Understanding the Predictors of Economic Politics on Elite Sport: A Case Study from Spain

Citation: Seguí-Urbaneja, J.; Cabello-Manrique, D.; Guevara-Pérez, J.C.; Puga-González, E. Understanding the Predictors of Economic Politics on Elite Sport: A Case Study from Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph191912401 Academic Editors: Jerónimo García-Fernández, Antonio Jesús Sanchez-Oliver and Paul B. Tchounwou Received: 27 June 2022 Accepted: 24 September 2022 Published: 29 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Understanding the Predictors of Economic Politics on Elite Sport: A Case Study from Spain Jordi Seguí-Urbaneja 1,2, David Cabello-Manrique 3,* , Juan Carlos Guevara-Pérez 4,5 and Esther Puga-González 3 1 National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Lleida (UdL), 25192 Lleida, Spain 2Grup d’InvestigacióSocial i Educativa de l’Activitat Física i de l’Esport (GISEAFE), INEFC, University of Barcelona (UB), 08038 Barcelona, Spain 3Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Science, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain 4Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zaragoza, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain 5IGOID Research Group, Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 45071 Toledo, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Sport federations (NSFs) are the main promoters of sport at a national level. Their complex management involves coordinating relations with private entities, public administrations, and international organisations. Therefore, the economic situation of a country and its sport support policies have significant influences on the achievement of the NSFs’ objectives and, therefore, on their sustainability and influence on an active population. This study analyses the determinants of the financial performance of 59 Spanish sport federations (SSFs), 28 Olympic and 31 non-Olympic, based on the relationship between the funding received and their international results during the period from 2007 to 2019 (both years included). The preliminary data analysis included an examination of the missing data, and a t-test was used to compare Olympic and non-Olympic sport federations regarding different variables related to their resources and results. In addition, multiple linear regressions identified the possible predictors of the financing of sport federations and were separately performed for Olympic and non-Olympic federations. The results showed that SSFs were able to maintain their results in the face of decreasing resources. In addition, Olympic SSFs were found to be less dependent on public funding than non-Olympic SSFs for competitive results. This is evidence of a paradigm shift in the management of Spanish federated sports, evolving towards a model that is less dependent on the state, more efficient, and therefore more sustainable. Keywords: sport federations; sport system; organisational performance; finance; active life 1. Introduction, State of the Art and Literature The 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games marked the beginning of a revolution in the world of sports on an international level: the transition from amateurism to professionalism [ 1 ]. In recent decades, elite sports have been involved in a context of organisational changes based on improving effectiveness, efficiency, and competitiveness, where the adoption of private sector management techniques is very common [ 2 ]. All this has been and is a consequence of the pressure from the competition, sponsors, the media, the consumer and competitive society, and governments implementing public policies on elite sports. Elite sports are managed through national sport federations (NSFs), each with its own sporting modality, by subrogating in them the public policies, and maintaining, in most cases, total economic dependence on public subsidies [ 3 ]. Over time, the shortcomings of the sector [ 4 ] have contributed to the consolidation of a widespread management model characterised by coercive pressure from governments through the funding of NSFs [ 5 – 7 ]. In this sense, the influence of the environment will depend on each specific national sport Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912401 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 2 of 13 system, as not all states have the same system. The literature makes a clear distinction between two systems: (a) state-organised business systems, where the state plays a more interventionist role in structuring economic activities, characteristic of continental European countries; and (b) liberal market economies, characterised by the presence of a capital market-based financial system, the absence of burdensome regulations and high-trust relationships, characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon world [8]. This is a key aspect when contextualising the present study, since being subscribed to the Spanish environment—a bureaucratic system—we must consider the differences with respect to other countries in the Anglo-Saxon environment, i.e., entrepreneurial systems [ 9 ]. These differences have been highlighted in previous studies that contrast French and English [ 10 ] or Spanish and English systems [ 9 ]. All these studies confirm that most National Governing Bodies (NGBs) in continental Europe are federations run as public services delegated by the state and are, therefore, controlled by the government through the Ministry of Sport [ 7 ]; whereas UK NGBs are independent of the government [ 11 , 12 ]. Following this taxonomy, the continental European sport system is classified as “bureaucratic” because of the very active role played by governments in regulating the system; by contrast, the UK sport system is considered “entrepreneurial” because the role of governments is limited to establishing a framework that allows the logic of the market to express itself [10]. 1.1. Elite Sport In the literature, the terms elite sport, federated sport, top-level sport, or highperformance sport are used interchangeably as synonyms. For the purposes of this study, the term elite sport is used, which is understood to mean a competition involving athletes who receive subsidies and/or public support so that they can devote themselves entirely to training and representing the respective state in their competitions [13]. It is increasingly evident that elite sport has gone global and has become an indicator of the potential of countries, where sporting results are interpreted as the economic, social, and cultural power of a new geopolitical organisation [ 14 ]. Some authors argue that sport should become an active instrument of institutional communication, as a country brand [ 15 ], the clearest example being the UK’s sporting model, assimilated by other advanced states, called the “virtuous cycle” of sport, whereby elite sporting success leads to both the international prestige of the nation, a “feel-good factor” among the population and, most importantly, an increase in mass participation and an active life [16]. The competition between nations to improve their sporting performance in the international context has led to a race to find out what factors determine success in the elite sport system [ 17 , 18 ]. It should be noted that experts have come to accept that there is no single, ideal sporting model. Under this premise, previous studies have focused on the degree of importance that different factors and their associated variables have on the achievement of success [ 19 , 20 ]. According to Amis [ 21 ], there are six main categories of resources from which sustainable competitive advantage can be derived: (i) financial; (ii) physical ; (iii) human ; (iv) technological; (v) organisational; and (vi) reputational. Swann et al. [ 22 ], for their part, proposed a framework to evaluate elite sports. Their framework includes five variables (competitive standards, competitive success, experience, the competitiveness of a sport in the athlete’s country, and the global competitiveness of that sport), each allocated a score, with an accumulated score classifying eliteness. Inevitably, the variables and weightings in the proposed framework are arguable, but it is a strong contribution to providing a consistent definition of elite status for further development (as the authors recommend). In addition to the studies focused on identifying the factors that determine the success of elite sports, comparative studies between different countries have been carried out. The conclusions of these studies coincide in considering funding as a determining element and one that is clearly linked to the success of the system [ 23 – 25 ]. In addition, some authors have studied the relationship between the efficiency of funding and sporting success [ 26 , 27 ]. From the published research, it appears that nations are increasingly investing in a planned way by applying a systematic approach to elite sport policy [ 28 ]. In this regard, as is Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 3 of 13 evident in Figure 1, although the number of club licences has declined, the production of high-elite athletes (DANs) in relationship with federation licences (registered players) has considerably increased in recent years. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14 some authors have studied the relationship between the efficiency of funding and sporting success [26,27]. From the published research, it appears that nations are increasingly investing in a planned way by applying a systematic approach to elite sport policy [28]. In this regard, as is evident in Figure 1, although the number of club licences has declined, the production of high-elite athletes (DANs) in relationship with federation licences (registered players) has considerably increased in recent years. Figure 1. Demographic proportions of clubs, DAN and Licences over the period 2007–2020. Source: Own elaboration. In this context, European national sport systems, conceived with the aim of promoting healthy physical activity to increase well-being among the more active inhabitants, have, after the eruption of neoliberal economies, become the means to implement public policies aimed at supporting private initiatives to promote high performance and disseminate sport practice [29]. This situation has resulted in NSFs having to debate the dilemma of managing elite sports or mass participation sports, where the focus of the former is on “sport development”, while the latter is on “sport for development”, the two policies being incompatible and the common management of them non-peaceful [30]. 1.2. Elite Sports in Spain In Spain, elite sports are organised through public and private structures, the governing bodies of which are, respectively, the Spanish Sport Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes-CSD) and the Spanish Sport Federations (Federaciones Deportivas Españolas; SSFs). The SSFs, legally speaking, are private, non-profit associative entities with their own legal personality and assets, independent of those of their members [31], to which public administrative functions are attributed, acting in this case as collaborating agents of the public administration [32]. One of the public functions of an administrative nature delegated by the state to the SSFs is the organisation and development of elite sports [31]. To carry out their functions, the SSFs have two sources of financing: (a) public funds through subsidies from the CSD and other additional channels, such as the Olympic Sports Association (ADO) and the ADO aid for Paralympic Sport (ADOP) programmes, to be considered by the state for the exercise of public functions; and (b) other private additional sources and those from international organisations; both of these sources make up their financial structure. 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.12% 0.14% 0.16% - 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 DAN / Licenses (%) Licenses / CLUB Lic/CLUB DAN/Lic Figure 1. Demographic proportions of clubs, DAN and Licences over the period 2007–2020. Source: Own elaboration. In this context, European national sport systems, conceived with the aim of promoting healthy physical activity to increase well-being among the more active inhabitants, have, after the eruption of neoliberal economies, become the means to implement public policies aimed at supporting private initiatives to promote high performance and disseminate sport practice [29]. This situation has resulted in NSFs having to debate the dilemma of managing elite sports or mass participation sports, where the focus of the former is on “sport development”, while the latter is on “sport for development”, the two policies being incompatible and the common management of them non-peaceful [30]. 1.2. Elite Sports in Spain In Spain, elite sports are organised through public and private structures, the governing bodies of which are, respectively, the Spanish Sport Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes-CSD) and the Spanish Sport Federations (Federaciones Deportivas Españolas; SSFs). The SSFs, legally speaking, are private, non-profit associative entities with their own legal personality and assets, independent of those of their members [ 31 ], to which public administrative functions are attributed, acting in this case as collaborating agents of the public administration [ 32 ]. One of the public functions of an administrative nature delegated by the state to the SSFs is the organisation and development of elite sports [ 31 ]. To carry out their functions, the SSFs have two sources of financing: (a) public funds through subsidies from the CSD and other additional channels, such as the Olympic Sports Association (ADO) and the ADO aid for Paralympic Sport (ADOP) programmes, to be considered by the state for the exercise of public functions; and (b) other private additional sources and those from international organisations; both of these sources make up their financial structure. The Spanish government’s financial aid distribution policies are diffuse and non-fully transparent. In its public calls for proposals, the CSD establishes a series of criteria related to two main areas for obtaining financial aid: (a) the level of sporting results, and (b) the Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 4 of 13 level of development and management of sport. However, the objective indicators that allow both variables to be assessed are not published, which in fact turns the public aid system into a politicised system in which the government in power can give and distribute as it sees fit [33]. The system institutionalised in Spain in 1990, with the publication of Law 10/1990 on sport, has meant that most SSFs are highly dependent on public subsidies. Thus, in 2012, more than 90% of the SSFs were in a situation of technical bankruptcy, as they had negative working capital and negative net worth [ 34 ]. In 2013, this situation led the CSD to implement measures to guarantee the economic viability of the system, thus obliging those SSFs that were in that financial situation in 2012 to develop a viability plan, failure to comply with which would result in a penalty on the amounts of CSD subsidies during the years the plan was in force [ 7 ]. The consequence of the application of financial viability programmes by the SSFs was the accountability to the CSD and the essential measurement of sporting performance. This situation forced the SSFs to move from a purely administrative function—receiving and distributing public subsidies—to being accountable for the purpose of the public subsidies, i.e., managing sports and organisational performance. They went from using public resources for their own interests to managing public resources in the interest of the state [35]. The failure of SSFs to comply with viability plans led to a reduction in public subsidies from the CSD [ 36 ], and the reduction in available financial resources helped to drive the process of the professionalisation of the sector at the national level [ 2 ]. SSFs adopted structures capable of maintaining, in an environment of austerity, the same competitive results, showing improvements in their performance both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency [ 3 ]. This qualitative leap in the performance of the SSFs over the past decade has been key to the sustainability of elite sports in Spain. In the organisational context, performance is the combination of effectiveness, as the organisation’s capacity to achieve its objectives, and efficiency, as the ratio between the resources used and the results obtained by the organisation [ 37 , 38 ]. In addition, organisational performance is recognised by theorists and practitioners as a multidimensional concept framed by a set of simultaneous contradictions that, in the case of sports and for NSFs, are presented as tensions between paid staff and volunteers, elite and mass sports, public and private funding, and social and commercial cultures [ 30 ]. In fact, the achievement of institutional objectives is often more complex for NSFs than for other non-profit organisations, as it involves the integrated action and intervention of national and international governing bodies, leagues, clubs, and national, regional, and local governments [ 37 ]. 1.3. The Economic Sustainability of Spanish Elite Sports Sustainability requires a triple bottom line approach, according to which improvements are pursued in the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of performance, and NSFs are organisations with social and environmental goals and a growing need to manage their resources efficiently, highlighting the importance of the financial pillar as a necessary factor to achieve the traditional purposes of NSFs [7]. Some authors have defined economic sustainability as the ability of an organisation to manage its resources and generate profitability in a responsible and long-term manner [ 39 , 40 ]. Other authors have conducted studies to identify economic indicators for sustainability [41,42]. In elite sports, the capacity of the governing bodies, namely the Board of Directors and the General Assembly of the SSFs, to obtain and manage their financial resources is one of the crucial dimensions for achieving their strategic objectives [ 43 ]. This statement could be explained by the fact that inputs and outputs (or means and ends) are inverse in for-profit and non-profit organisations. Therefore, while profit represents the main output for for-profit organisations, non-profit organisations use financial resources as an input to their operations [ 17 , 35 , 38 ]. Therefore, the criteria with which these resources are used will be decisive for the sustainability of SSFs [44]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 5 of 13 In this sense, the accentuated dependence of the SSFs on public subsidies to carry out their activity [ 6 , 7 ], and the need to obtain the maximum benefit from those resources in terms of competitive results [ 45 ], generate a scenario of maximum demand for the management of the NSFs. Nevertheless, the periods to which this study subscribes have coexisted in the context of the global financial crisis that began in 2007 and the Spanish economic depression that began a year later, paving the way for the financial situation of an elite sport with a high dependence on public funds [ 7 ]. In order to face this context, a series of policies were required: (i) the cleaning up of the accounts of SSFs through the implementation of viability plans in 2013 for those SSFs with a loss-making financial situation [ 34 ]; (ii) the publication of this financial information in compliance with the Transparency Law 19/2013 [ 46 ]; and, (iii) the adoption by the CSD of those measures that prioritised SSFs considered to be of “national interest”, including all Olympic sports (federations) and a small universe of non-Olympic sports (federations), which aggravated the situation for the latter compared with the rest, experiencing an average reduction of 42% in their public funding between 2011 and 2013 [36]. Nevertheless, this arduous period bore fruit, replacing the classic model of public management prevailing in Spanish federated sports with a new model of public management. This new model applied private sector strategies that entailed the gradual replacement of a part of the volunteer staff by paid staff, with their consequent professionalisation; the increase in the disclosure of sensitive information to stakeholders in terms of transparency; and the move from pre-budgetary accounting to accrual accounting in terms of accountability. This effort resulted in strengthening the economic sustainability of the sector [ 7 ], from a loss of 4.8 million euros in 2012 to a surplus of 6.7 million euros in 2016 [ 34 ], and a sustained decrease in debt levels, which reached its historical maximum in 2020, as can be seen in Figure 2. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 for-profit and non-profit organisations. Therefore, while profit represents the main output for for-profit organisations, non-profit organisations use financial resources as an input to their operations [17,35,38]. Therefore, the criteria with which these resources are used will be decisive for the sustainability of SSFs [44]. In this sense, the accentuated dependence of the SSFs on public subsidies to carry out their activity [6,7], and the need to obtain the maximum benefit from those resources in terms of competitive results [45], generate a scenario of maximum demand for the management of the NSFs. Nevertheless, the periods to which this study subscribes have coexisted in the context of the global financial crisis that began in 2007 and the Spanish economic depression that began a year later, paving the way for the financial situation of an elite sport with a high dependence on public funds [7]. In order to face this context, a series of policies were required: (i) the cleaning up of the accounts of SSFs through the implementation of viability plans in 2013 for those SSFs with a loss-making financial situation [34]; (ii) the publication of this financial information in compliance with the Transparency Law 19/2013 [46]; and, (iii) the adoption by the CSD of those measures that prioritised SSFs considered to be of “national interest”, including all Olympic sports (federations) and a small universe of non-Olympic sports (federations), which aggravated the situation for the latter compared with the rest, experiencing an average reduction of 42% in their public funding between 2011 and 2013 [36]. Nevertheless, this arduous period bore fruit, replacing the classic model of public management prevailing in Spanish federated sports with a new model of public management. This new model applied private sector strategies that entailed the gradual replacement of a part of the volunteer staff by paid staff, with their consequent professionalisation; the increase in the disclosure of sensitive information to stakeholders in terms of transparency; and the move from pre-budgetary accounting to accrual accounting in terms of accountability. This effort resulted in strengthening the economic sustainability of the sector [7], from a loss of 4.8 million euros in 2012 to a surplus of 6.7 million euros in 2016 [34], and a sustained decrease in debt levels, which reached its historical maximum in 2020, as can be seen in Figure 2. Figure 2. Decrease in the debt of Spanish sport federations in the period 2011–2020. Source: CSD. Subdirección General de Deporte Profesional y Control financiero (2021). The great economic figures of the Spanish NSFs 2011–2020 [47]. Figure 2. Decrease in the debt of Spanish sport federations in the period 2011–2020. Source: CSD. Subdirección General de Deporte Profesional y Control financiero (2021). The great economic figures of the Spanish NSFs 2011–2020 [47]. It is from this context that this study aims to analyse the determinants of the financial performance of SSFs based on the relationship between the funding received by Spanish elite sport entities and their success. In this respect, any predictor of the behaviour of SSFs is a particularly complex task, both because of the differences in the characteristics of the various federations and because of the very nature of sport activity, which does not respond to a standard productive function that links the resources consumed with the results Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 6 of 13 achieved. Therefore, the study of federated sport requires a multidimensional approach, understood as “the capacity to adequately acquire and process human, financial and physical resources to achieve the objectives of the organisation” [ 38 ], for which multivariate models are very useful when carrying out studies in the sector, and this is the methodology used for the development of this study. To carry out the study, economic funding was considered as monetary aid in the different forms that the CSD has detailed, recognised, and published. Additionally, to determine sporting success, the results obtained in Olympic Games, World Championships, and European Championships were analysed. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Data Collection Data were collected from 59 sport federations which were separated into Olympic (28) and non-Olympic (31) according to the nature of the elite sport they represented. For each federation, we collected the data from 2007 to 2019, both years included, analysing their official budgets and the CSD budgets together with the ADO grants. Different target variables were included in the database representing three different blocks: (a) sporting results (i.e., quality performance and the number of medals from the previous year); (b) sporting structure (i.e., number of sport licences, number of high-level athletes, and number of clubs); and (c) financial resources (i.e., the total financing and CSD financing). Table 1describes each of these variables. Table 1. Variables of the study. Variable Type Year Description Sporting results Number of medals IV Previous year Total number of medals obtained in European Championships, World Cups, and Olympic Games Quality performance IV Previous year Index composed of the sum of medals obtained in European Championships, World Cups, and Olympic Games multiplied by a value that represents its relevance: 3 points for gold medals, 2 points for silver medals, and 1 point for bronze medals Sporting structure Number of sport licences IV Previous year Total number of registered players (sport licences) Number of high-level athletes IV Previous year Total number of elite athletes included in the Spanish program (high-elite athletes: Deportista de alto nivel; DAN) Number of clubs IV Previous year Total number of registered sport licences Financial resources Total budget DV Current year Total amount of euros managed for the federation, including own budget, financing received from the CSD, and financing received from the Plan ADO CSD funding DV Current year Total amount of euros received from the CSD Note. IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable. 2.2. Data Analysis First, the preliminary data analysis included the examination of the missing data. Second, we obtained the descriptive statistics of each variable in the study, including the means, standard deviations, and correlations. Third, we conducted a t-test to compare Olympic and non-Olympic sport federations regarding the variables of the study. The Bonferroni correction was introduced to interpret the results of these comparisons. Finally, we ran a series of multiple linear regressions to identify the possible predictors of the financing of sport federations. In these analyses, the variables related to sporting results and sporting structure were considered the potential predictors of the total budget and CSD funding of the federation. Multiple linear regression analyses were separately performed for Olympic and non-Olympic federations. All the tests of significance were Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 7 of 13 two-tailed, and statistical significance was defined at p< 0.05 unless otherwise indicated. All the analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS statistical package, version 23 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). 3. Results 3.1. Preliminary Analysis First, we examined the missing data. Two sources of missing data were identified. On the one hand, different federations were constituted after 2007, and therefore, data could not be obtained for the years before their constitution. On the other hand, the missing data came also from the unclear or incoherent information collected from the federations, which was labelled as the missing data. Table 2presents the descriptive results for each variable in the study and the correlations between the variables in the study. High and moderately high correlations were found between the number of medals and the quality of performance and between the number of sport licences, the number of clubs, and the total budget. Overall, it may be noted that the pattern of correlations was different for the total budget and for the CSD funding. Table 2. Descriptive results and correlations between all the variables in the study. Variable M(SD) Correlations 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sporting results Number of medals 10.4 (12.5) 0.991 ** 0.523 ** 0.025 −0.012 −0.013 0.338 ** Quality performance 20.0 (24.7) 0.515 ** 0.037 −0.001 −0.005 0.326 ** Sporting structure Number of high-level athletes 62.8 (70.0) 0.370 ** 0.317 ** 0.312 ** 0.583 ** Number of sport licences 56,153.6 (128,519.5) 0.854 ** 0.791 ** 0.138 ** Number of clubs 1097.3 (3135.1) 0.780 ** 0.135 ** Financial resources Total budget (in EUR) 4,080,436.5 (14,387,529.4) 0.208 ** CSD funding (in EUR) 879,187.2 (1,046,616.9) Note. ** Indicates that correlation was significant at p< 0.01. 3.2. Comparison between Olympic and Non-Olympic Sport Federations Table 3presents the comparison between Olympic and non-Olympic sport federations regarding the variables of the present study. After applying the Bonferroni correction, significant differences were observed in the number of medals (p< 0.001), quality performance (p= 0.001), the number of high-level athletes (p< 0.001), and the CSD funding (p< 0.001). 3.3. Predictors of the Financing of Federations A series of linear regressions were run to assess the direct effects of sporting results and sporting structure variables on financial variables. The analysis was completed in two steps, with the number of medals and quality performance included in Step 1, and the number of high-level athletes, the number of sport licences, and the number of clubs added in Step 2. The use of this sequence allowed us to identify the unique variance added by each set of variables in the model. Regression analyses were separately conducted for Olympic and non-Olympic sport federations. 3.3.1. Olympic Sport Federations Two multiple linear regressions were calculated to predict the financing of Olympic federations (see Table 4). A significant regression equation was found both for the total budget (F [5, 326] = 104.958, p< 0.001) and the CSD funding (F [5, 326] = 32.594, p< 0.001). The equation for the total budget returned an R2 of 0.617 and for CSD funding, an R2 of Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 8 of 13 0.333. On the one hand, the number of high-level athletes ( β = 0.259) and the number of sport licences ( β = 0.608) were significant predictors of the total financing received by the Olympic federations. On the other hand, the number of high-level athletes ( β = 0.474) was the significant predictor of the financing received from the CSD. Table 3. Comparison between Olympic and non-Olympic sport federations. Variable Olympic Federations M(SD)Non-Olympic Federations M(SD) Comparison 1 t(df), p Sporting results Number of medals 12.3 (13.6) 8.7 (11.3) −3.769 (646.080), <0.001 Quality performance 23.3 (26.3) 17.2 (23.0) −3.314 (669.771), 0.001 Sporting structure Number of high-level athletes 86.9 (78.7) 42.6 (54.2) −8.727 (578.455), <0.001 Number of sport licences 45,663.9 (71,441.2) 65,144.9 (161,399.9) 2.169 (566.494), 0.030 Number of clubs 900.5 (2413.3) 1265.9 (3632.3) 1.626 (695.401), 0.104 Financial resources Total budget (in EUR) 4,210,628.4 (4,682,041.9) 3,969,453.3 (19,109,386.9) −0.252 (485.287), 0.801 CSD funding (in EUR) 1,532,835.9 (1,175,401.1) 321,978.5 (421,726.1) −18.657 (442.501), <0.001 Note. 1After Bonferroni’s correction, the significance level was set at p= 0.007. Table 4. Multiple regression model of predictors associated with the financing of Olympic sport federations. Total Budget CSD Funding Variables B 95% CI for B βAdj. R2R2B 95% CI for B βAdj. R2R2 Step 1 0.020 0.026 0.119 0.125 Number of medals 147,120.992 420,740.638, 126,498.654 0.443 23,480.042 42,781.999, 89,742.084 0.277 Quality performance 100,478.844 −40,228.116, 241,185.803 0.589 3346.853 −30,727.931, 37,421.638 0.077 Step 2 0.611 0.617 0.323 0.333 Number of medals 162,261.027 335,748.141, 11,226.087 0.489 3537.168 54,937.113, 62,011.450 0.042 Quality performance 77,564.905 −11,150.996, 166,280.807 0.455 2725.839 −27,176.086, 32,627.763 0.063 Number of high-level athletes 14,810.446 9476.243, 20,144.650 0.259 ** 6918.991 5121.084, 8716.898 0.474 ** Number of sport licences 38.133 32,185, 44.081 0.608 ** 0.469 −1.535, 2.474 0.029 Number of clubs 71.033 −83,403, 225.470 0.038 43.558 −8.495, 95.612 0.092 Note. ** p< 0.01. 3.3.2. Non-Olympic Sport Federations As the last step of our analysis, we run two multiple linear regressions to find the predictors of the financing of non-Olympic federations (see Table 5). Significant regression equations were found for the total budget (F [5, 376] = 561.791, p< 0.001) and the CSD funding (F [5, 376] = 25,461, p< 0.001). The equation for the total budget returned an R2 of 0.882 and for the CSD funding, an R2 of 0.253. On the one hand, the number of medals ( β=−0.319 ), the number of high-level athletes ( β = 0.145), and the number of clubs ( β= 0.939 ) were significant predictors of the total funding. On the other hand, the number of medals ( β = − 0.794), quality performance ( β = 0.933), and the number of high-level athletes (β= 0.349) were significant predictors of the funding received from the CSD. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12401 9 of 13 Table 5. Multiple regression model of predictors associated with the financing of non-Olympic sport federations. Total Budget CSD Funding Variables B 95% CI for B βAdj. R2R2B 95% CI for B βAdj. R2R2 Step 1 0.004 0.009 0.112 0.117 Number of medals 1,093,249.702 2,411,423.149, 224,923.744 −0.630 18,248.756 3429.463, 6931.952 0.520 Quality performance 495,183.764 −15,2669.826, 1,143,037.354 0.581 14,656.443 2280.673, 27,032.213 0.850 * Step 2 0.880 0.882 0.243 0.253 Number of medals 552,665.075 1,020,365.007, −84,965.144 0.319 * 27,854.317 51,659.571, 4049.062 0.794 * Quality performance 157,662.316 −68,844.488, 384,169.121 0.185 16,094.085 4565.215, 27,622.956 0.933 ** Number of high-level athletes 54,859.645 36,870.383, 72,848.906 0.145 ** 2666.755 1751.128, 3582.383 0.349 ** Number of sport licences −10.313 −22.133, 1.506 −0.077 0.422 −0.180, 1.023 0.156 Number of clubs 5719.232 5164.285, 6274.180 0.939 ** −3.788 −32.034, 24.458 −0.031 Note. * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01. 4. Discussion The data of the present study regarding the medals received in World Championships allowed us to affirm that when all the SSFs were analysed, there were no differences between the years analysed, progressively growing from 521 in 2008 and reaching 759 in 2017. However, it can be seen that the total financing (budget) progressively decreased in recent years, declining from 201 million euros in 2008 to 123 million euros in 2017, with very serious consequences, resulting in a decrease in sporting structures and projects. These data contradict some of the studies and many of the statements that lead us to consider that the greater the financing, the greater the sporting results, demonstrating that there are other factors that affect performance, without there being a cause–effect relationship between money and results. This leads us to confirm that the level of sporting results depends on a balanced multifactorial policy in which financing is an important part but not the only determining element of sporting structure and the achievement of medals in World Championships and Olympic Games [ 17 ]. Therefore, from a causal explanation of the results of sport policies in a particular country, this study responds to the need to provide a different view of the traditional hegemonic approaches that have addressed the determinants of the elite sport policy success in the literature [48]. In this sense, SSFs have shown to be able to maintain their results in the face of a decrease in their resources, and that, in the case of Olympic federations, is reflected in the absence of a significant relationship between their sporting results (medals and quality performance) and the total funding or public subsidy from the CSD. This is commendable considering that the increasing success of countries with the same supply of medals has led to diminishing returns on investment in elite sports (mostly publicly funded) and that an increase in such investment is advisable simply to maintain the existing level of performance [ 49 ]. This result may be a consequence of the significant reduction in public aid between 2012 and 2016 mentioned by Puga et al. [ 36 ], which is logical in terms of sustainability [ 7 ], if we consider how vulnerable a policy is to the state allocating its resources to an “elite” sport that represents a small portion of the sporting universe, without a guarantee on a return on this investment in terms of any results from a sporting, economic, or social point of view [ 3 ]. This fact highlights the importance of setting limits to this support in a context in which these resources are in demand in other areas, making it necessary to evaluate the degree to which they are used [ 3 , 16 ]. It also explains the lower weight of public funding in the total funding of Olympic sports, with the consequent reduction in the expected relationship between the level of sporting performance and state support. Therefore, the relationship between both the funding channels and the number of highlevel athletes (DANs) can be interpreted as a strategy within the sustainability paradigm,