These organisations are different in size, history, country, and structure. Yet when you look at them together, clear patterns emerge. These patterns are not coincidences; they reflect structural features of the European Sport Model that affect organisations across Europe.

Comparative overview

Organisation	Skjold (Denmark)	NCAA (France)	Sokol (Czech Republic)	UISP (Italy)
Type	Federation football club	Federation athletics club	Civil society movement	Sports promotion organisation + social promotion association
Size	3,700 members	1,200 members	160,000 members	1,030,275 members
History	20th century	20th century	Founded 1862	Founded 1948
Inside Pyramid	80%	Partial	20%	30,5%
Outside pyramid	20%	Majority	80%	69,5%
Solidarity received	Less than 0.07%	2%	Approximately 0%	0%
Primary funding	Private foundations (40%)	Public sector (56%)	Self-generated (57%)	Self-generated via membership + services (68%)

Pattern 1: The solidarity promise is not delivered

Across all cases: No organisation receives more than 2% of its income from federation solidarity mechanisms. Skjold, the largest community football club in Denmark, receives less than 0.07%. Sokol, with 160,000 members, receives approximately 10,000 euros per year from the Czech Olympic Committee.

What this means: The solidarity principle, which is central to the ESM’s justification, is largely theoretical for grassroots organisations. The redistribution that is supposed to flow from elite to base is not reaching them, regardless of their size, compliance, or country.

The bigger picture: Clubs pay 13% of their budgets to federations but receive only 2% back (Gouguet et al., 2011). UEFA’s solidarity contribution to grassroots amounts to 0.2% of its 6.8 billion euro revenue. The flow of money is reversed: grassroots subsidise the system, not the other way around.

Pattern 2: Hybrid models are the norm, not the exception

Across all cases: No organisation fits neatly inside or outside the pyramid. Skjold is 80% inside but creates alternative structures (Brobold, Fenix Trophy). NCAA is a federation club where 58% of activities have nothing to do with competition. Even Sokol, which operates mostly outside the pyramid, has 20% of activities in the federation system.

What this means: The binary framing (inside the pyramid vs outside) does not reflect reality. Most organisations are hybrid, serving multiple purposes through multiple structures simultaneously. They are not choosing one model; they are navigating between models to serve their communities.The bigger picture: If the majority of organisations are hybrid, then policy, funding, and recognition systems built on a binary (federated vs non-federated) will always miss part of what they do.

Pattern 3: Public funding is the real pillar of grassroots sport

Across all cases: Public funding (municipal grants, regional programmes, health authority partnerships, national agency support) provides 20% to 56% of budgets. Federation solidarity provides 0% to 2%.

What this means: The ESM places the pyramid and its solidarity mechanisms at the centre. But for grassroots organisations, public funding and self-generated income is the actual financial backbone, not professional sport redistribution. NCAA survives because the City of Nice invests 28% of its budget plus 23% in facilities. Sokol survives because public grants fund 41% of its activities.

The bigger picture: This has policy implications. If public funding is already the real pillar, then sport advocacy should speak the language of public investment (health outcomes, social inclusion, community cohesion) rather than relying on the solidarity promise.

Pattern 4: Self-generation as resilience

Across all cases: Self-generated income (membership fees, facility rentals, local events) provides 33% to 57% of budgets.

What this means: Grassroots organisations are not waiting for solidarity. They generate their own income, driven by volunteers and community engagement. Sokol’s 57% self-generated income sustains 160,000 members and 1,000 facilities. This is resilience, built over decades (or centuries).What this means for advocacy: Self-generation is a strength, not a sign of abandonment. But it has limits. Organisations that are 95% self-funded (like Vedbæk, a Danish swimming club with 75 volunteers and 1,500 members) are resilient but vulnerable if membership declines. Advocacy should protect self-generation capacity while securing complementary public support.

Quiz: What did you uncover?

What did these four case stories tell about funding of grassroots sport and the pyramid structure? 
For each of the following questions, pick the correct answer.