Dr.Hab., Professor E.V. Kuz'micheva
Russian State University of Physical Culture, Sport, Youth and Tourism (SCOLIPC), Moscow

Keywords: sport facilities, actual hosting service, design hosting service capacity, service rate

 Introduction. The State Program of the Russian Federation “Physical Culture and Sports Development for the period up to 2020” sets forth a few ambitious objectives, including, among other things, at least 40% of the national population being engaged in regular physical education practices; at least 48% of the public demand for sport facilities being met for the period; 100% readiness of the sport system to the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia being ensured, etc. (1). In addition, one of the Program objectives was to raise the number of people involved in systemic physical exercises to 30% by the year of 2015. As things now stand, however, only 27.5% of the Russian population are reported to practise physical exercises and sports on a regular basis, whilst the population coverage by services of public sport/ physical education/ health improvement facilities is reported to come to 27.3% for the country on the whole (2). Therefore, it is hardly possible to raise the public sport facilities service coverage rate to 48% as required by the Program for the reason that the total service square of the sport facilities needs to be expanded by the unrealistic one third for the remaining five years (4). Having analyzed the available research literature, the relevant regulatory and legislative provisions and the practical operation reports of the available sport facilities, we have found a striking contradiction between the urgent need to meet the growing public demand for accessible sport facilities and the still poor operational efficiency of the existing ones.

Objective of the study was to analyse the design hosting capacities and actual service rates of national sport facilities.

Methods and structure of the study. Reports provided by the Federal Statistic Report Form 1-FK “Physical Culture and Sport Data” give the grounds to assess the service efficiency of the sport facilities using the relevant actual physical service rates (2, 5). Actual annual hosting service of a sport facility reported by the Section III “Sport Facilities” is calculated as a product of the average number of visits multiplied by the average time of every session/ visit and by the active days per week and weeks per year for the sport and health services provided by the facility. Annual design hosting capacity of a sport facility is calculated by the maximum daily one-time hosting capacity of the venue/ facility being multiplied by the active service days and hours per day of the venue/ facility. Actual annual service rate (in percentage terms) of a sport facility is calculated by the actual annual hosting service being divided by the design annual hosting capacity of the sport facility.

Study results and discussion. Sport facilities designed for a few sport disciplines were taken for the case studies to explore the differences in the social service efficiency rates of the sport facilities. There are 2,574 thousand people in the Russian Federation, for instance, that are reported to play football on a regular basis that comes to 6.60% of the total population reportedly engaged in the systemic physical education and sport activities in the RF. Public football fields available for them are reported to come close to 26 thousand (25,982), including 575 (2.2%) fields in the federal ownership; 1261 fields (4.8%) in the regional government ownership; 23,215 fields (89.4%) in the municipal ownership; and 931 field (3.6%) owned by other holders. Average daily hosting service of a football field is reported at 60 people per day, versus the design hosting capacity of 90 people per day (3, 6). Having divided the total public football population of the RF by the design hosting capacity of a football field, we find the required number of football fields – that is 28,607. The shortage is estimated at 2,625 fields that mean that the current public demand for football fields is satisfied to slightly more than 90%.

As long as the public demand for public football playgrounds is not fully satisfied, special attention shall be given to the available football facilities being managed in a most efficient manner. Given in Table 1 hereunder are the actual service data of the available football facilities that show their service rate being quite low – at 54.9%.

Table 1. Service indices of the available football fields

If we now use the standard (traditional) sport facility service rate calculation formula that uses the design (normative) daily hosting capacity of a sport facility versus the actual number of trainees (3, 6), we would receive more realistic (in our opinion) figure that shows that the available football fields are being used somewhat more efficiently in fact. In this case, the design hosting capacity of a sport facility is calculated based rather on the relevant service standard (norm) than on the actual service time (3). Average one-time hosting capacity was calculated as provided by the “Planning Calculation Procedure for Trainees Servable under Different Operation Modes of the Physical Education and Sport Facilities” for the relevant four classification groups ranging from the newcomers to Class I athletes (28+25+20+18= 91/4= 22.7= 23 trainees).

Table 2. Hosting and service data for football fields

As reported by the Moscow city football field management reports, the actual service rates of the fields are normally somewhat higher. Given in Tables 3, 4 and 5 hereunder are the key operational data and service rates of a few outdoor football fields and indoor futsal pitches operated by Luzhniki Olympic Complex.

Table 3. Key specifications of outdoor football fields and indoor futsal pitches operated by Luzhniki Olympic Complex

The total hosting capacity of Football Fields #7 and #9 (for the Class II athletes) is reported at 160 men per day (3, 6). Actual average hosting service of Football Field #7 is reported at 87 men per day that is in excess of the design standard; whilst that for Football Field #9 is reported at 76 men per day that means that the service rate is 95%. Design hosting capacity of Football Field #8 is reported at 40 men per day. Actual average hosting service of Football Field #8 is reported at 31 men per day that comes to 77.5% of the design standard. Design hosting capacity of Futsal Pitch is reported at 60 men per day, whilst its actual service is 56 men per day. Therefore, the total design hosting capacity of the above three football fields plus the futsal pitch is 624 men [(260 х 6) / 2.5 = 624], whilst actually hosted by these facilities as per the reports were 448 people. That means that the service efficiency rate is 71.8%.

Table 4. Football fields and futsal pitch service data

Ownership structure of the 46 indoor football arenas under report is the following: 7 arenas in the federal ownership; 7 arenas in the municipal ownership; 10 arenas in the regional government ownership; and 22 arenas are owned by other holders. Given in Table 5 hereunder are the service data of the 46 indoor football arenas.

Table 5. Service data of the 46 indoor football arenas

Football players trained at national sport schools are reported to make up 387,762 people that make up 11.8% of the total sport school population; it should be noted that 87% of these players are 6-15 years of age, and only 12% are aged 16 to 21 years. The proportion of the children and adolescents attending paying football groups is reported to make less than 1% (0.75%). The proportion of the sport facilities rented by the sport schools is reported at about 22% that means that virtually every fifth sport facility is rented. It may be pertinent to mention that it is the track and field sports that are reportedly in the highest need of the relevant sport facilities.

Let us take the Track and Field “Olympic Centre” (OC) Stadium named after Brothers Znamenskiy” for analysis. The Stadium was designed to host municipal-level competitions of any age group athletes as provided by the relevant Competition Schedule approved by the Track and Field Sports Federation of Moscow city; and virtually every track-and-field sport school and school class of Moscow city has to rent the OC Stadium facilities, namely: the Olympic Reserve Sport School (ORSS) Yunost, Moscow; ORSS Cheremushki, Moscow; ORSS #82; Sport Training Centre (STS) Luch; ORSS #24; ORSS Moscow Municipal Physical Culture and Sports Association; and the Elite Sport Mastery School (ESMS). Actual hosting service of the OC Stadium in the pre-summer-season training cycle was reported to make up 3285 men – versus the design hosting capacity of 635 men; with the actual weekly hosting service estimated to vary from 220% to 380% of the design (normative) level. Actual daily hosting service of the Brothers Znamenskiy OC Stadium (under the weekly reports) is reported to vary from 115% to 180% of the design (normative) value; in absolute figures, the Stadium actually hosts 1209 men per day versus the design daily norm of 477 men, i.e. it actually accepts 2.5 more people than it is designed for.

Notwithstanding this and some other cases of a few sport facilities being loaded above the design levels, the actual national-average service rates for many categories of sport facilities – as calculated based on the data reported by the Consolidated Report of the Federal Statistical Survey Service, Form 1-FK “Physical Culture and Sport Data” as of 2014 – are quite low in fact, as demonstrated by Table 6 hereunder.

Table 6. Hosting service data reported by sport facilities

Conclusion

In the context of the new construction of public sport assets being on the rise when the actual public service rates of the existing sport facilities are still low enough, an emphasis shall be made on the existing public sport assets being managed in a most efficient manner with a special priority being given to the social service efficiency of the sport facilities. 

References

1. Gosudarstvennaya programma RF «Razvitie fizicheskoy kul'tury i sporta» (RF State Program "Development of physical culture and sport") // Sbornik ofitsial'nykh dokumentov i materialov. Ministerstvo sporta Rossiyskoy Federatsii (Collection of official documents and materials. RF Ministry of Sports). – 2013. – № 5-6. – P. 3-109.
2. O federal'nom statisticheskom nablyudenii po forme # 1-FK «Svedeniya o fizicheskoy kul'ture i sporte» za 2014 god (On the federal statistical observation in compliance with the form # 1-FK "Physical culture and sport data " in 2014) / Prikaz Minsporta ot 15 aprelya 2015 goda # 407 (Order of the Ministry of Sports, April 15, 2015 № 407). – 17 p.
3. Planovo-raschetnye pokazateli kolichestva zanimayushchikhsya i rezhimy ekspluatatsii fizkul'turno-ozdorovitel'nykh i sportivnykh sooruzheniy: Prilozhenie k prikazu GKFK Rossii # 44 ot 4 fevralya 1998 g. (Plan and estimate indicators of the number of people training and operational modes of health and fitness and sports facilities: Annex to the Order of SFCC Russia # 44, February 4, 1998) / State Committee of the Russian Federation for Physical Culture, Sport and Tourism). – Moscow, 1998. – 23 p.
4. Zozulya S.N. Problemy resursnogo obespecheniya razvitiya fizicheskoy kul'tury i sporta (Issues of resource support of development of physical culture and sport) / S.N. Zozulya, E.V. Kuz'micheva / Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. – 2015. – № 8. – P. 46-49.
5. Ukazaniya po zapolneniyu formy federal'nogo statisticheskogo nablyudeniya (Instructions for completing federal statistical observation forms). – Moscow: Ministry of Sports, 2013. – 15 p.
6. Ekonomika fizicheskoy kul'tury i sporta: ucheb. posobie (Economy of physical culture and sport: study guide) / Ed. by E.V. Kuz'micheva. – Moscow: Fizicheskaya kul'tura, 2008. – 480 p.

Corresponding author: helenk@nm.ru

Abstract 
The article explores the problem of the social service efficiency of national sport facilities. In view of the relatively low supply (27.3% of the demand) of public sport facilities in the RF, top priority will be given to their service efficiency matters. The ambitious social goals set forth by the State Program of the RF “Physical Culture and Sports Development for the period up to 2020” – including, among other things, at least 40% of the national population being engaged in regular physical exercises, and at least 48% of the public demand for sport facilities being met for the period – can unlikely be attained unless the social service efficiency of the public sport facilities is seriously improved. Having analyzed the available studies and practical operation reports of the available sport facilities, we have found a striking contradiction between the urgent need to meet the growing public demand for freely accessible sport facilities and the still poor operational efficiency of the existing ones. The reporting data provided by the Federal Statistic Report, Form 1-FK “Physical Culture and Sport Data” give the grounds to evaluate the service efficiency of the sport facilities by the relevant actual physical service rates. The reporting data on the sport assets service rates broken down by different sport disciplines show the facility loading/ public service rates being very low. The actual physical service rates of the sport facility groups were reported to vary from 31.2% (for biathlon facilities, for instance) to 70.0% (for indoor football arenas). In the context of the new construction of public sport assets being on the rise when the actual public service rates of the existing sport facilities are still low enough, an emphasis shall be made on the existing public sport assets being managed in a most efficient manner with a special priority being given to the social service efficiency of the sport facilities.