Sociology of Sport Journal, 2007, 24, 378-401

2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Does Sport Foster Social Capital?

The Contribution of Sport to a Lifestyle
of Community Participation
Thomas Perks
University of Lethbridge
Little research has been done to date on the contribution of sport to a lifestyle of
community participation. This is despite theoretical support from the social capital
literature for the suggestion that the relationships and trust fostered through sport
participation should lead to involvement in community activities outside of sport.
The present study addresses this gap in the research by testing whether participation
in organized youth sport positively predicts involvement in particular community
activities as an adult. Based on an analysis of survey data collected from a representative sample of Canadians, the findings show that youth sport participation
was positively related to adult involvement in community activities, although the
predictive effects of youth sport participation were small. The findings also show
that the effects of youth sport participation on adult participation in community
activities lasted throughout the lifecycle. Both findings are consistent with the
social capital literature.
Peu dtudes ont t ralises sur la contribution du sport un style de vie fait
dune participation communautaire durable. Thoriquement, les crits sur le
capital social ont pourtant soutenu lide que les relations interpersonnelles et la
confiance apportes par la participation sportive devraient mener une implication dans des activits communautaires en dehors du sport. La prsente tude
sintresse ce manque, au plan de la recherche, en vrifiant si la participation
des jeunes dans le sport organis prdit positivement leur implication dans des
activits communautaires en tant quadultes. A partir dune analyse des donnes
dune enqute ralise auprs dun chantillon reprsentatif de Canadiens, il est
dmontr que la participation sportive dans la jeunesse est positivement relie
limplication dans des activits communautaires en tant quadulte, quoique les
effets de prdiction soient faibles. Les rsultats indiquent galement que les effets
de la participation sportive sur la participation dans des activits communautaires
sont prsents dans tout le cycle de vie. Les deux rsultats sont conformes aux
crits sur le capital social.

The author is with the Department of Sociology, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Dr.,
Lethbridge, Alberta.
378

Sport and Social Capital 379

The consequences of sport participation on peoples lives is a topic that has

received considerable attention in the sociology of sport literature. Relevant research
dates back to the early days of the discipline and extends to more recent work,
focusing on a variety of consequences such as income (e.g., see Curtis, McTeer, &
White, 2003; Howell, Miracle, & Rees, 1984; Otto & Alwin, 1977; Picou, McCarter,
& Howell, 1985; Stempel, 2006), academic achievement (e.g., see Curtis & McTeer,
1990; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Gerber, 1996; McTeer & Curtis, 1999; Miracle &
Rees, 1994; Spreitzer, 1994), and delinquent behavior (Hastad, Segrave, Pangrazi,
& Petersen, 1984; Landers & Landers, 1978; McHale et al., 2005; Muir & Seitz,
2004; Schafer, 1969; Segrave & Hastad, 1984). Relatively little research, however,
has examined the consequences of sport involvement on a lasting participatory
lifestyle in the community. This despite the fact that sport has been recognized as
an activity that has the capacity to foster social capital.
The concept of social capital has, in the past 20 or so years, increasingly
captured the attention of scholars from a host of academic disciplines, including
sport sociology (e.g., see Curtis, McTeer, & White, 2003; Harvey, Lvesque, &
Donnelly, 2007; Jarvie, 2003; Litwin, 2003; Stempel, 2006). The diverse appeal
of the concept stems, in part, from its focus on the positive consequences of social
relationships, and how it places these positive consequences within a broader
framework of capital in which nonmonetary forms of capital can be important
sources of wealth and power (Portes, 1998, p. 2). Unfortunately, despite its appeal
and popularity, the term has been beset with conceptual ambiguity as a result of
its diverse usage and application. As such, there are numerous definitions of social
capital found in the literature. Among others, such as Pierre Bourdieu and James
Coleman, Robert Putnam is often recognized as one of the principal authors credited
with furthering the theoretical conceptualization of the term (Lin, 2001). Unlike
Bourdieu and Coleman, however, who focus primarily on the social relationships
between individuals (see Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988, 1990), Putnams conceptualization operates more so at the community level and is generally equated with
levels of involvement and trust exhibited within a community, such as newspaper
reading, membership in voluntary organizations, and trust in government (Portes,
1998). Putnam, too, is perhaps the more well-known proponent of the argument
that sport participation fosters social capital. It is for this reason in particular that
I draw on Putnams theoretical framework, rather than those of other scholars, to
conduct my analysis.
Putnam defines social capital as the features of social organization such as
networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for
mutual benefit (1995a, p. 67). Conceptualized in this way, Putnam views social
capital as a by-product of social interactions that makes subsequent collaborative
work easier and more likely (Putnam, 1995a, p. 67). The equation, using Putnams
words, is relatively straightforward: The more we connect with other people, generally speaking, the more we trust them, and vice versa (Putnam, 1995b, p. 665).
Putnam adds that it is through the accumulation of social capital that strong social
institutions can be built that, in turn, bring about economic growth and effective
government. The role that sport participation can play as a builder of social capital
is implied in the title of Putnams well-known book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse
and Revival of American Community (2000), in which he uses the image of the
lone bowler to describe the declining levels of social capital in the United States. A

380 Perks

portion of this work examined the trend among an increasing number of Americans
to shun participation in traditional sports, of which bowling leagues were one.
In a similar vein, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy
(1993), an earlier work based on a comparative study of regional governments in
Italy, Putnam documented how involvement in civic associations such as sports clubs
contributed to the building of economically prosperous and democratic societies in
northern Italy. The same was not true in southern Italy, where, according to Putnam,
participation levels in sport clubs and other associations were considerably lower,
making southern regions less civic and, as a consequence, less successful. The
most successful regions, then, were those that most closely approximated what
Putnam called the civic communitycommunities that were marked by high
levels of associational involvement (such as involvement in sport clubs), egalitarian
political relations, and a social fabric of trust and cooperation (Putnam, 1993).
It is perhaps not surprising that Putnam has identified sport participation as one
of the ways social capital can be generated. The vast majority of sports are, by their
nature, associational activities. Sports involve individuals interacting in intentional
ways, either as participants, spectators, or volunteers, in which communal rewards
are typically present. Other authors have made similar arguments. For example,
Harris (1998, p. 146) suggests that sports are often focal points for civic engagement that offer opportunities for new friendships and community cohesiveness.
According to Harris, sports are communal endeavors that can transgress gender,
racial, and class boundaries and thereby contribute to (or help reinvigorate) civil
society. A similar position is offered by Allison (1998), who, based on case studies of Georgia, Thailand, and South Africa, documents the complex but important
role sport organizations can and have played in revitalizing civil society in these
countries.
At the same time, it is important not to overemphasize the contribution that
sport participation makes to community cohesiveness and social integration. Sports
can, and do, lead to inequalities and social divisions. Putnam concedes this when
he talks about the dark side of social capital and the potential for strong bonds to
reinforce social stratification and exclusion (Putnam, 2000; see also Portes, 1998).
For example, strong bonds within a sporting club or team can make it homogeneous
in its membership and relatively hostile to outsiders (Tonts, 2005, p. 139). Although
they are changing, such divisions have made access to sport by women, gay men,
racial and ethnic minorities, and the economically disadvantaged difficult. This
image of sport as exclusionary and divisive is captured by Dyreson (2001) in his
anecdotal description of pick-up basketball venues, where dysfunctional social
energies, such as misogynist, racist, and antisocial posturing, often prevail over
functional ones.
A related argument is offered by Smith and Ingham (2003), who document
how professional sport franchises, rather than generate a stronger sense of community, often split communities apart along the divides of upper and lower classes,
residents of the city and of the suburbs, and fans and nonfans, among others. In fact,
a considerable amount of research has documented the exclusionary and divisive
potential of sport (e.g., see Collins & Buller, 2003; Elling & Claringbould, 2005;
Elling, De Knop, & Knoppers, 2001; Elling & Knoppers, 2005; Foley, 1990; Price
& Parker, 2003; Wagg, 2004). Therefore, one needs to be cautious about unabashedly championing the civic virtues of sport involvement.

Sport and Social Capital 381

Research exposing the paradoxical nature of sport and how it can simultaneously break down, as well as reinforce, social divisions has not stopped policyoriented groups, both locally and internationally, from enthusiastically supporting
the notion that sport participation positively contributes to community life. For
example, in a 2005 policy report prepared by the Conference Board of Canada,
the authors suggest that sport works by constructing associations of people that
constitute social networks with a defined purpose. These networks generate trust
and create an attitude of willingness to interact with others outside of sport (2005,
p. 30 [emphasis in original]). In a similar vein, according to a 2006 report commissioned by the Commonwealth Advisory Body on Sport, through the promotion
of independence and the development of leadership skills, sport can help build
communities and build cohesion and a sense of citizenship.
Perhaps the benefits of sport as a positive contributor to community life are
nowhere more clearly espoused than in a report prepared by the United Nations
(2003) outlining the potential contribution that sport can make toward achieving the
United Nations Millennium Development Goals, which include eradicating hunger
and poverty, promoting gender equality, and ensuring environmental sustainability.
The support for sport in this report is far-reaching. According to the report, sport
brings individuals and communities together, highlighting commonalities and
bridging cultural or ethnic divides . . . provides a forum to learn skills such
as discipline, confidence and leadership, and it teaches core principles such
as tolerance, co-operation and respect . . . can cut across barriers that divide
societies, making it a powerful tool to support conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts . . . [and] promote[s] social integration and foster[s] tolerance,
helping reduce tension and generate dialogue. (2003, p. i)
While some suggest it explicitly, underlying these reports is the proposition
that sport participation leads to social capital acquisition, although the authors
do not use these particular words. The general argument put forth is that sport participation creates social connections between people that, in turn, build trust within
a community, thereby helping establish the foundation for an active and engaged
citizenry who are likely to serve broader community interests. This argument corresponds with Putnams (1995b, p. 666) belief that civic connections and social
trust move together. In other words, the more citizens participate in their communities, the more they learn to trust each other and, correspondingly, the greater trust
that citizens hold for each other, the more likely they are to participate (Brehm &
Rahn, 1997). Although the causal direction is, in part, reciprocal, Brehm and Rahn
(as cited in Putnam, 1995b) report evidence that the causation flows mainly from
participating to trusting. As such, the personal relationships that are established
through involvement in the community have the potential to foster what Putnam
calls norms of generalized reciprocitythat Ill do this for you now, without
expecting anything immediately in returnthat should serve as a template for
further community involvement (Putnam, 2000, p. 134).
This begs the question: To what extent does participation in sport lead to
involvement in other areas of community life? Based on social capital theory, we
could presume that informal social connections established through participation in
a sport club or league should increase the likelihood of engaging in other kinds of

382 Perks

social activities in the community. This would have to be a suggestion only, however,
because the relationship between sport participation and community involvement
has, to date, not been empirically assessed. Because of what is likely a lack of
available data (i.e., there are few temporal data sources that measure involvement
in sport and involvement in the community over an extended period), there has been
very little research done that directly tests this question. And yet, the possibility that
involvement in sport contributes to a lasting participatory lifestyle in the community
in areas outside of sport is an important research question for sport sociologists
interested in the consequences of sport participation on peoples lives. The purpose
of this study is to fill this research gap by examining whether differential experiences with sport early on (i.e., in the school years) provide part of the explanation
of levels of involvement in community activities during adulthood.

Review of the Relevant Literature

One of the relevant starting points for the analysis is literature that attempts to
resolve the reasons why people become involved in the community, both formally,
such as voluntary or political organizations, and informally, such as socializing
with friends. Research in Canada and other countries, including extensive work
in the United States, has suggested that differential early experiences with youth
extracurricular activities is one of the factors that helps explain levels of community involvement among adults (e.g., see Beck & Jennings, 1982; Curtis & Perks,
2007; Glanville, 1999; Hanks, 1981; Hanks & Eckland, 1978; Janoski & Wilson,
1995; Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, & Snyder, 1998; Otto, 1976; Smith, 1999; Verba,
Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Youniss, McClellan, & Yates, 1997; Zaff, Moore, &
Papillo, 2003). Generally, this research shows that people who are more involved
in extracurricular activities as youths are more likely to be active in the community in various ways when they reach adulthood than people who are less involved
as youths. In fact, some of these studies even suggest that youth extracurricular
involvement is a stronger predictor of later community involvement than other
socioeconomic variables that have been described elsewhere in the literature as
among the strongest social background predictors of involvement, such as income
level and educational attainment (e.g., see Curtis & Perks, 2007; Hanks & Eckland, 1978; Otto, 1976). As such, the research literature suggests that those who
are interested in increasing community awareness and involvement among adults
would benefit from focusing some of their attention on extracurricular activities
directed at children and youth.
The reason for the relationship between early and later involvement has been
explained in a variety of ways. Most explanations, however, have been framed in
terms similar to those of Putnams. That is, as a consequence or pay off of early social
capital accumulation. For example, according to Hanks and Eckland (1978):
The extracurricular program can be viewed as a training ground for adolescents
for participation in fundamentally similar organizations as adults, an arena in
which the skills and habits conducive to membership in voluntary associations
initially develop. Extracurricular activities expose students to a network of
social relations, consisting in part of school staff and achievement oriented
peers, which tends to bind their members to the school and to its normative

Sport and Social Capital 383

structure just as adult voluntary associationsare the cement which links the
individual to the larger society. (p. 482)
More recently, Eccles and Barber (1999) have suggested that youths actively
engaged in the community have more opportunities than those not engaged to learn
valuable skills and competencies that could be useful in other areas of life, such
as, opportunities to acquire practical social, physical, and interpersonal skills; to
establish valuable social networks; and to develop feelings of belonging and a sense
of agency within the community. Similarly, Youniss, McLellan, and Yates (1997)
propose that extracurricular activity involvement
helps youth incorporate civic involvement into their identity during an opportune moment in its formative stages. Participation promotes the inclusion of a
civic character in the construction of identity that, in turn, persists and mediates
civic engagement into adulthood. The formation of civic identity, then, is the
hypothesized developmental link across time and the factor that differentiates
adults in the degree of their civic engagement. (p. 624)
The research that looks specifically at youth sport as an extracurricular activity that has the capacity to foster community involvement remains quite partial,
however. For example, of the numerous studies cited above, some did not include
youth sport among the extracurricular activities that were examined (e.g., see
Beck & Jennings, 1982; Hanks & Eckland, 1978). Of the studies that did examine youth sport, it was typically included within an aggregate measure in which
various extracurricular activities, such as involvement in student government,
community service, or religious participation, were combined into a single index
(e.g., see Curtis & Perks, 2007; Glanville, 1999; Hanks, 1981; Smith, 1999; Zaff,
Moore, & Papillo, 2003). This is despite research suggesting that different types of
extracurricular activities might have different effects on adult behaviors (e.g., see
Eccles & Barber, 1999; Gerber, 1996; Glanville). Furthermore, in work that has
looked specifically at early sport involvement as a pathway to later participation,
the emphasis to date has been on youth sport participation as a predictor of adult
sport engagement (e.g., see Curtis, McTeer, & White, 1999; Howell & McKenzie, 1987; Vanreusel et al., 1997). These studies have generally shown a positive
association between youth sport participation and later sport participation as an
adult. Although the ideas presented in these studies are to some extent relevant,
they do not address the possibility that youth sport participation might lead to later
involvement in community-oriented activities outside of sport.
It also remains unclear whether any positive effect of youth sport participation
on community involvement extends over many years of life. One might speculate
that the effect should diminish over time, given that people may gradually grow
distant from friendships and associations that were made at an early age. The relevant longitudinal panel studies cited above, however, do not address the extent to
which the effects of extracurricular involvement on later involvement persist, since
they only cover a relatively short period over the lifecycle. For example, Hanks and
Ecklands (1978), Janoski and Wilsons (1995), and Youniss, McClellan, and Yates
(1997) respondents were only about 15 years beyond high school, and Beck and
Jennings (1982), Hanks (1981), Smiths (1999), and Zaff, Moore, and Papillos
(2003) data covered an even shorter period beyond high school. A notable exception

384 Perks

to this is Curtis and Perks (2007) study looking at early experiences with voluntary
community activities and adult community involvement. Curtis and Perks found
that the effect of youth activities upon adult involvement in the community was not
weaker for the older age cohorts than the younger age cohorts, and was in some
cases stronger. They concluded that the effects of community involvement in the
school years on adult community involvement do not diminish, even decades after
the school years. However, since they included youth sport participation within an
aggregate measure of early involvement, they did not look at whether the effect
of early sport experiences on later involvement extended to later periods in the
lifecycle. Given that the literature suggests that different extracurricular activities
might have different predictive effects on adult community involvement, one might
also suggest that the longevity of these effects could also vary.

Research Questions
Based on the paucity of studies of the relationship between early sport involvement and later community activities, as well as the theoretical support for the
existence of such a relationship that is found in the literature on social capital, I
shall present an analysis of available Canadian data addressing the following two
research questions:
1. Do the effects of early experiences with sport participation extend to
involvement in a broad range of community activities as an adult, ranging
across formal and informal social involvement and across extra-family and
family activities?
2. Do the effects of early sport experiences on community involvement extend to
later periods in the lifecycle (i.e., do effects of youth sport lessen or disappear
with increased age)?

Data Source, Variables, and Analysis Procedure

Data Source
The data for the analysis came from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (NSGVP) conducted by Statistics Canada (2001). As
its name suggests, the NSGVP collected information from a sample of Canadians
ages 15 and over on the ways in which they supported one another through their
involvement in giving, volunteering, and participation in the community. The sample
for the NSGVP was based on a stratified, multistage design employing probability
sampling at all stages. The majority of data were collected over the telephone. In
total, 14,724 Canadians were surveyed, reflecting a 63% response rate. Excluded
from the surveys coverage were residents in remote areas of Canada, persons
living on native reserves, full-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and
those living in institutions. Together these accounted for approximately 2% of the
Canadian population ages 15 and over. Thus, although highly representative, the
findings from the present study should not be viewed as being representative of all
Canadians. (For more details, see Hall, McKeown, & Roberts, 2001).

Sport and Social Capital 385

Because respondents who had recently graduated from high school could not
be separated from younger respondents, the 15-to-24 age group was removed to
ensure that respondents still in high school were excluded. Therefore, the results
are based on respondents who were 25 years of age and over at the time of the
survey (N = 13,000).

Independent Variable
The measure of youth sport participation was based on a retrospective question asking respondents whether or not they had participated in any organized
team sports during their school years. Specifically, the question asked: Did you
do any of the following things when you were in grade school or high school. . . .
Did you participate in an organized team sport? (such as a baseball league, hockey
league, etc.)1

Dependent Variables
For the analysis, I incorporated 11 alternate measures of adult community
involvement: volunteered informally; volunteered formally; number of volunteer
organizations; number of volunteer hours; number of association memberships;
number of donations; amount of donations; voting in recent elections; attending
to news and community affairs; socializing with relatives; and socializing with
friends.2 As such, the analysis covers a broad range of community involvement,
including informal and formal volunteering, associational involvement, and donating, political, and familial activities.

Control Variables
Control variables were entered into the analysis to rule out spurious relationships between the independent and dependent measures. The following sociodemographic variables were introduced as statistical controls: age, gender, marital
status, presence of child in the household less than 18 years old, education level,
self-rated health, working status, household income, religiosity, country of birth,
and length of time in community.3
A plausible interpretation of any positive associations between youth sport
participation and adult community involvement is that youth sport participants are
more frequently involved later in life in sport-related voluntary and/or community
activities (e.g., as players, coaches, members of sport clubs, etc.). This is particularly
likely given that the previous literature on youth sport participation cited earlier
has shown positive associations between sport participation as a youth and later
sport participation as an adult. It might be the case that early participation in sport
makes little or no difference to adult levels of involvement in community activities
outside of sport. This would counter any claims that the social skills and networks
fostered through sport participation spill over into other areas of involvement. In an
attempt to rule out this interpretation, a control for current involvement in a sports
or recreation organization was included in the analysis, based on the question,
Are you a member or participant in a sports or recreation organization? (Baseball
league, tennis club, golf club, etc.).4

386 Perks

At the same time, it is conceivable that adding a control for current involvement in a sports or recreation organization was over controlling, because, as the
literature on social capital would suggest is the case, respondents who were involved
in a sports or recreation organization would be more likely than respondents who
were not involved in a sports or recreation organization to be involved in other
community activities. Therefore, I present the findings before and after the control
for current involvement in a sports or recreation organization was included. Furthermore, because the question on sport involvement as a youth in the NSGVP relied
on recall, adding current involvement in a sports or recreation organization as a
control variable also helps rule out the interpretation that adults who were currently
involved in a sports or recreation organization might have better remembered their
involvement in sport as a youth than their inactive counterparts because current
involvement reminded them of their earlier involvement.

Analysis Procedure
The primary statistical procedure used here is Multiple Classification Analysis
(MCA). This ANOVA-like procedure provides average deviations from the grand
mean of a dependent variable (i.e., the estimated mean of a dependent variable for all
respondents in the sample) for each category of a predictor variable, both before and
after adjusting for the effects of other variables. Positive numbers indicate average
deviations above the grand mean and negative numbers indicate average deviations
below the grand mean. MCA also provides an F test for statistical significance and
eta (or correlation ratios) and beta coefficients (or partial correlation ratios). When
squared, the beta coefficients roughly approximate the percentage contribution
that each predictor variable makes to the variance in the dependent variable after
the effects of all of the other variables in the model are controlled. This measure
is useful in that it provides information on a variables relative ability to predict
the dependent variable via a comparison of each variables unique contribution to
the variance explained. (For more details on this analysis procedure, see Andrews,
Morgan, Sonquist, & Klein, 1973).

Results
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents who did
not participate in an organized youth sport compared with those who did. As the
table shows, of the 12,387 individuals who responded to the question on youth sport
participation, 8,242 (66.5%) had participated in a youth sport and 4,145 (33.5%)
had not. It is clear from the table that there were significant differences between
these two groups. As was expected based on the previous literature on gender and
sport, relative to females, males were more likely to have participated in a youth
sport. Youth sport participants were also disproportionately found in the younger
age categories, as well as among respondents who were married or common-law
and respondents with at least one child. The table also shows that youth sport participants were overrepresented in more privileged status groups. They were overrepresented in the higher education and more active labor force categories. Similar
patterns held for household income, with youth sport participants overrepresented
in the upper income categories and underrepresented in the lower categories.

Table 1 Percentages of Respondents Without and With Youth Sport

Experience by Sociodemographic Variables

Age
2534
3544
4554
5564
65+
Gender
male
female
Marital status
not married/non-common-law
married/common-law
Presence of child
no
yes
Education level
less than high school
high school
some postsecondary
college diploma
university degree
Self-rated health
poor
fair
good
very good
excellent
Working status
not working
part time
full time
Household income
less than $20,000
$20,000$39,999
$40,000$59,999
$60,00099,999
$100,000 and over
Religiosity
not at all religious
not very religious
somewhat religious
very religious
Place of birth
Canada
outside of Canada
Length of time in community
2 years or less
35years
610years
more than 10 years
Current involvement in sport org.
no
yes

Without youth sport

experience (%)
n = 4,145

With youth sport

experience (%)
n = 8,242

22.6
27.2
32.0
40.1
48.4

77.4
72.8
68.0
59.9
51.6

24.5
40.3

75.5
59.7

37.8
31.2

62.2
68.8

37.3
26.1

62.7
73.9

50.0
32.2
27.7
28.2
25.9

50.0
67.8
72.3
71.8
74.1

46.6
41.8
35.2
31.9
25.3

53.4
58.2
64.8
68.1
74.7

44.7
32.1
25.0

55.3
67.9
75.0

48.6
39.7
28.9
26.0
19.8

51.4
60.3
71.1
74.0
80.2

30.9
30.5
33.1
40.2

69.1
69.5
66.9
59.8

33.2
34.3

66.8
65.7

30.1
28.3
29.9
35.1

69.9
71.7
70.1
64.9

38.2
16.6

61.8
83.4

Note. Except for place of birth, all differences between non-youth sport participants and youth sport
participants were statistically significant (determined using 2) at p .001.
387

388 Perks

Youth sport participants were also overrepresented among respondents new to a

community and those who were less religious. No difference was found between
respondents who were born in Canada and those born outside of Canada. In terms
of current involvement in a sports or recreation organization, active members or
participants in a sports or recreation organization as an adult were more likely to
have participated in a youth sport. This too was expected given the literature showing a positive association between youth sport participation and sport participation
in adulthood. Bivariate analyses indicated that all of the differences between nonyouth sport and youth sport participants, except place of birth, were statistically
significant (p .001).
In Table 2, I turn to the question of the influence of youth sport participation
on adult community involvement prior to the addition of control variables. The
table presents the zero-order correlations between youth sport participation and
levels of involvement in the 11 community activities for the total sample, as well
as across different age groups. As the first column shows, every correlation was
positive and statistically significant, suggesting that those who participated in a
youth sport were more involved in the community as an adult than those who did
not participate. The correlations, however, were modest in strength, ranging from
.03 to .15. Nonetheless, the direction of the relationships and their statistical significance support the general proposition that participation in a youth sport had a
positive predictive influence on whether or not respondents were currently involved
in the community, as well as their levels of involvement.
As the correlations in the subsequent columns show, the patterns held for
separate age groups. All of the correlations across age groups were positive, and
all but one was statistically significant. These correlations provide some indication
of the extent to which the effect of youth sport on adult community involvement
extended to later years in the life cycle. What is clear from the table is that the
apparent effects of early youth sport participation on current community activities
were not weaker among older age cohorts. Thus, it does not appear that the effect of
youth sport diminished in strength over time.5 In fact, the youth-sport effect appears
to be strongest among the 65 and over age group for the majority of community
activities. These findings suggest two things. First, they suggest that individuals
involved in organized sport at an early age are more involved in the community
in various ways as an adult than those who are not. Second, they suggest that the
effect of youth sport on adult community involvement persists throughout the life
cycle. In other words, although one might expect that early sport involvement has
its greatest predictive potential a relatively short time after the sport experience
has taken place, my results suggest that organized youth sport predicts levels of
community involvement well into the later years of adulthood.
Table 3 reports the findings from the MCA procedure. The average deviations
from the grand mean for non-youth sport participants and youth sport participants
for the 11 community-involvement activities are presented. The table also shows
how these deviations changed under conditions for controls. Column 1 refers
to results comparing non-youth sport participants and youth sport participants
before controls; column 2 refers to results after the effects of age, gender, marital
status, presence of a child, education, self-rated health, working status, household
income, religiosity, place of birth, and length of time in the community were taken
into account; and column 3 refers to the results after all of the control variables

 389

.15
.08
.07
.05*
.07
.13
.03
.08
.07**
.05*
.08

.12
.03
.04
.05
.10
.13

2534
(n = 2,097)

.15
.12
.11
.06
.11

Total
(N = 11,255)

.08
.09

.12
.04*
.07
.06

.11
.08
.10
.05**
.08

.05**
.08

.13
.04*
.05*
.09

.14
.11
.11
.08
.11

3544
4554
(n = 3,018) (n = 2,347)

Note. Smallest Ns across each analysis are presented*p .05; **p .01; p .001

Volunteered informally
Volunteered formally
# of volunteer organizations
# of volunteer hours
# of association memberships
# of donations
Amount of donations
Voting in recent elections
Attend to news and current
affairs
Socializing with relatives
Socializing with friends

Dependent measures

Age groups

.09
.17

.12
.06*
.05*
.17

.14
.10
.10
.06*
.12

5564
(n = 1,746)

.12
.13

.16
.06**
.12
.11

.14
.17
.13
.09
.18

65+
(n = 2,047)

Table 2 Zero-Order Correlations Between Youth Sport Participation and Adult Community
Involvement Activities by Age Group

390

Grand
mean
.83
.53
.99
100.01
.89
4.20
310.62
2.36
2.60
2.26
1.93

N
10,967

12,070

12,070

12,070

12,061

12,070

12,070

11,867

12,062

12,047

12,050

No
.08
.15
.08
.12
.19
.11
19.08
.06
.15
.10
.54
.11
43.71
.04
.04
.03
.05
.05
.12
.09
.17
.13
.09

.06

.03

.02

21.75

.27

.08

9.49

.09

.04

Yes
.04

No
.07
.12
.06
.08
.14
.08
18.20
.05
.10
.07
.46
.09
26.87
.02*
.07
.04
.06
.05
.10
.08
.12
.10
.06

.05

.03

.03

13.37

.23

.05

9.06

.07

.03

Yes
.03

No
.06
.12
.04
.06
.10
.06
14.40
.04
.07
.05
.39
.08
23.60
.02*
.06
.04
.06
.05
.10
.08
.11
.08

.05

.05

.03

.03

11.74

.20

.04

7.16

.05

.02

Yes
.03

*p .05; **p .01; p .001

Note. Column 1 = no controls; Column 2 = controls for age, gender, marital status, presence of child, education level, self-rated health, working status, household
income, religiosity, place of birth, and length of time in community; Column 3 = same controls as in Column 2 plus control for current involvement in a sport or
recreation organization. Respondents with missing values on any of the variables used in the analysis were excluded.

Dependent measures
Volunteered informally
eta/beta
Volunteered formally
eta/beta
Number of volunteer organizations
eta/beta
Number of volunteer hours
eta/beta
Number of association memberships
eta/beta
Number of donations
eta/beta
Amount of donations
eta/beta
Voting in recent elections
eta/beta
Attend to news and current affairs
eta/beta
Socializing with relatives
eta/beta
Socializing with friends
eta/beta

When you were in grade school or high school, did you participate in an
organized team sport?
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3

Table 3 Deviations From the Grand Mean for Community Involvement Activities by Youth Sport Participation
Without and With Controls

Sport and Social Capital 391

were added to the analysis, including current involvement in a sports or recreation

organization. Using the number of volunteer hours in column 1 as an example,
the calculated deviation of 19.08 indicates that, on average, non-youth sport
participants reported volunteering 19.08 hours below the grand mean, or about
81 hr/year. In contrast, the calculated deviation of 9.49 indicates that, on average,
youth sport participants reported volunteering 9.49 hours above the grand mean,
or about 110 hr/year. In subsequent columns, this deviation was calculated after
the effects of the other predictor variables (e.g., age, gender, marital status, etc.)
were held constant.
As would be expected, the results from column 1 are consistent with the zeroorder correlations reported in Table 2. That is, before adjusting for the effects of
controls, non-youth sport participants scored below the grand mean on all measures
of community involvement, whereas youth sport participants scored above the
grand mean. Similar to Table 2, all of the reported differences between non-youth
sport participants and youth sport participants on the dependent measures were
statistically significant (p .001).
After the inclusion of the control variables (column 2), the youth sport
participationadult community involvement relationships remained statistically
significant and, as expected, positive. It is important to note that the decrease in the
strength of the relationships between youth sport participation and the measures of
community involvement after the inclusion of the controls indicates that the added
control variables accounted for a portion of the variance in community involvement
that was attributed to youth sport participation in the uncontrolled analysis. Because
the effect of youth sport participation remained statistically significant after the
addition of the control variables, however, the results also indicate that the effect of
youth sport participation on community involvement activities was not accounted
for by the variability in the 11 sociodemographic variables.
The inclusion of current involvement in a sports or recreation organization as a
control variable (column 3) did not supplant the effect of youth sport participation
on adult levels of community involvement. As in column 2, although the youthsport effect weakened, its statistical significance, and the positive direction of the
youth sportcommunity involvement relationships, remained. Overall, the results
from Table 3 offer additional evidence in support of the conclusion that youth
sport participation positively predicts involvement in the community as an adult.
Further, when current involvement in a sports or recreation organization is added
as a control, the findings suggest that youth sport positively predicts involvement
in community activities outside of sport.6,7
In Table 4, I consider further the issue of the effect of youth sport involvement
on adult community activities. Here, however, I examine the ability of youth sport
participation to predict adult community involvement relative to the other predictor
variables included in the analysis. The numbers presented in Table 4 represent the
beta coefficients from the fully controlled MCA procedure, which, when squared,
are approximately equivalent to the percentage contribution of a variable to the
explained variance in the dependent measure after taking into account all of the other
variables in the model. A large beta coefficient suggests that the variable provides
a substantial unique contribution to the variance in the dependent variable.
As Table 4 shows, the estimated beta coefficients for youth sport across the
dependent measures ranged from .02 to .12 after controls. Although these effects

392

.21
.13
.25
.24

.11
.14

.08
.02*
.04
.05

.08
.08

(3)

.07
.01

.12
.00
.03
.04

.03**
.01

.05
.05
.06

(4)

.02
.06**

.04
.05
.04
.05

.00
.00

.02
.02
.01

(5)

.02*
.04**

.02
.02
.00
.06

.01
.04**

.00
.07
.09

(6)

.07
.04**

.18
.12
.10
.13

.11
.23

.06
.20
.20

(7)

.06
.08

.04
.03
.04
.05

.05
.03

.08
.07
.06

(8)

.01
.04**

.04**
.01
.00
.03

.07
.09

.03*
.04
.05

(9)

.03
.07

.20
.17
.07
.05

.01
.09

.04*
.04*
.05**

.07
.04

.15
.21
.09
.05

.07
.17

.08
.10
.10

(10)

.04
.00

.04
.01
.14
.01

.02
.01

.07
.04
.04

(11)

(12)

.11
.02

.09
.01
.17
.04

.05
.06

.03*
.06
.06

.05
.09

.10
.02*
.04
.02

.09
.15

.04
.15
.17

(13)

Note. Estimated beta coefficients are from the fully controlled modelsPredictor variables are as follows: (1) youth sport, (2) age, (3) gender, (4) marital status, (5) presence of child, (6) education level, (7) self-rated health, (8) working status, (9) household income, (10) religiosity, (11) place of birth, (12) length of time in community,
(13) involvement in a sport or recreation organization.
*p .05; **p .01; p .001.

.08
.18

.04
.05

Volunteered informally
Volunteered formally
Number of volunteer
organizations
Number of volunteer hours
Number of association
memberships
Number of donations
Amount of donations
Voting in recent elections
Attend to news and current
affairs
Socializing with relatives
Socializing with friends

(2)

.07
.10
.11

(1)

.12
.06
.06

Dependent measures

Predictor variables

Table 4 Estimated Beta Coefficients for Youth Sport Participation and Sociodemographic Variables

Sport and Social Capital 393

are small, the effects of the other predictor variables in the table are instructive
in that they provide points of reference with which the youth-sport effects can be
compared. What is clear from these other effects is that small effects are by no
means unusual, even among some of the strongest predictors of community involvement suggested by the literature. Judged against the effects of the other variables
in the model, sport participation was a relatively moderate predictor of the various
measures of community involvement, and in a few cases was among the strongest
predictors. For example, youth sport participation was the strongest predictor of
informal volunteering ( = .12, p .001), and was among the strongest predictors
of attending to the news ( = .05, p .001), and socializing with family ( = .08,
p .001) and friends ( = .08, p .001).

Discussion and Conclusions

The findings from this study support the general proposition that youth sport
participation has a positive association with adult community involvement. This is
consistent with the interpretation that sport participation early in life fosters social
capital, and that this social capital pays off in access to higher levels of involvement
in the community as an adult. This finding is supportive of Putnams claim that
sport is an arena within which informal social connections are formed and where
each encounter is a tiny investment in social capital (Putnam, 2000, p. 93). The
findings are also consistent with previous research showing that participation in
extracurricular activities as a youth is a basic building block for further involvement
in various community activities as an adult. The results of this study go beyond
the previous research, however, by singling out youth sport participation as one
of those extracurricular activities. In addition, while most of the research that has
been conducted to date examining the consequences of youth extracurricular activities on later involvement has focused on adults during a relatively period beyond
the school years, this study adds to this work by examining the consequences of
early sport participation across a much broader range of age categories. The findings show that the positive effect of youth sport participation on adult community
involvement lasts well into adulthood, and its strength does not lessen over time
regardless of how long ago the youth sport experience took place. Collectively, these
findings establish the positive contribution of organized youth sport participation
to continued community involvement throughout the life cycle.
What are the implications of these findings? Most important, the findings are
consistent with precisely the sort predicted by writings on social capital. That is, as
social capital theory suggests, current community involvement is, in part, the result
of early participatory experiences in the community, of which experiences with
youth sport are one. Thus, it makes some sense for those interested in increasing
community involvement among adults to focus some of their attention on increasing
sport participation among children and youth. The findings also, to some extent,
counter the stereotype that sport participants are one dimensional. Instead, the
findings suggest that sport participants tend to be more socially integrated than
non-sport participants. This is demonstrated by the fact that the youth sport effect
extends to such a wide range of non-sport-related community activities.
It is important to note that although the present analysis shows positive and
statistically significant youth sport effects before and after controls, the contribution

394 Perks

of youth sport to the variance in the community involvement activities was quite
small. In fact, based on the eta/beta coefficients, the estimated percentage of variance
in each community involvement measure that was accounted for by youth sport was
no greater than 2.3% before controls, whereas the percentage of variance explained
after controls was even smaller. As we know, with relatively large sample sizes,
small effects are often statistically significant, but this does not necessarily mean that
the effects are substantively significant. This potential critique, however, is to some
extent countered by the patterns of findings. That is, across 11 different measures of
community involvement, all of the youth sport effects are in the direction predicted
by the theoretical and interpretive writings on social capital provided at the starting
point of this analysis. Therefore, the use of multiple dependent measures lends
legitimacy to the substantive importance of youth sport participation as a precursor
to later involvement in the community.
In addition, what is interesting about the findings presented in Table 4 is that
the predictive import of youth sport participation was comparable to most, and in
some cases all, of the sociodemographic variables that were entered as controls.
For example, youth sport participation was, for some of the measures of community involvement, a stronger predictor than marital status, presence of a child,
working status, place of birth, and even gender and income. Importantly, these
sociodemographic variables are commonly indicated in the literature as being
among the strongest predictors of community involvement and yet, in some cases,
youth sport participation was a stronger predictor. Overall, although the youth sport
effect itself was small relative to many of the other predictor variables included in
the model, it was a comparatively modest to strong predictor of adult community
involvement.
It is also worthwhile to remember that the measure of youth sport used in
the analysis was somewhat crude, in that it was dichotomous and did not probe
in great detail the extent of youth sport participation. Had a measure that did so
been available in the NSGVP, the predictive import of youth sport might have
been even stronger. With this in mind, researchers testing further the theoretical
model presented here would do well to look more closely at the extent of sport
involvement, as well as different kinds of sports, in order to determine what level
of exposure and type of organizational context are most beneficial to continued
community involvement. For example, there could be stronger predictive effects
found for team sports (such as soccer or baseball) than for individual sports (such as
tennis or figure skating), because team sports offer participants more opportunities
to establish social relationships and thus are more likely to foster higher levels of
trust and a greater sense of cohesiveness that, in turn, might lead to higher levels
of community involvement later in the life cycle.
It is also possible that although the findings indicate that there is a net positive impact of youth sport participation on later community involvement overall,
there could be some youth sports or specific characteristics of youth sports that
inhibit adult community involvement. For example, highly competitive sports,
when contrasted with recreational sports, might be more likely to produce negative
feelings among participants that undermine, rather than enhance, social cohesion
and subsequent levels of community involvement. In other words, the mechanism
of social capital building based on repeated social interactions might fail in highly
competitive youth sports because of the antagonism competition generates between

Sport and Social Capital 395

opponents. At the same time, competition can be a positive aspect of the youth sport
experience in that it may lead to closer bonds between teammates. These same close
bonds, however, also have the potential to exclude others. As I noted earlier, this is
what Putnam and others have in mind when they talk about the dark side of social
capital. Although the strong bonds generated through competition might enhance
further community involvement among some participants, these same social bonds
could restrict the involvement of others. As such, although youth sports provide the
impetus for later involvement for some people, they may have the opposite effect for
others. Of course, these are additional questions for researchers who are interested
in considering the social capital potential of sport in future work.
Though I have attempted to rule out various interpretations through the inclusion of control variables, it is important to note the findings can be explained in
other ways. For one, the findings are limited in that, because of the datas secondary
nature, measures of social class background could not be included in the analysis.
This is unfortunate because there is evidence that an individuals involvement in
sport as a youth and in the community as an adult are, at least in part, structured
by the class positions of their parents (e.g., see Collins & Buller, 2003; Hanks
& Eckland, 1978; Janoski & Wilson, 1995; Wilson, 2002). Without controls for
class background, it could be the case that the relationships between youth sport
participation and the community involvement measures found in the present study
are spurious. At the same time, parents class positions also appear to have significant consequences for their offsprings educational attainment (e.g., see Nakhaie
& Curtis, 1998). Thus, the inclusion of education level as a control variable in the
analysis speaks against this alternate explanation, because education level could be
viewed as a proxy measure for social class background. Regardless, future work
would do well to look more closely at the effects of social class background on the
youth sport participationadult community involvement relationship.
In addition to the possibility that social class background might be a confounding factor, there is another alternate explanation, which has been noted elsewhere
in the literature (e.g., see Curtis, McTeer, & White, 2003; Curtis & Perks, 2007;
Spreitzer, 1994). It is conceivable that youths who possess certain personality characteristics (such as being more sociable or outgoing) are more likely to
become involved in youth sport. After all, a common theme in sport, especially at
the competitive level, is differential recruitment into the sport domain (Spreitzer,
p. 373). Individuals are selected based on a number of factors, of which prosocial
personality characteristics could be one. Thus, rather than being assigned randomly
to sport participant and non-sport participant groupings, individuals arrive in particular channels that determine future behavior as a result of a specific filtering or
screening process. If we assume some constancy in personality characteristics as
people age, then this might be one of the reasons that many of the same people
involved in sport at an early age become involved in the community later in life.
At the same time, if the selection of particular personalities helps explain the link
between early sport participation and later community involvement, we could
inquire into what leads to the development of these types of personalities, as well
as how social capital accumulation at an even earlier age could be implicated in
their development.
Unfortunately, unpacking this possibility goes beyond the NSGVP data.
Although it is feasible that certain personality characteristics that exist prior to

396 Perks

engagement in sport, rather than social capital accumulation through sport, account
for the positive findings reported here, further studies are required to carefully
test this alternative explanation. It would also be informative to have studies that
seek to examine other aspects of Putnams approach to social capital not covered
in the present study, such as trust in others and the possible causal role sport participation may play (or may not play) in the evolution of trust between members
of a community. Ideally, studies such as these would be based on long-term panel
designs in which participants were followed over a number of years, and various
personality, trust, and activity measurements were collected at several points in
time over the lifespan. Of course, the time and cost of longitudinal studies are
considerable. The time and cost of secondary data analysis, in comparison, are far
less extensive. Therefore, these results indicating that youth sport participation is a
positive predictor of adult community involvement provide the initial groundwork
and support for further examination of this issue and useful directions that future
research should take. Until panel studies are available, the interpretation that youth
are being selected into sport, rather than accumulating social capital through sport,
cannot be ruled out. As such, this attempt to assess the relationship between youth
sport and adult community involvement should be viewed as preliminary. My
hope is that these results provide sufficient justification to call for further research
attention to the hypothesis that sport fosters social capital.
Before concluding, one final comment is worth noting. Since the publication of
his studies on Italian and American communities, Putnams work has been subject
to numerous theoretical and empirical critiques (e.g., see Berman, 1997; Navarro,
2002; Putzel, 1997). Although it was beyond the scope of this article to discuss
these critiques, a challenge to Putnams central thesis can be found in the present
study. It seems that youth sport participation has, in recent decades, increased in
Canada. This can be seen in Table 1, in which the percentage of respondents in
each age category who reported that they had participated in a youth sport increases
among progressively younger age cohorts. As the table shows, among 2534 year
olds (i.e., respondents born between 1966 and 1975), 77.4% participated in a youth
sport; among 3544 year olds (i.e., respondents born between 19561965), 72.8%
participated in a youth sport, and so on, up to participants 65 and over (i.e., respondents born before 1936), of which 51.6% participated in a youth sport. This finding
contradicts Putnams bowling alone thesisthat levels of associational involvement are declining (albeit, he applies his thesis of declining levels of associational
involvement to people living in the United States). The results from Table 1 show
that, at least with youth sport participation, this does not appear to be true in Canada.
And yet, as Putnams findings have become increasingly popular, many people have
begun to lament the possibility of declines in associational activity. Though it is
true that Putnams work on social capital has garnered significant acclaim, other
works, situated in both the United States (e.g., see Paxton, 1999; Rotolo, 1999) and
Canada (e.g., see Baer, Curtis, & Grabb, 2001; Curtis, Baer, Grabb, & Perks, 2003;),
have countered Putnams claims of declining associational activity. The present
analysis, too, counters Putnams work, and at least suggests that concerns about
declining community involvement might be unjustified. Instead, because youth sport
participation appears to be on the rise, and the analysis offers evidence that youth
sport participation leads to higher levels of community involvement as an adult,
it might be more appropriate to be optimistic about the prospects for higher (or at
least sustained) levels of community involvement in Canada in the future.

Sport and Social Capital 397

Notes
1. Responses were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes.
2. Respondents were considered to have volunteered informally if they answered yes to having
provided unpaid help to others outside of their household and not through an organization in the
past 12 months in one or more of the following ways: housework; yard or maintenance work;
shopping or driving someone to appointments; providing care to the sick or elderly; visiting the
elderly; babysitting without being paid; writing letters, solving problems, finding information,
or filling out forms for someone; or helping with the operation of a business or with farm work.
Respondents were considered to have volunteered formally if they answered yes to having done
unpaid volunteer work in the past 12 months in one or more of the following ways as part of a
group or organization: canvassing, campaigning, or fundraising; unpaid member of a board or
committee; providing information or help to educate others; organizing or supervising activities for
an organization; consulting, executive, office, or administrative work; providing care or support;
providing any health care in a hospital or a senior citizens home; providing assistance to anyone
as a member of a self-help mutual-aid group; collecting, serving, or delivering food or other goods;
helping to maintain, repair, or build facilities; volunteer driving; help with first-aid, fire-fighting
or search and rescue; or engaging in activities aimed at protecting the environment.
Number of volunteer organizations was based on the question, In the past 12 months, for how
many organizations did you volunteer? Responses ranged from 0 to a maximum of 20.
Number of volunteer hours was a derived variable based on the sum of all hours reported for
volunteering in all organizations in the past 12 months. Reported hours ranged from 0 to 4,800.
Number of association memberships was based on responses to a set of questions asking respondents whether they were members or participants in any of the following community organizations: a service club or fraternal association; a work-related organization such as a union or
professional association; a political organization; a cultural, education, or hobby organization; a
religious-affiliated group; or a school group, a neighborhood, or a civic or community association. Responses to each of these questions were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes, and then summed,
creating an index ranging from 0 to 6.
Number of donations was based on responses to a set of questions asking respondents if and how
many times they had donated to a nonprofit organization in any of the following ways in the past
12 months: responding to a request through the mail; paying to attend a charity event; using payroll
deductions; sponsoring someone in an event; donating money in the name of someone who has
passed away or when asked by someone at work, someone doing door-to-door canvassing, or
someone canvassing for a charitable organization at a shopping center or street corner; responding
to a telephone request; donating through a collection at a place of worship; responding to a television or radio request; approaching a nonprofit or charitable organization on your own; donating
any stocks or stock options; donating via the internet; or any other methods. The number of times
respondents gave in these ways was then summed, creating an index ranging from 0 to 59.
Amount of donations was a derived variable based on the sum of total dollars donated to nonprofit organizations in the past 12 months by the respondent. Reported total amounts ranged
from 0 to $33,485.
Voting in recent elections was based on three questions asking respondents whether or not they
voted in the last federal election, provincial election, or municipal election. The responses were
coded such that each respondent received a score of 0 for no and 1 for yes; the responses were
then summed, creating an index that ranged from 0 to 3.
Attending to news and community affairs was based on the question, How frequently do you follow
news and current affairs? (e.g., international, national, regional or local) Responses were coded
as 0 = rarely or never, 1 = several times each month, 2 = several times each week, and 3 = daily.
Socializing with relatives was based on the question, How frequently do you socialize with parents
or other relatives? Reponses were coded as: 0 = not at all, 1 = a few times a year, 2 = a few times

398 Perks

a month, and 3 = every week. Socializing with friends was based on the question, How frequently
do you socialize with friends who live outside the neighborhood? Reponses were coded as: 0 =
not at all, 1 = a few times a year, 2 = a few times a month, and 3 = every week.
3. Age was coded as 0 = 2534, 1 = 3544, 2 = 4554, 3 = 5564, 4 = 65 and over; gender was
coded as 0 = male, 1 = female.
Marital status was coded as 0 = not married/non-common-law, 1 = married/common-law.
Presence of child in the household less than 18 years old was coded as 0 = no child present, 1
= child present.
Education level was coded as 0 = less than high school, 1 = high school, 2 = some post-secondary
education, 3 = college diploma, 4 = university degree.
Self-rated health was coded as 0 = poor, 1 = fair, 2 = good, 3 = very good, 4 = excellent.
Working status was coded as 0 = not working, 1 = part-time (<30 hrs./week), 2 = full-time (>30
hrs./week).
Household income was coded as 0 = less than $20,000, 1 = $20,000$39,999, 2 = $40,000$59,999,
3 = $60,000$99,999, 4 = $100,000 and over.
Religiosity was coded as 0 = not at all religious, 1 = not very religious, 2 = somewhat religious, 3
= very religious; place of birth was coded as 0 = born in Canada, 1 = born outside of Canada.
Length of time living in community was coded as 0 = 2 years or less, 1 = 35 years, 2 = 610
years, 3 = more than 10 years.
4. Responses were coded as 0 = no, and 1 = yes.
5. Given that the question asking respondents about their participation in an organized youth
sport relied on recall, such temporal comparisons should be viewed cautiously, because it is possible that some older respondents did not remember their involvement in a youth sport and, as a
result, under-reported it.
6. Because of space limitations, I do not report in Table 3 the detailed patterns for each predictor
variable. To briefly summarize, there were generally higher scores on the community involvement measures among respondents who were older, female, married, had a child present in the
household, had a higher level of education, were healthier, were working part time, had a higher
household income, were more religious, were born in Canada, had lived longer in the community,
and/or were involved in a sports or recreation organization as an adult.
7. In a preliminary analysis, interactions between youth sport participation and each of the
control variables were examined. Only a small handful of interactions (13 out of 132) were found
to be statistically significant. Moreover, for those that were statistically significant, there was
no consistent pattern across dependent measures. Therefore, interaction effects have not been
included in the analysis.

Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge with thanks that the data source for this study was made available by Statistics Canada as a public-use data file. Also, I am grateful to Kara Granzow,
Jason Laurendeau, and the anonymous SSJ reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts. Finally, I owe special thanks to Jim Curtis for his mentoring and advice during the
initial formulation of this paper.

References
Allison, L. (1998). Sport and civil society. Political Studies, XLVI, 709-726.
Andrews, F.M., Morgan, J.A., Sonquist, J.A., & Klein, L. (1973). Multiple classification
analysis (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Sport and Social Capital 399

Baer, D., Curtis, J., & Grabb, E. (2001). Has voluntary association activity declined? Crossnational analyses for fifteen countries. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(3), 249-274.
Beck, P.A., & Jennings, M.K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Political Science
Review, 76(1), 94-108.
Berman, S. (1997). Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics,
49(3), 401-429.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences
of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999-1023.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95-S120.
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Collins, M.F., & Buller, J.R. (2003). Social exclusion from high-performance sport. Journal
of Sport & Social Issues, 27(4), 420-442.
Commonwealth Advisory Body on Sport (2006). January 2006 report. Skipton, North
Yorkshire: Apollinaire Consultancy Associates Ltd.
Conference Board of Canada. (2005). Strengthening Canada: The socio-economic benefits
of sport participation in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada
Curtis, J., Baer, D., Grabb, E., & Perks, T. (2003). Estimating trends in voluntary association
activity over recent decades in Quebec and English Canada. Sociologie et Socits,
35(1), 115-142.
Curtis, J., & McTeer, W. (1990). Sport involvement and academic attainment in university:
Two studies in the Canadian case. Psychology and Sociology of Sport, 2, 177191.
Curtis, J., McTeer, W., & White, P. (1999). Exploring effects of school sport experiences on
sport participation in later life. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16(4), 348-365.
Curtis, J., McTeer, W., & White, P. (2003). Do high school athletes earn more pay? Youth sport
participation and earnings as an adult. Sociology of Sport Journal, 20(1), 60-76.
Curtis, J., & Perks, T. (2007). Gender, early experiences with social capital, and adult
community participation. In F. Kay & R. Johnston (Eds.), Social capital, diversity, and
the welfare state (pp. 133-168). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Dyreson, M. (2001). Maybe its better to bowl alone: Sport, community and democracy in
American thought. Culture, Sport, Society, 4(1), 19-30.
Eccles, J.S., & Barber, B.L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent
Research, 14(1), 10-43.
Elling, A., & Claringbould, I. (2005). Mechanism of inclusion and exclusion in the Dutch
sports landscape: Who can and wants to belong? Sociology of Sport Journal, 22(4),
498-515.
Elling, A., De Knop, P., Knoppers, A. (2001). The social integrative meaning of sport: A
critical and comparative analysis of policy and practice in the Netherlands. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 18(4), 414-434.
Elling, A., & Knoppers, A. (2005). Sport, gender and ethnicity: Practices of symbolic inclusion/exclusion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 257-268.
Foley, D.E. (1990). The great American football ritual: Reproducing race, class, and gender
inequality. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(2), 111-135.
Gerber, S.B. (1996). Extracurricular activities and academic achievement. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 30(1), 42-50.
Glanville, J. (1999). Political socialization or selection? Adolescent extracurricular participation and political activity in early adulthood. Social Science Quarterly, 80(2),
279-290.

400 Perks

Hall, M., McKeown, L., & Roberts, K. (2001). Caring Canadians, involved Canadians:
Highlights from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Hanks, M. (1981). Youth, voluntary associations and political socialization. Social Forces,
60(1), 211-223.
Hanks, M., & Eckland, B.K. (1978). Adult voluntary associations and adolescent socialization. Sociological Quarterly, 19(3), 481-490.
Harris, J.C. (1998). Civil society, physical activity, and the involvement of sport sociologists in the preparation of physical activity professionals. Sociology of Sport Journal,
15(2), 138-153.
Harvey, J., Lvesque, M., & Donnelly, P. (2007). Sport volunteerism and social capital.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 24(2), 206-223.
Hastad, D.N., Segrave, J.O., Pangrazi, R., & Petersen, G. (1984). Youth sport participation
and deviant behavior. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(4), 366-373.
Howell, F., & McKenzie, J. (1987). High school athletics and adult sport-leisure activity:
Gender variations across the lifecycle. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4(4), 329-346.
Howell, F.M., Miracle, A.W., & Rees, C.R. (1984). Do high school athletics pay? The effects of
varsity participation on socioeconomic attainment. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(1), 15-25.
Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to volunteerism: Family socialization and status
transmission models. Social Forces, 74(1), 271-292.
Jarvie, G. (2003). Communitarianism, sport and social capital: Neighbourly insights into
Scottish sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38(2), 139-153.
Johnson, M.K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J.T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence:
A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3), 309-332.
Landers, D.M., & Landers, D.M. (1978). Socialization via interscholastic athletics: Its effects
on delinquency. Sociology of Education, 51(4), 299-303.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Litwin, H. (2003). Social predictors of physical activity in later life: The contribution of
social-network type. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11(3), 389-406.
McHale, J.P., Vinden, P.G., Bush, L., Richer, D., Shaw, D., & Smith, B. (2005). Patterns of
personal and social adjustment among sport-involved and noninvolved urban middleschool children. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22(2), 119-136.
McTeer, W., & Curtis, J. (1999). Intercollegiate sport involvement and academic achievement: A follow-up study. Avante, 5(1), 39-55.
Miracle, A.W., & Rees, C.R. (1994). Lessons of the locker room: The myth of school sports.
New York: Prometheus Books.
Muir, K.B., & Seitz, T. (2004). Machismo, misogyny, and homophobia in a male athletic
subculture: A participant-observation study of deviant rituals in collegiate rugby. Deviant Behavior, 25(4), 303-327.
Nakhaie, M.R., & Curtis, J. (1998). Effects of class positions of parents on educational
attainment of daughters and sons. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,
35(4), 483-515.
Navarro, V. (2002). A critique of social capital. International Journal of Health Services,
32(3), 423-432.
Otto, L.B. (1976). Social integration and the status attainment process. American Journal
of Sociology, 81(6), 1360-1383.
Otto, L.B., & Alwin, D.F. (1977). Athletics, aspirations, and attainments. Sociology of
Education, 50(2), 102-113.
Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator
assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127.
Picou, J.S., McCarter, V., & Howell, F.M. (1985). Do high school athletics pay? Some further
evidence. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2(1), 7276.

Sport and Social Capital 401

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-24.
Price, M., & Parker, A. (2003). Sport, sexuality, and the gender order: Amateur rugby union,
gay men, and social exclusion. Sociology of Sport Journal, 20(2), 108-126.
Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R.D. (1995a). Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital
in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664-683.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Putzel, J. (1997). Accounting for the dark side of social capital: Reading Robert Putnam
on democracy. Journal of International Development, 9(7), 939-949.
Rotolo, T. (1999). Trends in voluntary association participation. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 199-212.
Schafer, W.E. (1969). Some social sources and consequences of interscholastic athletics:
The case of participation and delinquency. International Review of Sport Sociology,
4(1), 63-81.
Segrave, J.O., & Hastad, D.N. (1984). Interscholastic athletic participation and delinquent
behavior: An empirical assessment of relevant variables. Sociology of Sport Journal,
1(2), 117-137.
Smith, E.S. (1999). The effects of investments in the social capital of youth on political
and civic behavior in young adulthood: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology,
20(3), 553-580.
Smith, J.M., & Ingham, A.G. (2003). On the waterfront: Retrospectives on the relationship
between sport and communities. Sociology of Sport Journal, 20(3), 252-274.
Spreitzer, E. (1994). Does participation in interscholastic athletics affect adult development?
Youth & Society, 25(3), 368-387.
Statistics Canada. (2001). The 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating [Public-Use Data File]. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Stempel, C. (2006). Gender, social class, and the sporting capital-economic capital nexus.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 23(3), 273-292.
Tonts, M. (2005). Competitive sport and social capital in rural Australia. Journal of Rural
Studies, 21(2), 137-149.
UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace. (2003). Sport as a
tool for development and peace: Towards achieving the United Nations Millennium
Development Goals. Retrieved January 23, 2007, from http://www.un.org/sport2005/
resources/task_force.pdf
Vanreusel, B., Renson, R., Beunen, G., Claessens, A. L., Lefevre, J., Lysens, R., et al. (1997).
A longitudinal study of youth sport participation and adherence to sport in adulthood.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32(4), 373-387.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism
in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagg, S. (Ed.). (2004). British football and social exclusion. London: Routledge.
Wilson, T.C. (2002). The paradox of social class and sports involvement: The roles of cultural
and economic capital. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37(1), 5-16.
Youniss, J., McClellan, J.A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic
identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620-631.
Zaff, J.F., Moore, K.A., Papillo, A.R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of extracurricular
activity participation during adolescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 18(6), 599-630.