European Journal for Sport and Society

ISSN: 1613-8171 (Print) 2380-5919 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ress20

Demographic and economic factors influencing

inclusion in the German sport system – a
microanalysis of the years 1985 to 2005

Christoph Breuer & Pamela Wicker

To cite this article: Christoph Breuer & Pamela Wicker (2008) Demographic and
economic factors influencing inclusion in the German sport system – a microanalysis
of the years 1985 to 2005, European Journal for Sport and Society, 5:1, 33-42, DOI:
10.1080/16138171.2008.11687807

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2008.11687807

Published online: 31 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ress20

Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 16 December 2016, At: 04:47

European Journal for Sport and Society 2008, 5 (1), 33-42

Demographic and economic factors influencing

inclusion in the German sport system –
a microanalysis of the years 1985 to 2005
Christoph Breuer and Pamela Wicker
German Sport University Cologne

Abstract: Demographic and economic changes in society lead to questions concerning the
consequences of these changes for sport. This study examines to what extent sport partici-
pation in Germany depends on demographic and economic parameters and how sport in-
clusion varies when demographic and economic conditions change. The underlying model is
based on the economic household theory, which has been expanded to a demo-economic
analysis model. The database contains all data records from the German Socio-Economic
Panel (SOEP) from the years 1985 to 2005. Regression analyses show that negative effects of
inclusion in sport caused by demographic factors such as ageing and migration could be
compensated for by economic growth and investment in education. But interaction models
show that education and income effects are more important in relation to the inclusion of
migrants in sport than for the German population as a whole. Moreover, only the German
population benefits from positive period effects over 20 years, not the non-German popula-
tion.

Keywords: migration, interaction effects, panel, cohort analysis, ethnicity.

Research in the sociology of sport has paid considerable attention to questions con-
cerning the inclusion of the total population and specific target groups in the sport
system (e.g. Cachay, 1988; Schimank & Schöneck, 2006). These questions have a
central meaning with regard to both basic research and the formulation of political
advice (e.g. integration politics, sport development planning). In this context, the de-
mographic and economic changes of a society raise the question of the progress of
inclusion under these circumstances. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse
which determinants influence demo-economic inclusion in the sport system. Thereby,
in terms of a cause analysis, special attention is paid to interaction effects between
ethnicity and demographic as well as to economic parameters. Moreover, in terms of a
forecast, it will be shown how inclusion changes in response to an alteration of the
appropriate basic demographic and economic conditions. Therefore, five steps will be
taken in the following order:
1. The state of research is presented and discussed.
34 Christoph Breuer and Pamela Wicker

2. A model of the demo-economic inclusion in the sport system is developed.

Here, demo-economic is understood to mean the integration of demographic
and economic circumstances.
3. The method is explained. Thereby, it has to be considered that demo-economic
models must be characterized by a special fit of methods.
4. The results are presented.
5. The findings are interpreted.

State of research
Although the influence of social (and thus demographic and economic) changes on the
inclusion in the sport system have been picked out as a central theme in the field of
sociology of sport for some time, there have been only a few analytical and nomo-
logical contributions. These contributions fail to (a) depend on few and simple state-
ments, (b) consider the central demo-economic factors and (c) identify the concrete
power of these factors.
However, in the area of intersection between the sociology and the economics of
sport, some studies can be found that partially cope with the mentioned criteria and
show tendencies concerning demo-economic parameters. These studies point to a
negative effect of age, migration background (nationality and colour) and at a positive
effect of human capital (education) and household income with regard to inclusion in
the sport system. These findings are valid for Great Britain (e.g. Downward, 2005;
Farrell & Shields, 2002), the United States of America (Humphreys & Ruseski, 2006),
Switzerland (e.g. Stamm & Lamprecht, 2005) as well as for Germany (Breuer, 2006;
Erlinghagen, 2003). But the international state of research is unsatisfactory in several
respects:
1. Most of the studies have no theoretic concept. Mostly, statistical trial and error
procedures lead to significant factors that have no theoretic basis and, con-
sequently, it is not explained why these factors could influence inclusion
meaningfully (e.g. Downward, 2005; Farrell & Shields, 2002; Humphreys &
Ruseski, 2006). This can result in an excessively complex model, an inad-
equately complex model, or a combination of both.
2. Country-specific differences concerning ageing and migration do not allow
transferring findings from one country to another. For example, North Ameri-
can studies can give no information on the inclusion of Turkish migrants in the
German sport system.
3. Most studies are based on cross-sectional designs and thus are not suitable for
time series analyses, because they exclude period effects.
4. The only study coping with these requirements (Breuer, 2006) did not pay
attention to interaction effects between relevant factors and thus must be con-
sidered as insufficient with regard to the underlying question. Moreover, the
period of analysis ended in 2001, so that recent developments could not be
taken into account.
Demographic and economic factors influencing inclusion in the German sport system 35

Theoretical model
In order to explain inclusion in the German sport system the following seven factors
are considered: income, time, human capital, ethnicity, age, gender and period. Be-
cause sociology possesses no individual action model at the micro level (Esser, 1999),
the underlying model is based on an economic theory. Thus, the three factors income,
time and human capital stem from the newer economic household theory (Becker,
1993) and are supplemented by three demographic factors (nationality, age, gender)
and one control factor (period).
According to Becker (1993), economic choices can be extended to the non-market
area, for instance to households. Therefore, non-market choices such as sport inclusion
underlie monetary and temporal restrictions as well. In this context, it has to be men-
tioned that time and money can be often regarded as substitutes. The higher the
income, the scarcer the time and the higher the opportunity costs of non-working time.
In this case, it is assumed that expensive, but time-saving sport offers are preferred.
Beside income and time, individual human capital determines sport inclusion. Human
capital (e.g. formation/education, knowledge about sport) influences the productivity
of time and market goods that are used for sport activity. Thus, human capital, in terms
of long-time school sport (higher education level), augments the amount of sport
competencies and thus extends the possibilities of sport inclusion under restrictions of
time and money. According to Lindenberg and Frey (1993), human actors maximize
two things: social appreciation by other people and physical well-being. With the help
of these maximizations, the three demographic factors of the model are derived. First,
with respect to social appreciation, ethnicity or rather ethnic affiliation can restrict
engagement in sport. The extent of social appreciation of sport activity depends on
ethnicity-specific attitudes towards sport. The more a person is involved in the values
and norms of his or her ethnic environment, the higher is the influence of ethnicity on
the social appreciation of sport activity. Apart from that, ethnic affiliation can restrict
exertion of sport activity, which is illustrated by the space of opportunities (Frey,
1999). The ethnic origin and the state of integration in ethnicity can be considered as a
constraint in terms of ipsative opportunities. Ipsative opportunities are opportunities
which are important for oneself, but which are socially not accepted (a person would
like to, but is not allowed to). Second, ipsative opportunities can differ between gen-
ders. Thus, social appreciation of men’s and women’s sport inclusion may differ be-
tween ethnicities, especially in interaction with religious variables. For instance, the
social appreciation of male and female sport activity may differ in a Muslim context.
Thus, gender is another restriction of sport inclusion. Third, sport-related age norms
can influence the social appreciation of older people engaging in sport. But in terms of
maximizing physical well-being, age is a constraint from another point of view as
well. Sport activity requires a minimum of physical constitution (body capital). Ac-
cording to the concept of health capital (Grossman, 1972), the initial capital loses
value with increasing age. Therefore, the age factor can have an indicative function
concerning individual body capital. The control factor period is integrated in the model
36 Christoph Breuer and Pamela Wicker

in order to avoid confusion of the age factor with period and cohort. With the
integration of the factor period, aspects of social change are considered in the model as
well.

Method
Data
Data source are all data records from 1984 to 2005 held by the German Socio-
Economic Panel (SOEP), which is employed by the German Institute of Economic
Research (DIW Berlin) and Infratest Sozialforschung Munich. The SOEP is a repre-
sentative survey which has been repeated annually since 1984. 9,000 to 23,000 Ger-
mans are questioned each time (Schupp & Wagner, 2002). It was started in 1984 as a
longitudinal survey of private households and persons in the Federal Republic of
Germany. The central aim of this panel study is to collect representative micro-data on
persons, households and families in order to measure stability and change in living
conditions. The SOEP follows principally a micro-economic approach enriched with
sociological and political science variables. This time, the data sets from the SOEP
represent the only data source giving reliable information about demo-economic
effects of sport inclusion in Germany that takes into account time effects as well. All
data sets from 1984 to 2005 were part of the analysis, unless methodological reasons
prevented it, e.g. different questions concerning sport activity (for methodological
particularities of SOEP data see Breuer, 2003).

Statistical procedure
First, in order to test the influence of demo-economic effects on sport inclusion, a new
data set allowing cohort analyses was created from all single data records (n=141,129).
On the basis of this new data set, the dependent variable sport inclusion (Qd) was
dichotomized (1=regular sport activity, which means at least weekly; 0=no regular
sport activity). The independent variables were measured as follows: income (Y; as
household income in hundreds of Euros per household member), time (T; as real work
time per week in hours), human capital (H; dichotomized; 1=graduation A-levels and
higher), age (A; in years), gender (G; dichotomized; 1=female), and period (P; as year
of survey; 2005=0). With regard to nationality, the following four nationality factors
are included as dummies in the analysis: German nationality (GE), Turkish nationality
(TR), nationality of former Yugoslavia (YU), and nationality of Southern Europe
(EUS; including nationality of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). Because of too few
cases, it is pointless to test other nationalities in the model. Multivariate regression
analyses are carried out, because they are especially suited to cause analyses and effect
prognoses. Therefore, they represent the classical method of econometry (von Auer,
2005) and empirical sport economics (Mondello & Pedersen, 2003). As far as the
regression analyses are concerned, linear regressions (method inclusion) are effected
with the dependent variable sport inclusion and the other factors mentioned above.
Thereby, the factor of German nationality (GE) serves as a reference category for the
Demographic and economic factors influencing inclusion in the German sport system 37

other nationality dummies (TR, YU, and EUS). In spite of the dichotomized dependent
variable, a linear regression model is carried out because of the following advantage:
inclusion rates can be identified more simply, which simplifies the application proba-
bilities with regard to political advice (Rese, 2000). With regard to the underlying
question, two regression models are used, one general model and one interaction
model. The general model will prove the following statistical relation:
(I) Qd=β1 + β2 • Y + β3 • T + β4 • H + β5 • A + β6 • TR + β7 • YU + β8 • EUS + β9 •
G + β10 • P.
In the interaction model, 24 interactions between the four nationality factors (GE,
TR, YU, EUS) and the six demo-economic factors (Y, T, H, A, G, P) are carried out.
For instance, it is assumed that the influence of human capital on sport inclusion
differs between different ethnicities. Such an interaction effect could exist for the other
demo-economic factors as well.

Results
General model
The results of the general model show strongly significant effects of all demo-eco-
nomic factors (see table 1). Because of the large sample size of n=141,129, this is not
surprising at all. This applies as well if the sandwich formula of Huber and White is
used, taking into account that independence of measures is not given because of the
panel design. However, the direction and power of the effects is more informative.
Income, human capital, and period all affect sport inclusion positively. In contrast, real
work time, age, female gender, and nationality of Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and
Southern Europe have a negative influence on sport inclusion. With regard to the
greatest relative effect, age is in first place, followed by human capital, income, and
period. With regard to ethnicity, the nationalities of Turkey and Southern Europe have
a greater influence than the nationality of the former Yugoslavia.

Table 1. Results of the linear regression analysis for sport inclusion (general model)
95% confidence interval
B SE beta T p lower bound upper bound
Const. 0.502 0.005 91.537 0.000 0.491 0.512
Y 0.008 0.000 0.097 33.451 0.000 0.007 0.008
T -0.001 0.000 -0.033 -10.271 0.000 -0.001 -0.001
H 0.133 0.004 0.108 37.835 0.000 0.126 0.139
A -0.006 0.000 -0.221 -70.486 0.000 -0.006 -0.005
TR -0.104 0.007 -0.045 -15.763 0.000 -0.117 -0.091
YU -0.058 0.010 -0.016 -5.848 0.000 -0.078 -0.039
EUS -0.087 0.006 -0.039 -14.038 0.000 -0.099 -0.075
G -0.037 0.003 -0.042 -14.532 0.000 -0.042 -0.032
P 0.004 0.000 0.056 19.670 0.000 0.003 0.004
Note. R2adj= .074; p=0.000.
38 Christoph Breuer and Pamela Wicker

With regard to the regression function, the b-values have to be multiplied by 100 in
order to obtain not only individual participation rates, but percental participation rates
of the population as well. Because some of the regressors are dichotomized, an in-
crease by one unit will always result in an increase from 0% to 100%. Therefore, the
dichotomized regressors are divided through 100 so that the increase by one unit
corresponds to an increase by one percentage point in the whole population. Thus, and
because of close confidence intervals, the following final regression function can be
formulated for sport inclusion on the population level:
(II) Qd = 50.2 + 0.8 • Y – 0.1 • T + 0.133 • H – 0.6 • A – 0.104 • TR – 0.058 • YU –
0.087 • EUS – 0.037 • G + 0.4 • P.
According to this regression function, an increase in household income by €100
per household member would lead to an increase in sport inclusion in Germany by 0.8
percentage points. Every increase in real work time per week by one hour would
reduce sport inclusion by 0.1 percentage point. An increase of the proportion of the
population with advanced school-leaving qualifications or higher would increase sport
inclusion by 0.13 percentage points. An increase of the Turkish or South European
contingents of the population would reduce sport inclusion by 0.1 respectively 0.09
percentage points. In contrast to that, an increase in the proportion of people from the
former Yugoslavia would diminish sport inclusion only by 0.06 percentage points.
Moreover, in the light of positive conditions of sport development and independent of
the named factors, sport inclusion should increase by 0.4 percentage points per year.
As far as the small fit of the model is concerned, reliability analyses show that longi-
tudinal reliabilities of two successive inclusion levels can only reach a maximum of
0.63 by an average of 0.55. Thus, the small ratio of explained to explainable variance
can be relativized and corrected to 13.5% (the ratio of explained to explainable vari-
ance is the quotient explained variance through average reliability of two successive
sport inclusion levels). The model can be considered as reliable, because general
requirements on R2 cannot be expressed (Backhaus, Erichson, Plinke & Weiber, 2000)
and neither collinearity nor residual analyses suggest that premises are violated.

Interaction model
The results from the interaction model reveal significant effects as well (see table 2).
Because of the high proportion of Germans asked in the SOEP, age and thus the
ageing of the German population has the greatest effect on sport inclusion. The second
and third greatest influences derive from the ageing of people with Turkish or
Southern European nationality, followed by human capital and the income of people
with German nationality. In relying on the general model, the following regression
function can be formulated for the interaction model:
(III) Qd=49.2 + 0.8 • Y • GE + 0.8 • Y • TR + 0.9 • Y • YU + 0.4 • Y • EUS – 0.1 •
T • GE – 0.1 • T • TR + 0 • T • YU – 0.1 • T • EUS + 0.134 • H • GE + 0.149 • H • TR
+ 0.017 • H • YU + 0.195 • H • EUS – 0.5 • A • GE – 0.7 • A • TR – 0.7 • A • YU –
0.7 • A • EUS – 0.023 • G • GE – 0.189 • G • TR – 0.148 • G • YU – 0.149 • G • EUS
+ 0.4 • P • GE + 0 • P • TR + 0.1 • P • YU + 0.1 • P • EUS.
Demographic and economic factors influencing inclusion in the German sport system 39

Table 2. Results of the linear regression analysis for sport inclusion (interaction model)
95% confidence interval
b SE beta T p lower bound lower bound
Const. 0.492 0.005 93.373 0.000 0.482 0.503
Y * GE 0.008 0.000 0.102 33.053 0.000 0.007 0.008
Y * TR 0.008 0.002 0.019 3.591 0.000 0.004 0.012
Y * YU 0.009 0.003 0.019 3.342 0.001 0.004 0.014
Y * EUS 0.004 0.001 0.016 3.408 0.001 0.002 0.007
T * GE -0.001 0.000 -0.035 -10.980 0.000 -0.001 -0.001
T * TR -0.001 0.000 -0.012 -3.000 0.003 -0.002 0.000
T * YU 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.708 0.479 -0.001 0.001
T * EUS -0.001 0.000 -0.011 -2.751 0.006 -0.001 0.000
H * GE 0.134 0.003 0.108 38.191 0.000 0.127 0.140
H * TR 0.149 0.036 0.012 4.149 0.000 0.078 0.219
H * YU 0.017 0.046 0.001 0.375 0.708 -0.074 0.108
H * EUS 0.195 0.024 0.023 8.038 0.000 0.147 0.242
A * GE -0.005 0.000 -0.263 -69.764 0.000 -0.006 -0.005
A * TR -0.007 0.000 -0.116 -21.248 0.000 -0.008 -0.007
A * YU -0.007 0.001 -0.079 -13.334 0.000 -0.008 -0.006
A * EUS -0.007 0.000 -0.126 -22.667 0.000 -0.007 -0.006
G * GE -0.023 0.003 -0.027 -8.893 0.000 -0.028 -0.018
G * TR -0.189 0.013 -0.057 -14.561 0.000 -0.214 -0.163
G * YU -0.148 0.019 -0.031 -7.593 0.000 -0.186 -0.110
G * EUS -0.149 0.012 -0.047 -12.838 0.000 -0.172 -0.126
P * GE 0.004 0.000 0.061 20.418 0.000 0.004 0.004
P * TR 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.134 0.893 -0.002 0.002
P * YU 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.536 0.592 -0.002 0.004
P * EUS 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.819 0.413 -0.001 0.002
Note. R2adj=.076; p=0.000.

According to this regression function, an increase of household income by €100 per

household member would lead to an increase of sport inclusion of people with German
or Turkish nationality by 0.8 percentage points. With regard to people with Southern
European nationality, the increase is only 0.4 percentage points. An increase of real
work time per week by one hour would result in a reduction of sport inclusion of
people with German, Turkish or Southern European nationality by 0.1 percentage
points. However, a change in real work time per week of people with nationality of the
former Yugoslavia does not affect sport inclusion. An increase of people with German
nationality having advanced school-leaving qualifications would increase sport inclu-
sion by 0.13 percentage points, whereas this effect is notably higher in people with
Turkish or Southern European nationality. Ageing of society by one year compared to
the average would lead to a decrease in sport inclusion by 0.5 (German nationality) or
40 Christoph Breuer and Pamela Wicker

0.7 percentage points (other nationalities) respectively. Apart from that, people with
German nationality seem to benefit more from social changes linked to sport inclusion
(independent of changes in income, time, or human capital). In contrast to that, Turks
do not benefit from period effects. If investments in human capital, especially in those
of people with Turkish nationality, fail, this will result in greater inequality between
people with German and other nationalities in relation to sport inclusion. According to
the reliability analyses of the general model, the ratio of explained to explainable
variance can be corrected to 13.8%.

Interpretation
The study shows that the economic household theory can make an important contri-
bution to the explanation and analysis of sport inclusion and thus to collective pheno-
mena in sport. With regard to the collective level, the analysis reveals that migration
can lead to lower rates of sport inclusion and that different ethnicities have different
rates of sport inclusion. Accordingly, people from the former Yugoslavia are more
similar to the German population than people from Turkey or Southern Europe.
Migrants benefit more from formation and income effects than does the German
population. The effects of the demographic change (ageing of society, migration) are
relativized by taking economic variables (income, human capital) into account and
thus demographic change does not necessarily lead to a reduction in sport inclusion.
Moreover, investments in formation and economic growth can compensate, or even
over compensate, for effects of demographic change. Interestingly, a moderate in-
crease of real work time would not affect sport inclusion negatively. With regard to
period effects, only the German population seems to benefit from them. Explaining the
(small) fit of the regression models, two arguments can be advanced. On the one hand,
sport activity is characterized in general by a small stability (Breuer, 2003), on the
other hand, sport is a heterogeneous good (Kurscheidt, 2005). As far as heterogeneity
is concerned, different forms of sport inclusion (different sports, different levels, and
different levels of expenditure) impede explanations of variance. Moreover, more
regressors could have led to a higher explanation of variance as well. But, from the
theoretical point of view, this does not make sense. In contrast to that, the integration
of a spatial restriction would be reasonable (Büch, 2005), as well as the decoding of
the proxy-variables age, period, and nationality. These aspects should be considered in
the formation of future data sets.

References
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W. & Weiber, R. (2000). Multivariate Analysemethoden.
Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (9th revised and mod. ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Ökonomische Erklärung des menschlichen Verhaltens. (2nd ed.). Tü-
bingen: Mohr.
Breuer, C. (2003). Entwicklung und Stabilität sportlicher Aktivität im Lebensverlauf – Zur
Rolle von Alters-, Perioden- und Kohorteneffekten. Sportwissenschaft, 33 (3), 263-
279.
Demographic and economic factors influencing inclusion in the German sport system 41

Breuer, C. (2006). Sportpartizipation in Deutschland – ein demo-ökonomisches Modell.

Sportwissenschaft, 36 (3), 292-305.
Büch, M.-P. (2005). Sport und Raum – aus Sicht der Sportökonomik. Diskussionspapiere
Sportökonomik (1).
Cachay, K. (1988). Sport und Gesellschaft. Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Downward, P. (2005). Assessing the determinants of participant sport demand: Results from
the 2002 General Household Survey. Unveröffentlichtes Arbeitspapier.
Erlinghagen, M. (2003). Wer treibt Sport im geteilten und vereinten Deutschland? Eine
quantitative Analyse sozio-ökonomischer Determinanten des Breitensports (Graue
Reihe des Instituts Arbeit und Technik, Nr. 4). Gelsenkirchen: Inst. Arbeit und
Technik.
Esser, H. (1999). Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 1: Situationslogik und Handeln.
Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Farrell, L. & Shields, M. A. (2002). Investigating the economic and demographic deter-
minants of sporting participation in England. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society:
Series A (Statistics in Society), 165 (2), 335-359.
Frey, B. S. (1999). Economics as a Science of Human Behaviour. Towards a New Social
Science Paradigm. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Grossman, M. (1972). On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. Journal of
Political Economy, 80 (1), 223-255.
Humphreys, B. R. & Ruseski, J. E. (2006). Economic determinants of participation in
physical activity and sport. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Association for Sport Economists (IASE), Bochum, 5 May 2006.
Kurscheidt, M. (2005). Finanzwissenschaftliche Analyse des Sports: Empirische Befunde und
allokationstheoretische Erklärungen zur staatlichen Sportpolitik. In H.-G. Napp (Ed.),
Finanzwissenschaft im Wandel (211-229). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Lindenberg, S. & Frey, B. S. (1993). Alternatives, frames and relative prices: A broader view
of rational choice. Acta Sociologica, 36, 191-205.
Mondello, M. J. & Pedersen, P. M. (2003). A Content Analysis of the Journal of Sports
Economics. Journal of Sports Economics, 4 (1), 64-73.
Rese, M. (2000). Logistische Regression. In K. Backhaus, B. Erichson, W. Plinke & R.
Weiber (Eds.), Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Ein-
führung (9th revised and mod. ed., 104-144). Berlin: Springer.
Schimank, U. & Schöneck, N. M. (2006). Sport im Inklusionsprofil der Bevölkerung
Deutschlands – Ergebnisse einer differenzierungstheoretisch angelegten empirischen
Untersuchung. Sport und Gesellschaft, 3 (1), 5-32.
Schupp, J. & Wagner, G. G. (2002). Maintenance of and Innovation in Long-term Panel
Studies. The Case of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). Allgemeines Sta-
tistisches Archiv, 86 (2), 163-175.
Stamm, H. P. & Lamprecht, M. (2005). Structural and cultural factors influencing physical
activity in Switzerland. Journal of Public Health, 13 (4), 203-211.
Von Auer, L. (2005). Ökonometrie. Eine Einführung. (3rd revised ed.). Berlin: Springer.
42 Christoph Breuer and Pamela Wicker

Christoph Breuer is Full Professor at the German Sport University Cologne and holds the
Chair of Sport Management. Since 2006, he is also Research Professor at the German Institute
of Economic Research in Berlin (DIW Berlin).
(contact: breuer@dshs-koeln.de)

Pamela Wicker graduated in Sports Economics. Since 2005, she is Research Assistant and
PhD Student at the Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management at the German Sport
University Cologne.