Do investments in sport pay off? What the evidence tells us about the social value of sport and physical activity – by Ágoston Koch, Erika Kendelényi-Gulyás, Tamás Sterbenz and Gergely Csurilla

Do investments in sport pay off?
What the evidence tells us about the social value of sport and physical activity

Ágoston Koch, Erika Kendelényi-Gulyás, Tamás Sterbenz and Gergely Csurilla

Sport and physical activity are widely seen as beneficial for society. They can improve health and well-being, strengthen social connections, support inclusion, and potentially reduce the burden on public services. But an important policy question remains: do these benefits justify the resources invested in sport and physical activity?

Governments, municipalities and organisations invest substantial amounts in sport, but demonstrating the wider value created by these investments is not straightforward. Traditional economic evaluations tend to focus on direct costs and measurable financial benefits, while many of the most important effects of sport—such as improved mental well-being, stronger social networks or greater community participation—are more difficult to capture.

Our recent study, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, examines this question using the Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework. Rather than looking only at financial returns, SROI attempts to capture the broader social value generated by an intervention relative to the resources invested in it.

Looking beyond economic returns

The case for investment in physical activity is particularly important in the context of widespread physical inactivity. Sport and physical activity can generate benefits that extend well beyond sport itself, including improvements in health and mental well-being, stronger social connections and, in some cases, wider economic and community benefits.

Traditional cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses can capture some of these effects, but they do not always provide a comprehensive picture of social value. SROI offers a broader perspective by translating different outcomes into monetary terms and comparing the resulting social value with the cost of the intervention.

This makes SROI potentially useful for policymakers faced with a basic question: what does society get in return for the money it invests in sport and physical activity?

What does the existing evidence tell us?

To answer this question, we conducted a systematic review of studies using SROI to evaluate sport and physical activity interventions.

Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched five academic databases as well as the Social Value UK repository. We focused on empirical studies published between 2018 and 2024 that reported an SROI ratio. After screening the available evidence, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, providing 17 separate SROI estimates. The interventions covered a broad range of activities, from preventive and targeted health programmes to sport-for-development initiatives and high-performance sport.

This allowed us not only to examine individual estimates, but also to explore what the evidence looks like when considered as a whole.

Sport generally creates positive social value

The overall picture is encouraging.

In 16 of the 17 estimates, the monetised social benefits exceeded the costs of the programme. The median SROI was 5.07:1, meaning that the typical estimate suggests that each unit of investment generated around five units of social value.

However, the results also reveal substantial variation. Reported SROI ratios ranged from 0.03:1 to 101.05:1. In other words, some interventions generated very little measurable social value relative to their costs, while others produced exceptionally large estimated returns.

This variation is important. It suggests that simply stating that “sport has a high social return” can be misleading. The value generated by an intervention depends strongly on the type of programme, the outcomes considered and the way those outcomes are measured.

The headline average needs to be treated with caution

One of the most interesting findings concerns the difficulty of summarising such heterogeneous evidence with a single number.

The unweighted mean SROI across the 17 estimates was 12.22:1. At first sight, this appears to suggest an extremely high social return. But the result is heavily influenced by one exceptionally large estimate of 101.05:1.

Once this outlier is removed, the unweighted mean falls to 6.67:1. The sample-size-weighted mean also declines substantially, from 7.07:1 to 2.72:1. Removing the two highest estimates reduces the unweighted and weighted means further, to 5.62:1 and 2.51:1, respectively.

For this reason, the median and the sensitivity-adjusted estimates provide a more conservative and informative summary of the evidence than the headline mean.

The lesson is broader than SROI itself: when evidence is highly heterogeneous, averages can give a false sense of precision.

The benefits of sport go far beyond physical health

The studies included in our review also demonstrate how broadly the social value of sport and physical activity can be defined.

Almost all of the interventions considered outcomes related to mental health and well-being. Reported effects included improvements in mental well-being, confidence and self-esteem.

Other studies identified changes in social outcomes, including stronger social connections, improved social skills and trust, and greater inclusion of marginalised groups. Some interventions were also linked to education-related outcomes, reductions in crime, volunteering and greater community cohesion.

In addition, some evaluations identified wider economic and community effects, such as reduced use of health services, increased participation in local facilities, tourism benefits and improvements in the attractiveness or image of a city.

This broad range of outcomes highlights an important point: investment in sport does not necessarily create value only on the playing field.

But measuring social value remains difficult

The wide variation in reported SROI estimates also reflects methodological challenges.

SROI requires researchers to identify outcomes, estimate their monetary value and determine how much of the observed change can reasonably be attributed to the intervention. These choices can involve considerable uncertainty.

Our review found that the available studies differ substantially in their methods and reporting practices. Most did not report the standard deviations or confidence intervals needed for a conventional variance-weighted meta-analysis. As a result, a formal statistical meta-analysis was not possible.

Instead, we used exploratory descriptive approaches, including unweighted and sample-size-weighted averages, together with sensitivity analyses and exploratory correlations between SROI estimates and study characteristics.

This is an important limitation of the current evidence base. The positive overall picture should therefore not be interpreted as a precise estimate of “the” social return generated by sport.

What does this mean for policymakers?

Several lessons emerge from the evidence.

First, investment in sport and physical activity can generate substantial social value. The fact that the large majority of estimates exceed 1:1 suggests that the benefits of many interventions extend well beyond their immediate financial costs.

Second, the type and design of an intervention matter. There is no universal SROI for sport. Different programmes target different populations and generate different combinations of health, social and economic outcomes.

Third, evaluation needs to become more consistent. Better reporting of uncertainty, clearer descriptions of methods and more transparent assumptions would make it easier to compare interventions and build a stronger evidence base.

Finally, policymakers should be cautious about relying on headline SROI figures alone. A very high reported ratio may reflect genuine benefits, but it may also be driven by methodological choices or unusually large estimates. Looking at the distribution of results and testing how sensitive conclusions are to extreme values is therefore essential.

Evidence rather than optimism

There is a strong intuitive case for investing in sport. It can make people healthier, improve well-being and bring communities together. But good policy should go beyond intuition.

Our review shows that the available evidence generally supports the idea that sport and physical activity generate positive social value. At the same time, it also shows how difficult that value is to measure consistently.

The key message is therefore not that every investment in sport automatically pays off. Rather, sport can be a valuable social investment, but the size of that return depends on what is funded, for whom, and how outcomes are measured.

For researchers, this highlights the need for stronger and more standardised evaluation methods. For policymakers, it suggests that decisions about sport investment should consider the full range of social outcomes while remaining realistic about the uncertainty surrounding their measurement.

Ultimately, the question is not simply whether sport creates value. It is how much value it creates, for whom, and under what conditions. Answering these questions more rigorously can help policymakers direct scarce resources towards the programmes that deliver the greatest social benefits.

Publication: Koch, Á., Kendelényi-Gulyás, E., Sterbenz, T. & Csurilla, G. (2026). Do investments in sport pay off: a systematic review and exploratory quasi meta-analysis of social return on investment in sport and physical activity. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.