) Less than 50 31 50-99 19 100-149 12 150-199 8 200-249 5 250-299 4 300 and more 22 Average number of members per club 214 Source: NIF (2004)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7 Norway Funding structure (1/2) State funding for sport Two distinctive sources can be identified: the national government and the local municipalities. The majority of public funds at national level come from the profit of the state-owned gambling company, while municipalities allocate funds for sport from their own revenues (taxes) and state transfers.

Lottery funding ■ Since the establishment of Norsk Tipping in 1948, the goal was to channel the profit of the company into the culture, research and sport sectors. Initially one third of the surplus was allocated for sport purposes. ■ After some changes to the distribution system, sport now receives 45.5% of the gaming profits. The estimated revenue from this source of recent years are shown in the table to the right. The Sport Policy Document 2011-2015 set the target that sport should receive at least 64%.

■ Apart from this, Norsk tipping introduced a direct way to support grassroots sport in 2009.

Players of lottery and other gambling activities can decide that 5% of the value of their bet should go to a voluntary organisation of their choice. In 2011 sport clubs recorded around EUR 24 million from this scheme. Value Added Tax (VAT) Compensation ■ In 2010 the Norwegian government introduced a system of VAT compensation for NGOs after purchases of goods and services. ■ The sport organisations received the following amounts from this source in 2011: ■ Sport clubs – EUR 19.8 million ■ Sport federations and county sport associations – EUR 6 million ■ NIF – EUR 1.2 million ■ Sport clubs have also been able to apply for VAT compensation regarding sport facility constructions since 2010.

The key requirement is that the facility must be completed. The government allocated EUR 7.5 million for this purpose in the budget of 2012. So far this has helped over 200 facilities.

Lottery funds for sport purposes since 2000 (in EUR million) 97,4 98,4 102 124,8 144 144 144 148,8 169,2 187,2 187,2 189,6 187,7 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Ministry of Culture How are the lottery funds distributed? (in EUR million) Recipient 2001 2006 2011 Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports 34,74 41,88 67,92 Local sport clubs 9,888 14,4 18,72 Children and youth sport initiatives 0,216 0,624 1,44 ■ Support for the NIF covers the cost of the umbrella organization’s management and operation and also the funds that the NIF distributes among the national sport federations.

■ The public funds amount to around 20% of an average federation’s total income. These are usually not earmarked, meaning that the organizations spend their funding according to their own strategic plans. Federations spend around 20-40% of their budget on elite sport.

Source: Ministry of Culture

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8 Norway Funding structure (2/2) Funding by local municipalities ■ Local authorities are the main contributors to local sport. They raise revenues from local taxes and also receive transfers from the national level. ■ Municipalities provide grants for sport clubs and teams operating in their area and they also finance the construction and maintenance of public sport facilities.

They channel large amounts into sport, although this is not a statutory obligation. ■ The scale of support is influenced by the performance of the local economy, meaning that there can be significant differences between the sport policies of different Norwegian cities. ■ The income structure of local sport clubs is shown in the table on the right.

Expenditure on local sport clubs in 2011 (in EUR million, excluding capital expenditures) Other sources of income for sport ■ It is obvious that for the most part Norwegian sport is dependent on the financial support provided by the government at national and local levels. However, there are other important sources that have to be mentioned. ■ In spite of growing state subsidies, sport clubs still receive more than 60% of their yearly budget from their members in the form of membership fees. In addition, the voluntary work done by members is vital for their operations. The financial value of the work done by volunteers is very difficult, if not impossible.

Federations and other national sport organisations also receive a large chunk of their income from membership fees paid.

■ Revenues from corporate partners through sponsorship deals are becoming more and more important. This type of funding is present at every level of the sport system, from the NIF through to the sport clubs. Sponsorship and advertising income generate around 30% of an average sport club’s budget. ■ The sale of commercial and broadcasting rights is not yet centralized. Sport organisations are more or less free to negotiate deals for themselves. Source Amount Grassroots interest from lottery players 23.3 VAT compensation 19.8 Local activity funds (lottery money) 18.7 TOTAL 61.8 Source: Ministry of Culture / Norks Tipping

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 9 Norway Elite sport performance Norway’s Olympic history ■ The country has a long and successful Olympic tradition. Norway has participated at every Olympics since 1908 except for the 1980 event in Moscow when they joined the American boycott. The country has hosted the Winter Olympics on two occasions, in 1952 (Oslo) and 1994 (Lillehammer).

■ Norway has won 148 medals at the Summer and 329 at the Winter Olympics, the latter puts them at the top of the all-time winter medal table.

They are one of only three nations that has performed better in winter sports than in summer sports.. ■ Disappointing results in the 1980s led to increased attention on elite sport and contributed to the establishment of Olympiatoppen. A positive climate was created for Olympic sports, albeit limited resources were available. Since the Games in 1994 Norway has usually finished in the first four places in winter sports. Summer sports are always expected to deliver 4-7 medals. ■ However, Turin 2006 showed that this success can be volatile. Given Norway’s small population, maintaining performance is an achievement in itself and it makes the comeback at the 2010 and 2014 Games even more spectacular.

Sport Gold Silver Bronze Total 1 Cross-county skiing 40 38 29 107 2 Speed skating 25 28 27 80 3 Sailing 17 11 3 31 4 Biathlon 15 12 8 35 5 Shooting 13 8 11 32 6 Nordic combined 13 9 8 30 7 Alpine skiing 10 9 10 29 8 Ski jumping 9 9 12 30 9 Athletics 7 5 8 20 10 Canoeing 6 4 4 14 Medal count at the Summer Olympic Games Medal count at the Winter Olympic Games Most successful Olympic sports 2 2 4 5 3 2 4 2 3 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004Beijing 2008 London 2012 Gold Silver Bronze 10 10 13 2 9 11 11 10 5 8 8 5 5 5 7 9 6 10 Lillehammer 1994 Nagano 1998 Salt Lake City 2002 Turin 2006 Vancouver 2010 Sochi 2014 Gold Silver Bronze Source: Olympic.Org Source: Olympic.Org Source: Olympic.Org

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 10 Norway Community sport Statistics ■ Sport for recreational or competitive purposes plays a very important part in the everyday life of Norwegians. Norsk Monitor surveys the quality of life of the population and asks their views on different issues every year. According to their findings, around 75% of the population engages in physical activities in the form of training or exercise at least once a week or more often.

■ The proportion of people active in sport has increased steadily in the past decades (see graph below). Sporty and healthy lifestyle in general are encouraged by the government. The high number of public sport facilities and the many many clubs provide sporting opportunities for everyone. In some regions there is a sport club for every 53 head of inhabitant. Self-organized, outdoor activities such as hiking, are also very popular.

■ The general trend is that the proportion of people who never exercises is dropping while the average time spent on sports is increasing. ■ However, there are some troubling signs; for example more and more Norwegians are overweight and only 20% of the total population meets the recommended amount of daily physical activity (30 minutes). Physical activity in the form of training and exercise (1985-2007) Proportion of people taking part at least once a week 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1985 1991 1997 2003 2007 Men Women Source: Kjønn i endring – en tilstandsrapport om norsk idrett (2009) Women Men 1 Hiking in the forest (70.4%) Hiking in the forest (62.4%) 2 Skiing (35.,2%) Skiing (38.7%) 3 Cycling to work (31.4%) Cycling to work (32.7%) 4 Strenght training (30.8%) Strenght training (30.2%) 5 Hiking in the mountains (29.1%) Hiking in the mountains (28.7%) 6 Swimming (24.2%) Jogging (27.8%) 7 Jogging (20.9%) Cycling as exercise (22.3%) 8 Gymnastics/Aerobics (20.5%) Cross country (18.3%) 9 Cycling as exercise (18.4%) Football (18.3%) 10 Dance (16.7%) Swimming (17.3%) Top 10 physical activities practiced by women and men in 2007 (% of population) Source: Kjønn i endring – en tilstandsrapport om norsk idrett (2009)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 11 Norway Key takeaways Stable revenue source ■ The proceeds of the national lottery are the main source of financing for sport. ■ The share of lottery profits channeled into the sport sector is increasing, the goal is to reach around 65% within the next few years.

■ Participants of lottery and other gambling games can choose a sport organization that directly receive 5% of their bet.

This scheme has proved to be very successful since its introduction in 2009. Population: 5 100 000 Sport participation rate: 75% (taking part every week) Sport club members: 2 000 000 Funding for elite sport: EUR 68 million (per year) Funding for leisure sport: EUR 50 million (per year) Centralized sport system ■ The Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) is the highest authority of the sporting structure. It is not directly influenced by the government. The organization devises the Norwegian sports policy and sets the goals for the future.

■ The main benefit of the system is that responsibilities are clear at national and lower levels alike. ■ Every task that is related to the support of elite (Olympic) sports is delegated to the Olympiatoppen, which functions autonomously within the NIF. State of the art elite sport facilities ■ The Olympic Sport Centres look after every professional need of an elite athlete. ■ High quality, expert services are provided in physiology, training, coaching etc. ■ Good relationships have been established with secondary schools and specific sport curriculums have been introduced at many of them.

A sporting nation ■ Sports and physical activities are an integral part of the everyday life of Norwegians.

■ Numerous sport clubs, public sport facilities provide the setting for exercise. Outdoor activities are also very popular. ■ Local authorities support their own sport life, although they don’t have a lawful obligation to do so.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1 Denmark Introduction and scope of the study Main attributes of sport in Denmark ■ Denmark is a relatively small country in Northern Europe with an area of 42,915.7 km2. It is generally associated with high living standards as the country usually ranks among the wealthiest nations in terms of nominal GDP per capita.

■ The majority of Danish population regularly takes part in physical activities, their participation rate is well above the European average.

Many of them pursue sports in a club setting; around one fifth is a member of a sport club. The past 50 years brought major changes as sport became an integral part of the everyday life of people of all ages. ■ Another characteristic of the Danish sport landscape is the high number of volunteers who manage the day-to-day running of clubs and work as coaches. This type of bottom-up organization has strong historical roots.

■ The most popular team sports in the country, both in terms of participation and TV viewership are football and handball. The origins of the latter can be traced back to Denmark. There are also numerous individual sports with large participant bases, including golf, tennis and swimming. ■ Denmark is a prime example for establishing an effective system for community sports and it provides several good practices. They are also quite successful in elite sports, given the small size of the country. The slight drop in the performance of Danish athletes and teams in the 1970s led to major changes.

The government boosted the support for sport federations through increased funding and the reorganization of the institutional background. ■ The reform efforts paid off as Danish athletes started to win more and more medals at international competitions and they have deliver respectable medal counts at the past five Summer Olympics. The scope of the study Our assessment of sports in Denmark covers the following topics: ■ Governance structure and main institutions ■ Funding structure ■ Elite sport performance ■ Community sport Population of Denmark 5,584,758 People active in sport1 3,960,000 Monthly sport participation rate2 71% Sport clubs3 16,000 Sport club members3 ~2,000,000 National sport federations 61 Highlights of the Danish sport scene Source: KPMG Analysis Note: (1) People taking part at least once a month Eurobarometer survey (2009) (2) Ranked 3rd out of the 27 EU member countries in 2009.

(3) DIF Website

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2 Denmark Governance structure and main institutions (1/6) Denmark Government Ministry of Culture Team Danmark and Sport Event Denmark National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation (DIF) National sport federations Sport clubs IOC Source: KPMG Analysis Community sport Elite sport Local municipalities Danish Gymnastics and Sports Associations (DGI) National sport federations Sport clubs Danish Company Sports Federation (DFIF) Workplaces Although the government of Denmark rarely intervenes in in the economy and society, (as they leave it to the private and civil sector), interestingly, elite sport has its own state institutions (Team Danmark and Sport Event Denmark) and specific legislation.

The chart shows the various organization’s main focus. The government is involved in both community and elite sport through a number of institutions.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 3 Denmark Governance structure and main institutions (2/6) Major changes in the system ■ The government of Denmark has concentrated on the recreational aspects of sport for a long time.

These efforts were supported by the system of numerous local sport clubs that were established on a voluntary, democratic basis. Elite and Olympic sports were not a main concern at the national level, but the Danish athletes still performed relatively well at international events. ■ This changed around the 1970s when international competition between countries at the professional level intensified and Denmark started to lag behind.

■ The necessary changes did not come from within the sporting society, but from the government. The Advancement of Elite Sports Act was passed by the Danish Parliament in 1984 with the clear goal to provide athletes with better training and funding opportunities to be able to deliver good results at major tournaments. However, it was emphasized that it should happen in a sustainable way, not „at every cost”. Initiatives thus also aimed to help athletes prepare for the labour market and help their education.

■ The 1984 law also established Team Danmark and all responsibilities regarding the coordination and management of elite sports was transferred to this new organization.

More details are on page 4. ■ The aforementioned actions more or less still define the sporting life of Denmark today. Whereas Team Danmark is clearly the most important player in elite sports, responsibility for community sports rest with numerous organizations. ■ In addition to the extensive voluntary sport club system which remains the foundation of ‘sport for all’, there are national umbrella organizations, such as National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark and the Danish Gymnastics and Sports Associations that influence this sector. The national government sees community sport as an ideal tool for the promotion of healthy lifestyle, social cohesion and recreation.

The role of the government ■ The state is a significant player in sport as it funds various bodies and works out the legislative background. Sport is an important theme both at the national and local level. The Ministry of Culture handles the overarching, nationwide sport-related issues. ■ The policies worked out by the Ministry serve as guidelines for sport organizations. As the management of elite sport is delegated to Team Danmark, the government mainly oversees the development of community sport and is directly involved in the promotion of increased sport participation.

■ The Sport for All Committee Report by the Ministry in 2009 identified the cultural, social and health dimension of the positive effect sport has on the society. In this regard the report set out clear priorities for the Ministry to increase and maintain a high level of participation in the Danish population and then provide enough sporting opportunities for children, young people and socially vulnerable groups. To achieve these goals the government works in close collaboration with the national sport organizations. ■ Furthermore, municipalities provide direct and indirect support for sport clubs at the local level..

According to the Act on Support for Sport, Culture and Leisure Activities, municipal authorities are obliged to support sport clubs. This is discussed in detail on page 9.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4 Denmark Governance structure and main institutions (3/6) National organizations National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark (DIF) ■ The Danish Sports Federation was founded in 1896 by 18 sport federations. The primary aim was to devise common rules and create proper conditions for sport in Denmark. The government started to subsidize the organization in 1903 with an annual payment of DKR 3,000.

Meanwhile, the Danish Olympic Committee (DOC) was established in 1905 to organize the country’s participation at the Olympic Games.

■ The two organizations merged in 1993 to create DIF as a collective body of sport federations. Nowadays it consists of 61 sport federations with more than 1.9 million members distributed between over 9.000 sport clubs. ■ As the biggest among the three national organizations, DIF is responsible for both elite and community sport at club levels and acts as a representative of the elite athletes. However, its funding activities are smaller in scale than that of the government’s. They provide subsidies for Team Danmark, the organization they work with in many initiatives.

Danish Gymnastics and Sports Associations (DGI) ■ The origins of the DGI can be traced back to the 1860s, to the shooting and gymnastics associations in rural Denmark.

The organization in its current form was founded in 1992. It operates as an representative for amateur level and recreational sports. DGI isn’t involved in elite sport issues. ■ Another distinctive characteristic of the DGI is that it consists of 15 regional departments, each responsible for their own areas. Although the regions are autonomous to some extent, their ultimate goal is common: encouraging sport club membership among the public. ■ As of 2012 DGI had over 6.000 sport clubs with a combined membership of 1.5 million. These clubs provide the setting for the sport participation DGI promotes.

A typical DGI local club has several sport as well as non-sport (cultural) activities. In Denmark there are three different, nationwide umbrella organizations that are independent from the government. Each has its own jurisdiction and membership base, but responsibilities sometimes overlap.

Sport federations and clubs can be members in more than one of them. Together they form the Joint Sports Council (Idrættens Fællesråd), which serves as a place where common issues can be discussed. Danish Company Sports Federation (DFIF) ■ The DFIF has an even more specified mandate than the other two national organizations as they coordinate and encourage physical exercise through workplaces. ■ Through various programs and initiatives DFIF would like to increase the number of companies that provide sporting opportunities for their employees by setting up sport clubs. ■ DFIF has 80 local sport associations that make up 8 regional divisions.

Around 8.000 company sport clubs with over 300.000 members are affiliated with the organization. ■ It is indirectly funded by the government through proceeds of the lottery as the work carried out by DFIF fits well the policy goal of increased sport participation. In addition to this, corporate sponsorships are also important.

Sport Event Denmark (Sport Event DK) ■ One of the practices worth noting about the Danish sport system is that they established an organization entirely dedicated to bringing major sporting events to the country. Sport Event DK was established and is funded by the government and the DIF. ■ Working in collaboration with national sport federations and the proposed host cities, Sport Event DK gives expert advice and financial support. Logistics and the promotion of the event is the responsibility of the host city, while the federations handle commercial matters.

■ According to their statistics they have helped the bid and preparation for more than 250 international sport events, including conferences congresses, European and World Championships.

75 percent of the bids assisted by them has been successful. ■ The vision is to make Denmark a preferred host country for sport events of major significance. This not only raises their profile on the international sport scene, but also helps the development of facilities and further promotes sport participation.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 5 Denmark Governance structure and main institutions (4/6) Team Danmark (Team DK) ■ The government set up Team DK in 1984 with the Advancement of Elite Sport Act to provide support for the country’s professional athletes. The three decades that has passed since saw the organization become the most important source of power in Danish elite sports. The performance of Danish athletes at international events became much better during this period, meaning that the restructuring was justified.

In recent years they won 40-50 medals at major tournaments.

■ Team DK’s main responsibility is the overall planning of elite-level sports. It also allocates funding between (mostly Olympic) sport federations and maintains a system of experts in the field of professional sport services. The organization’s approach to athlete support is best described as holistic as the civil life and career and personal needs of an athlete are also emphasized. Currently over 30 federations and 1100 athletes are financed by them. ■ The amendment of the Act on Elite Sport in 2004 gave new tasks to Team DK regarding talent development. They cooperate with federations to develop comprehensive strategies for various age groups.

The DIF works out the general policy in this field. ■ The government finances the activities of Team DK through the proceeds of Danish Lottery (Danske Spil). In addition to this, they have their own revenue channel: Sport One Denmark is a joint marketing company established by Team DK and DIF. It sells packages of sponsorship deals and TV rights of sport events to companies. ■ Another important partner of Team DK is the Ministry of Culture. A 4- year framework agreement is signed by the parties for every Olympic cycle which sets out the goals and responsibilities regarding the preparation for the Games.

The state subsidy (lottery money) is also quantified here. The current framework runs from 2013 until 2016. ■ The Minister for Culture and the DIF chooses 4-4 members to the Board of Team DK. The director of the organization refers to the Board. Athletes and coaches are both represented in the management..

Core services for federations and athletes by Team Danmark Financial support Expert sport services (physiology, nutrition, medicine etc.) Research and professional development Access to training facilities Working career opportunities Media and communication The support system ■ Team DK divides the supported athletes into three categories, based mainly on their chance of success on the international level. The category decides the range of core services available for each beneficiary.  Team Danmark Athletes: the members of this category are on the periphery of the senior national teams with potential to compete at the highest level in the future.

They have only temporary access to the Team DK expert system, but has the right to use the high-quality training facilities. There are currently 644 athletes in this category.

 Elite Athletes: they are regular members of the national teams with direct access to the network of experts and all other offered services (education, employment, training etc.). 314 athletes receive this support.  World Class Athletes: this is the group with the highest priority. Athletes and teams who have achieved top 8 positions in past World Championships or Olympics are members of this category. They can participate in special seminars and receive the highest quality services available. Currently there are 142 of them ■ Recently a fourth, specialized category was established for young, talented athletes as well.

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6 Denmark Governance structure and main institutions (5/6) Sport federations ■ There are 61 sport federations in Denmark operating at the national level who are members of the DIF, the main umbrella organization. The majority of Denmark’s 16.000 clubs are distributed between them, although there are some which aren’t affiliated with national federations.

■ They handle the elite level responsibilities of their sport, for example the management of the national teams. Federations oversee the community and leisure aspect as well. They vary greatly in size, the Danish Football Federation (DBU) is by far the largest one in term of number of clubs. Both professional and amateur clubs are included in the federations. ■ Most of them cooperate with Team DK, the number one provider of funding and sport support services. Consultation between different stakeholders is especially important in talent development strategies, which is a priority of the 20123-2016 framework of Team Danmark.

■ National federations represent Denmark at their respective international sport federations and their help is also indispensable in Danish bids for the hosting of major sport events. Largest federations by number of sport clubs in 2012 Sport federations with the highest sport club membership figures (ranked by 2012 data) Sport Federation 2002 2012 1 Football 293.749 341.342 2 Golf 104.006 157.371 3 Swimming 122.924 155.930 4 Gymnastics 148.384 151.514 5 Handball 134.782 111.675 6 Badminton 128.297 92.717 7 Cycling 72.856 70.690 8 Tennis 73.268 60.921 9 Sailing 55.351 54.780 10 Shooting 46.962 52.228 Source: DIF Website Only federations of single sports are listed here.

Sport Federation No. of clubs 1 Football 1.672 2 Handball 894 3 Badminton 569 4 Cycling 557 5 Shooting 461 Source: DIF Website

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7 Denmark Governance structure and main institutions (6/6) Sport club structure ■ Over one third of the Danish population, around 2 million people exercise or play sports regularly in one of the 16.000 active sport clubs, or associations as they are often called. In some regions there is a club for every 90 citizen. Sport clubs in Denmark constitute the foundation of the community sport life.

They are seen as beneficial for social integration, healthty lifestyle and social interaction.

■ The club system has strong historical and institutional traditions that determine the current structure. As the well-being of the population has been a priority for the government for a long time, public policies boosted the construction of sports facilities. As a result, Denmark has the highest number of sport facilities per capita in Europe. This made it easier to organize sports at the local level as the adequate locations were available. ■ As mentioned earlier, local (municipal) authorities has to support their local sport life, which takes many forms. For example, sport clubs can use the local facilities and venues free of charge.

The requirements of clubs are also taken into account when a municipality decides about its spending on sport. More information about the governmental support of clubs is on page 9. ■ However, the most significant resource of sport clubs remain the voluntary work of members. Around 80% of the clubs are run entirely by volunteers, starting from coaching duties to positions in the management. Membership fees also provide a large part of a club’s budget. Moreover, the Danish culture that has developed over the years holds voluntary work in high regard. ■ The strong democratic values and principles of Denmark is mirrored in the management of clubs.

Nine out of ten have an Executive Board and hold annual meetings. Most of them also have a written, formal set of rules.

■ It should be noted that clubs with professional departments that compete in elite leagues are also counted here. However, more than 90% of all clubs only concentrate on community sport. The size of sport clubs in Denmark In Scandinavian countries, and especially in Denmark, the dominant form of organizing physical activities is the sport club. This remains true even today when commercial organizations (fitness centers) and unorganized sport become more common. The importance of Danish club system cannot be overstated. They deliver a wide range of sporting opportunities for the general public and implement the government’s policy of increased sport participation.

Clubs rely on the voluntary contribution of their members, but the sport policy at the local level is also often adapted to their needs.

No. of members Share of all clubs (%) Less than 50 29 50-99 21 100-149 12 150-199 9 200-249 7 250-299 4 300 and more 18 Average number of members per club 181 Source: Ibsen, B. (2006): Foreningsidrætten i Danmark

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8 Denmark Funding structure (1/2) The chart shows the most important funding relations in Danish sport.

Contributions from the corporate sector are important at every level and thus not highlighted in this chart! The elite sector is primarily financed by the state, the contributions are allocated by two interconnected organizations. Whereas the DIF provides basic funding for federations, Team DK focuses on the ones with the largest potential for success. The community sport sector is more simple, as sport clubs receive various support from the government and local authorities as well. Source: KPMG Analysis Elite sport funding Community sport funding Denmark Government Sport clubs Local municipalities E.g.

VAT exemption E.g. free use of facilities, subsidy after membership figures Denmark Government National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation (DIF) Team Danmark National sport federations Sport clubs Direct (state budget) and indirect (Danish Lottery)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 9 Denmark Funding structure (2/2) Danish Sport ■ The state supports sport on many levels. The government funds many national organizations through the Ministry of Culture. The state subsidy almost entirely comes from lottery money. ■ Furthermore, sport clubs with revenues below EUR 6.700 are exempt from value-added tax. The fiscal legislation also enables volunteers to be reimbursed for expenses related to working at the sport club for up to EUR 670 per annum.

■ Sport clubs (elite and community sport alike) are strongly supported by local, municipal authorities. They are allowed to use sport facilities free of charge and receive direct monetary transfers for every member under the age of 25 in addition to basic financial support. Around 20% of a club’s revenue comes from public subsidy. ■ Established in 1949, Danske Spil A/S is the national lottery organization. 80% of the company is owned by the government, while both DIF and DGI owns 10%. ■ The profit from lottery and other forms of gambling is distributed by various ministries to a number of ‘good causes’, including sport.

Every year DIF and DGI each receive over EUR 180 million from the proceeds of Danske Spil. They are the two largest beneficiaries. Team DK also receives an annual amount of EUR 16 million. Sport federations are financed in part by these umbrella organizations. ■ The Danish gambling market was liberalized in 2012, but Danske Spil remains the most important player in the market, ensuring the flow of funds for sport. There are also a number of charity lotteries that make direct payments to sport organizations. ■ Sponsorships and other forms of support are becoming more and more important to Danish sport organizations.

Team DK is the one which utilized this source the most effectively by setting up a marketing company (Sport One Denmark) in cooperation with the DIF. They offer sponsorship deals for corporate partners and sell TV rights to major events. However, the proceeds are modest (EUR 23 million annually) and go entirely to Team DK.

■ Sport federations and clubs often sign individual sponsorship agreements, but this source constitutes only 10% of an average club’s budget. ■ Team DK works in partnership with many domestic companies which provide flexible work for athletes. ■ The voluntary work of members remain the single most important resource of sport clubs. Membership fees make up around 70% of an average club’s income. The cost of annual membership is relatively low compared with the average salary of Danish citizens. Most clubs also offer introduction periods for newcomers to further encourage participation. ■ In addition to these initiatives, health insurance organizations contribute to the funding of the sport system by reimbursing part of the membership fee to a sport or fitness club.

■ The value of voluntary work as a coach or in the management of a club is hard to express in monetary terms. However, according to a study by Eurostratégies (2011) Denmark had the 5th highest number of sport volunteers in Europe. Government Support Corporate Partners Lottery Funding Membership Fees and Volunteers

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lillehammer 1994 Nagano 1998 Salt Lake City 2002 Turin 2006 Vancouver 2010 Sochi 2014 Gold Silver Bronze 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 5 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004Beijing 2008 London 2012 Gold Silver Bronze Denmark Elite sport performance Denmark’s Olympic history ■ The country participated at the first Summer Olympic of the modern era in 1896. Since then Denmark has been present at every Summer Games, save one occasion in 1904. Their participation record at Winter Olympics is less extensive; they are regular participants only since 1988.

■ The performance of Danish athletes is much better in summer sports; so far they have won only one medal (silver in women’s team curling event) at Winter Games. ■ Denmark has won 43 gold and 68 68 silver and 68 bronze medals at Summer Olympics which ranks them as 27th in the all-time medal table. However, when compared to the country’s population, Denmark is the 4th most successful nation in terms of medals per capita, they are surpassed only by Finland, Sweden and Hungary, respectively. ■ Danish athletes have good medal potential across many disciplines,. The most successful Danish sport person at the Olympics is Paul Elvstrøm, who won 4 gold medals and participated at no less than 8 Games.

Sport Gold Silver Bronze Total 1 Sailing 12 9 7 28 2 Cycling 7 8 8 23 3 Rowing 7 4 11 22 4 Shooting 3 10 5 18 5 Canoeing 3 5 5 13 6 Handball 3 0 0 3 7 Swimming 2 5 5 12 8 Boxing 1 5 6 12 9 Badminton 1 2 3 6 = Fencing 1 2 3 6 Medal count of the Summer Olympic Games Medal count of the Winter Olympic Games Most successful Olympic sports Source: Olympic.Org Source: Olympic.Org Source: Olympic.Org

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 11 Denmark Community sport (1/2) Participation data ■ The sport participation rate of the general public is regularly measured by the Danish Institute for Sport Studies. The data shows a remarkable improvement in the past 50 years. The overall rate increased from 15% in 1964 to 64% in 2011. This is the share of people saying that they ‘normally do physical exercise or play sports’. The Eurobarometer survey of 2009 shows an even bigger share (71%) of the population taking part in sports at least once a month. Sport club membership also significantly increased since 1964, from 12 to 41% of the total population.

■ As for the steady increase in the number of participants, it is important to highlight the significant increase in participation by elderly people. These positive developments can be mostly traced back to the Danish welfare state and the emphasis on building sport facilities. ■ The duration of sporting activities is another important factor. 36% of the adult population spend two-four hours a week with exercise, while 22% spend more than six. This figure also shows a gradual increase over the past decades.

Sport participation over the years The share of the population which answered ‘Yes’ to the following question: ’Do you normally do exercise/sports?’.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1964 1998 2007 2011 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Source: Danish Institute for Sports Studies – Sport participation in Denmark 2011 (National Survey) Physical activity 2011 1998 1 Jogging/running 31 15 2 Strength training 24 10 3 Walking/hiking 23 15 4 Aerobics/zumba 12 7 5 Gymnastics 12 11 6 Swimming 12 18 7 Spinning 11 0 8 Football 9 6 9 Road cycling 8 5 10 Badminton 6 8 Top 10 physical activities practiced by the adult (aged over 15) population (Ranked by 2011 data, in %) Source: Danish Institute for Sports Studies – Sport participation in Denmark 2011 (National Survey)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 12 Denmark Community sport (2/2) Education reform in Denmark ■ In early 2013 the government decided to implement changes in the Danish education system. Reforms aimed to extend the school day and required teachers to spend a bigger share of their working hours with teaching activities. Basically, the new rules reduced the historical independence of teachers on planning and organization.

■ According to the Act on the Allocation on Financial Support to General Education municipalities (cities and towns) are obliged to manage and finance their local schools. The Municipalities Association of 99 cities decided to close the schools for four weeks to pressurize The Danish Teacher’s Association when it opposed the reform. The lock-out and the protests ended in April 2013 and the changes were passed in June. The primary school reform will take effect in August 2014, with some elements introduced earlier. ■ Some feared that the longer school hours would mean that children would no longer have time to take part in activities organized by sport clubs.

However, the DGI and the DIF (umbrella organizations of clubs) said that they see this as a ‘golden opportunity’ to improve the relations between schools and clubs.

■ Voluntary sport clubs are allowed to offer their services and programmes to primary schools who could implement them in the school day. The key word is flexibility, as sport clubs would have to free up capacities to accommodate the needs of the schools. ■ In Denmark, schools can apply for a sport-supportive profile. Such 'profile schools' offer pupils four extra lessons of age-related training in school time twice a week. This is implemented with the cooperation of Team DK. ■ Many schools in Denmark practice ‘morning running’ before school starts. Moreover, a concept called ‘run and read’ has been developed.

Teachers run with pupils for 20 minutes, and then they sit down and read for the same amount of time to help the children to concentrate.

Physical exercise Total % 1 Football 46 2 Swimming 38 3 Gymnastics 27 4 Jogging/running 20 5 Handball 20 6 Rollerskating/skateboard 17 7 Badminton 16 8 Dancing 13 9 Equestrian 10 10 Walking/hiking 10 Top 10 physical activities practiced by children (aged below 15) (Ranked by the share of ‘physically active’ children taking part) Source: Danish Institute for Sports Studies – Sport participation in Denmark 2011 (National Survey)

© [year] [legal member firm name], a [jurisdiction] [legal structure] and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (‘KPMG International’), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. 13 Denmark Key takeaways Voluntary sport club system ■ There are more than 2 million club memberships in Denmark, despite of a population of only 5,5 million. ■ Sport clubs provide the setting for organised sport for many people. There is a sport club for roughly every 350 citizen.

■ Almost every club duty (coaching, management etc.) is fulfilled by volunteers. ■ Local authorities provide invaluable support for clubs as they have a statutory obligation to do so. The most notable form of support is that municipalities allow clubs to use their sport facilities free of charge. Specific organization for event hosting ■ Sport stakeholders in Denmark realised the potential benefits of organising sport events through a single entity and it led to the establishment of Sport Event Denmark. ■ This body is free of direct influence of other national organisations. It is mainly responsible for assisting federations and host cities with the bidding and preparation for major sport events.

■ Governmental and DIF funds are distributed through Sport Event Denmark for event hosting purposes. Population: 5 600 000 Sport participation rate: 71% Sport club members: 2 000 000 Funding for elite sport: EUR 40 million (per year) Funding for leisure sport: EUR 200 million (per year) High participation rates ■ Sport is part of the culture and the everyday life of the population. Denmark is among the most active nations in Europe.

■ During the past 50 years the participation rate (share of people who exercise at least monthly) significantly increased from 15% to 64%. ■ These positive developments occurred across all age groups, even elderly people are regular sport participants. ■ Physical exercise is also important for school children. Recent reforms aim to strengthen the relationship of schools and sport clubs. Centralised elite sport management ■ Team Danmark is responsible for the overall planning in the elite level sporting structure. It allocates funding to national sport federations and athletes thus it has a large influence on the development of the sport sector.

■ The concentrated approach to Olympic sports has many positive effects as all the expert knowledge and professional experience is gathered in one place. This system also helps to avoid the confusion over responsibilities among national sport organisations. ■ Team Danmark has its own marketing company (Sport One Denmark) that serves as a complementary revenue channel besides public funds.