“Sport is NOT a luxury.” The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents in Northern Ireland (NI): A cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Background

Worldwide, it is of public health concern that the majority of children and adolescents fail to meet physical activity guidelines. Evidence shows a positive association between socioeconomic status (SES) and levels of physical activity. Socioeconomic health inequalities are persistent and the socioeconomic gap in physical activity may be exacerbated during periods of economic downturn such as the current cost-of-living crisis affecting many countries globally. This study aimed to understand the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents.

Methods

Parents/guardians (aged > 18 years) resident in Northern Ireland (NI) were invited to participate in an online survey (March–June 2024) which assessed SES, parental support for physical activity and the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents. Thematic (qualitative data) and statistical analysis (quantitative data) was undertaken.

Results

In total, 855 parents/guardians completed the survey. The majority of parents/guardians (85%) agreed that sport and physical activity were important for their children to manage stress, however, 30% were unable to afford the equipment and clothing that their children needed to participate in sport/physical activity. More than a third of parents/guardians (35%) had reduced spending on sport and physical activity for their children since the onset of the cost-of-living crisis. For 37% of parents/guardians, their children had missed out on sport/physical activity because of the costs involved and 24% of parents/guardians reported using credit or borrowing money to cover sport and physical activity costs. The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity opportunities for children varied by SES. A greater proportion of parents/guardians with lower SES reported reducing spending and borrowing money to cover sport/physical activity related costs.

Conclusions

Despite parental support for children’s sport and physical activity, cost was a barrier for many families. The ‘socioeconomic gap’ in physical activity and sports provision was evident and although establishing positive physical activity and sedentary behaviours during childhood is crucial, the cost-of-living crisis is likely to worsen the existing SES gap in physical activity and requires urgent intervention.

Trial registration

N/A.

Background

Regular physical activity in childhood and adolescence is associated with beneficial health outcomes, including a reduced risk of obesity and depression and improved cardiometabolic health, muscle and bone strength [1,2,3,4]. The more immediate benefits of physical activity during childhood relate to cognition, academic performance and mental health [5, 6]. Despite this, it is estimated that worldwide 81% of adolescents are insufficiently physically active [7]. In Northern Ireland (NI) specifically, only 21% of primary and 16% of post-primary pupils meet the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendation of at least 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day [8, 9]. Low levels of physical activity among children and adolescents are a public health priority particularly as physical activity levels decline as children move into adolescence and through to adulthood [10,11,12] and may affect the likelihood of developing many chronic health conditions including obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus [13]. Community sport is a key physical activity opportunity for children and adolescents and contributes a significant proportion of their total physical activity (approximately 23% of total MVPA on a monitoring day) [14]. Despite this, among children and adolescents, there are many barriers to sport and physical activity including ‘time’, ‘cost’, ‘not being good at sport’ and ‘fear of being judged/embarrassed’ [15]. It is accepted that the behaviour of children and adolescents is interconnected within the family system [16] and family support can enable children to engage in sport and physical activity through modelling, co-participation, encouragement, and logistical support [17,18,19,20]. Parents can influence the physical activity levels of their children [21] and a positive correlation between parent and child physical activity has been reported [22].

Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important determinant of health and can shape and influence attitudes, experiences, behaviours, exposure to health risk factors and access to services and healthy environments including opportunities to be physically active [23,24,25]. Health inequalities stemming from the unequal distribution of social and economic resources are evident in many countries worldwide [26]. In addition, there is evidence of growing income inequality within the UK [27]. It is recognised that children who grow up in households with lower SES have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease [28, 29] and of all-cause mortality than children who live in households with higher SES [30, 31]. Current evidence indicates that there is a positive association between SES and physical activity; meaning that people with higher SES are more physically active than those with lower SES [32,33,34,35]. It is likely that the mechanism underlying this association includes access to opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity [36]. Moreover, evidence suggests that children from high income households are more likely to participate in sport in comparison with children from low or middle income households [35, 37].

Socioeconomic inequalities in health are persistent [38] and may increase during periods of economic downturn [39]. It is of public health concern that in recent years, the cost of everyday essentials such as food, fuel and energy has increased significantly in many countries worldwide, including in the UK which is currently experiencing a cost-of-living crisis [40]. The cost-of-living crisis has been defined as the fall in real disposable incomes (that is, adjusted for inflation and after taxes and benefits) that has been ongoing since late 2021 [41], it is considered a risk for population health and is likely to widen health inequalities [42]. The crisis is driven by a combination of interrelated factors, including a real-terms wage and benefit reduction, inflation, the impact of ‘Brexit’, and international conflict [42]. The cost-of-living crisis is referred to as the ‘second health emergency’ after the COVID-19 pandemic [43] and importantly, when the cost-of-living crisis began in 2021, in many UK regions, measures introduced to reduce COVID-19 infection rates were still in place [44] which has worsened the cost-of-living crisis [43]. Across the UK, the current cost-of-living crisis is having a significant effect on families, with 85% of parents and carers concerned about how it will affect their families in the next year [45]. In terms of family finances, the cost-of-living crisis is having an impact in several ways, for example, the cost of fuel, home energy and essential household items (including food) have increased sharply over the last two years [40]. In NI specifically, recent figures indicate that almost a quarter (24%) of children in NI are living in relative poverty, an increase of 6% since 2021/22 [46]. These figures reflect European trends in child poverty, and the cost-of-living crisis has increased by 4% the number of children living in conditions equivalent to relative income poverty [47]. Globally, while reductions in extreme child poverty rates had been observed since 2013, there has been no change between 2019–2022 and an estimated 16% of children are living in extreme poverty [48].

A recent report indicated that the economic downturn may affect levels of physical activity and sports participation [49], but the evidence to date is limited. Environmental factors such as monetary cost, time constraints and lack of physical activity provision have previously been reported as barriers to children’s physical activity [50,51,52]. Recent evidence from the Sport England Active Lives Survey reports that children and adolescents from the least affluent families are less likely to be active in comparison to children from the most affluent families (42% vs 52% meeting physical activity guidelines respectively) [53]. Similar findings have been reported in the most recent data for the island of Ireland where 12% of post-primary students (mean age: 14 years) from families of lower SES met physical activity guidelines compared to those with higher SES (15%) [8]. In terms of sport specifically, even within youth sports teams, children of higher income/education parents participate in more sport than children of lower income/education parents [54] and children from higher income households are more likely to specialise in a single sport [55, 56]. In addition, children from families with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to take part in elite/high performance sports programmes [57]. Given the economic changes at a societal level, it is plausible that a reduction in disposable income would impact the extent to which families can afford the costs often associated with children participating in sport and extra-curricular physical activity (for example transport, sports kit, membership, and coaching/instruction/entry fees).

Few studies have examined the effect of economic crises on physical activity and to our knowledge no studies to date have specifically considered the NI population. A study by Gratton and Kokolakakis [40] reported that during the UK recession (data from 2008–2011), participation in expensive sports including skiing, golf and sailing decreased significantly while there was an increase in road running participation [58]. Findings from Irish household expenditure data show that spending on sporting events decreased during the recession (data from 2009–2010) whereas for sports participation and leisure fees there was evidence to suggest that the recession did not have an effect [59]. School-based physical activity, which is often seen as wide-reaching and equitable [60, 61], may also be affected by economic crises as recent research reports that over a quarter (27%) of parents or carers have struggled with the cost of purchasing Physical Education (PE) or sports kit [45]. Evidence shows that the cost of sport has increased during the cost-of-living crisis and a survey of sports clubs in England reported that more than 70% of clubs plan to charge members more in fees to offset the price increases they were experiencing [62]. Global targets are in place to reduce physical inactivity by 15% by 2030 [63], and despite the small improvements seen in levels of physical activity among school children in NI in recent years [8], it was hypothesised that the cost-of-living crisis would have reduced access to physical activity and sporting opportunities for children and young people and disproportionately affect families with lower SES. The overall aim of this study was to understand the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents. Within this, specific objectives were to:

• Investigate parental support for physical activity during the cost-of-living crisis and outline potential differences in parental support for physical activity according to measures of SES.

• Examine differences in the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity opportunities based on measures of SES.

Methods

Study design

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidance [64] which used an online survey for data collection. The survey was hosted and shared using Jisc (Bristol, UK). Ethical approval was obtained from Ulster University Nursing and Health Research Ethics Filter Committee (FCNUR-23–091). All participants were asked to read the Participant Information Sheet before providing informed consent electronically. Screening questions were incorporated into the survey to ensure that participants met the eligibility criteria. The survey was estimated to take 10 min to complete. Only fully completed responses were saved within the Jisc platform.

‘Thinking aloud’ pilot

Prior to widespread dissemination, the survey was piloted with five participants to reduce measurement error and test if the questions were clearly articulated in the form of a ‘Thinking Aloud’ exercise [65]. Potential participants were presented with the Participant Information Sheet and asked to provide consent. Participants were asked to complete the survey and at least 7 days later they were asked to complete the same survey again to assess test–retest reliability. After participants completed the survey for the second time, they were asked to provide the Research Team with verbal feedback (via telephone) on the measures included, layout, functionality, and any practical issues with completing the survey. The proportion of respondents who answered a question identically or changed their response to each quantitative question in the pilot study was assessed [66]. For Sect. 4 of the survey (‘Impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to physical activity and sport’), which contained eighteen questions in total, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used to estimate the test–retest reliability of questions with continuous data (n1). The Cohen’s Kappa coefficients to estimate the test–retest reliability for dichotomized variables (n11) and the weighted Cohen’s Kappa for questions with ordinal data (n1). Qualitative questions (n2) and multiple-choice questions (n3) were not subject to test–retest reliability assessment.

The Landis and Koch’s (1977) subjective guidelines were used to classify the strength of test–retest agreement [67]. During the ‘Thinking Aloud’ pilot, participants were asked specifically about questions where there was poor test–retest agreement and detailed feedback was collected to refine questions. Parents/guardians for this pilot testing were recruited using convenience sampling via an email circulation. Responses to the pilot study were only used for the purpose of testing for clarity, readability and to estimate the time required to complete the survey. This data is not included in the final analysis as the participants were known to some of the research team and the data may be biased. The survey was edited before widespread dissemination and updated ethical approval obtained.

Participants

The inclusion criteria were parents/guardians (aged > 18 years) of a child or children aged between 4 and 16 years living in NI. Based on census data from 2021 that reported there were 1,098,200 adults aged 20–64 years living in NI, a priori sample size calculation was performed [68]. This indicated that a minimum of 663 participants were required for adequate power (99%, α = 0.05). Participants were recruited over a twelve-week period from March–June 2024, predominantly using social media (Facebook, X and Instagram) using a ‘snowballing approach’ whereby recruited participants referred their friends to the study or shared the research opportunity on their social media profiles. Parent groups, sports clubs, community organisations and public services (for example, libraries) were contacted and asked to share the recruitment poster and the link to the online survey via social media/mailing lists. There were no incentives available for participation in the survey.

Survey

The survey consisted of five sections: 1) demographic information and SES; 2) parental support for physical activity; 3) impact of the cost-of-living crisis; 4) impact of the cost-of-living crisis on crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities; 5) low/no cost physical activity opportunities. Contact details for those willing to take part in a follow-up online/telephone interview were also collected. Data are presented here for Sects. 1–4 of the survey (see Additional File 1, Sects. 1–4 for further details), while results on low/no cost physical activity opportunities will be reported separately (Sect. 5).

Demographic information and SES

Participants were asked to self-report their sex (Female; Male; Other; Prefer not to say) and age (18–25; 26–30; 31–40; 41–50; 51–60; 60 + years). Based on the methodology of Donnelly et al. [69], several variables were collected to measure SES. Participants were asked to provide their home postcode which was entered into the NI Multiple Deprivation Measures [70] website and the deprivation score was recorded [70]. Deprivation scores ranged from 0 to 890 and were divided into tertiles (Tertile 1—Most deprived, 0–296; Tertile 2—Average, 297–593; Tertile 3—Least deprived, 594–890). From the NI Multiple Deprivation Measures [70] system, local government area and urban, rural or mixed urban/rural classifications were extracted.

Marital status (single; married; living with partner; divorced; separated; widowed; other; prefer not to say), ethnicity (White; Black/Black British; Asian/Asian British; Mixed; Other; Prefer not to say) and parental medical conditions were recorded. Participants were asked to indicate the number of children aged 4–16 years that live at home with them who they have regular responsibility for. The age (in years) and gender of children was collected. Participants were also asked to indicate if they share the care of their children with a partner, ex-partner, grandparent or if they were a single parent. Participants were asked to report their highest education qualification to date (Primary school; Secondary school up to 16 years; Higher / secondary / further education; College / University; Master’s degree; Doctoral degree) and to detail their current occupation status. From this occupation was classified into four separate categories (Unemployed / stay at home parent; Student / carer / retired; Employed / self-employed; Multiple job holding). Participants were also asked if they worked on a full or part-time basis. Job title was recorded and categorised according to the Index for Classifying Job Titles [71].

Participants were asked to report their annual household income (before tax and deductions). The median annual salary for full time employees in NI was £30,000 in 2022, which was used to categorize high and low household income [72]. Information was collected on benefit entitlement and participants were asked to describe their financial situation using the following options (Very good; Good; Average; Poor; Very poor) [73].

Parental support for physical activity

Parents/guardians were asked to self-report their participation in exercise during the previous week [74]. Information was collected on the three main types of organised sport children (aged 4–16 years) play or the physical activities they do in a normal week. Parental support for physical activity was assessed using The Activity Support Scale for Multiple Groups (ACTS-MG) survey [75]. Items were measured on a four-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) with higher scores showing greater parental support for physical activity. The scale has good overall factorial validity and internal consistency where the Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.69 to 0.88 [75]. Scores were calculated for each of the four items (logistical support, modelling, use of community resources and limiting sedentary behaviour), ranging from 0–12. The scores of the four items were summed (maximum 48), with higher scores indicating higher parental support for physical activity [76].

The availability of sports equipment in the home environment was measured using items developed by Mutz and Albrecht [74] which was adapted for the NI context (items including: a sleigh; skis; ice skates were replaced with golf clubs; hockey/camogie/hurling stick; kayak/canoe/surfboard) based on sports participation data from the Young Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey [77]. A total score from 0–16 was calculated with a higher score indicating access to more items of sports equipment in the home.

The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis

To assess the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on household finances, a number of closed and open-ended questions were administered. A general statement was added to this section to state that “The cost-of-living crisis has been ongoing since late 2021 and can be defined as the time in which “the cost of everyday essentials like food and bills increased more quickly than average household income.” Based on questions included in a previous survey [73], participants were asked if they were concerned about rising costs and if their finances had deteriorated since 2021 and/or in the previous six months. Participants were asked if there had been a time since 2021 when they could not provide something for their child due to their financial situation. The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on physical and mental health was assessed [78] and participants were asked if they expected their finances to improve over the next year [79]. In addition, parents/guardians were asked if they thought the cost-of-living crisis had affected their children.

The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities

To assess the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport or physical activity for children and adolescents, questions were adapted from previous survey investigating the impact of the cost-of-living crisis in different population groups [49, 79,80,81].

The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on parental attitudes towards sport and physical activity were assessed. Data on changes to children’s sport and physical activity behaviour were collected. Average spending per month on sport and physical activity for children was measured and changes in spending were captured. The total spend per month per child was calculated based on the mid-figure (for example £75, option £50-£100) divided by the number of children (aged between 4–16 years in the household). Participants were asked if over the last year, their child/children had missed out on a sports or physical activity opportunity because of the costs involved and if since the onset of the cost-of-living crisis (2021), they had to use credit or borrow money to cover sport or physical activity related costs. Lastly, participants were asked which if any, measures or strategies they were employing to cope with the cost-of-living crisis.

Data analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS v29 (IBM Corporation, New York, USA). Baseline characteristics were described using mean (standard deviation (SD)) for numerical data and counts (%) for categorical data. The sample distribution for continuous variables was checked by visual inspection of the histogram and verified by the normality line of the regression plot and scatter plot of the residual. Any variables that violated the assumption of normality were transformed to enable the use of parametric tests. After transformation, data remained skewed, and therefore non-parametric tests were used. For bivariate analysis, the Mann–Whitney test when was used to compare two means of continuous variables between dichotomous groups (for example household income; low vs high). The Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare between 3 or more means (for example index of multiple deprivation tertiles) and the Chi-square test was used to compare percentages (or Fisher exact test if expected counts were lower than 5). Resulting P values of below 0.05 were interpreted as “surprising if we assume the null hypothesis is true,” and those above 0.05 were interpreted as “unsurprising if we assume the null hypothesis is true.”

Components of the online survey had built-in, optional answer probes so that further information could be obtained based on participants’ responses. Responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically using NVivo v14 (QSR International Pty Ltd, Doncaster, VIC, Australia) based on the Braun and Clarke methodology [82]. A six-phase deductive approach was used: (1) data familiarization, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. Initially, each meaningful quote or key example was assigned a code. Codes were then grouped together to develop themes that were representative of the coded excerpts. Themes were agreed by three authors (AC, RMC, SMO’K). Once coding had been completed and checked for all open-ended questions, definitions and names were then assigned to each theme. Illustrative quotes highlight key themes identified within the survey.

Results

Demographic information and SES

In total, n855 participants fully completed the survey and the majority (n759; 89%) of participants provided free-text responses to at least one open-ended question. No participants were excluded from the analysis due to missing data. Responses related to n1957 children (50.5% male; 49,4% female). The average number of children per participant was 2 (SD 0.91). On average, the children were aged 10.1 years (SD 3.8). There was representation from across all eleven Local Council areas with the majority of participants located in Mid Ulster (13.9%), Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (12.9%) and Causeway Coast and Glens (12.3%) local council areas. As outlined in Table 1, the majority of participants resided in rural areas (49.4%). The majority of participants who were in employment were in Professional Occupations (32.8%), 14.3% were in Administrative and Secretarial Occupations and 13% were in Personal Service Occupations. In terms of benefit entitlement, 28.7% of participants or someone in their household received benefits such as Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Child Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Carer’s Allowance or Attendance Allowance. The majority of participants described their financial situation as average (47.9%), 27.5% as good or very good, and 24.5% as poor or very poor. These figures are broadly similar to a previous survey administered by Parenting NI [73].

Table 1 Participant characteristics

Parental support for sport and physical activity

Participants were asked to indicate how long they had exercised in the previous week. Almost a quarter of participants (24.4%) stated that they exercised for less than 30 min in the past week, 21.8% for 30–60 min, 20.2% for 1–2 h, 18.9% for 2–4 h and 14.5% for more than 4 h in the previous week. The majority of participants (60.9%) said that all of their children (aged 4–16 years) currently participate in organised sport while 30.3% said that none of their children participate in organised sport. The most popular forms of sport or physical activity among this cohort of children were Gaelic football (n540; 27.6%), football/soccer (n505; 25.8%), swimming (n482; 24.6%) and Hurling/Camogie (n289; 14.8%).

Overall, the median (25th-75th percentiles) parental support for sport and physical activity was 38.0 (34.0–42.0), while children had access to 8 (6–10) items of sports equipment in the home. There were significant differences in parental support for sport and physical activity (total support, logistical support, modelling, use of community resources) and access to sports equipment at home between those with low household income (< £29,999pa) and those with high household income (> £30,000pa) as outlined in Table 2. There were also differences across the multiple deprivation tertiles and level of education for logistical support for sport and physical activity and access to sports equipment at home (Table 2).

Table 2 Parental support for physical activity and access to sports equipment at home by measures of socioeconomic status (SES)

The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis

In terms of the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis, the majority of participants (85.1%) indicated that they were concerned about rising costs, 67.5% reported that their financial situation had deteriorated since 2021. Almost 70% of participants indicated that they were struggling with the current rise in the cost-of-living and 42.2% of participants indicated that there had been an occasion since 2021 when they could not provide something for their child due to their financial situation. Thinking about their financial situation over the next year, almost half (47.7%) of parents/guardians expected it to get worse, 35.2% expected it to stay the same while 16.5% expected it to get better.

For 31.9% of parents/guardians, they perceived that the cost-of-living increases had affected their mental health while for 36.3% of parents/guardians it had affected their physical and mental health. Less than a third (28.9%) of parents/guardians felt that the cost-of-living increases had not impacted on their health. In terms of the perceived impact of the cost-of-living increases on their children, 46.4% of parents/guardians felt there was no impact on their children, 39.6% felt their children had been impacted and 13.9% indicated that they did not know.

As outlined in Table 3, a significantly higher proportion of those in lower income households reported being concerned about the rising costs and the impact on their families (P = 0.004) and being unable to provide something for their child due to their financial situation (P < 0.001) compared to those in higher income households. In addition, a higher proportion of those in lower income households stated that the cost-of-living crisis had affected their health (P < 0.001) and their children (P < 0.001). In terms of the multiple deprivation measure, a larger percentage of parents/guardians in the most deprived super output areas, reported that there had been a time since 2021, when they were unable to provide something for their child due to their financial situation compared to those in average and least deprived super output areas. In addition, half of parents/guardians in Tertile 1 (most deprived) super output areas, reported that the cost-of-living increases had affected their children, this was significantly higher (P = 0.004) than those in Tertiles 2 and 3. Findings were similar across the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis questions according to highest level of education, where overall those who had been educated to Master’s or Doctoral level reported being less concerned and coping better with rising costs (Table 3).

Table 3 Perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis by measures of socioeconomic status (SES)

Participants reported using a range of actions, measures and strategies to cope with the cost-of-living crisis. The majority (77.7%) reported buying cheaper products, shopping around more or switching providers (67.6%) and using savings or saving less (49.9%). Over half of participants (55.2%) indicated that they have reduced their spend on non-essential items and leisure activities while 31.5% reported using less water, energy or fuel. It is noteworthy that more than a quarter of participants (27.5%) reported using more credit or going into debt (including overdrafts, loans, credit cards, door step lenders etc.) while 14.9% reported borrowing money from friends and family. The main themes to emerge from the open-ended questions in relation to the questions in the ‘Impact of the cost-of-living crisis’ section were 1) Perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on families; 2) The challenge of rising costs and covering the cost of essential items; 3) Management of the family budget; and 4) Household income and support for families during the cost-of-living crisis. These findings are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Thematic analysis of open-ended responses to ‘Impact of the cost-of-living crisis’ questions

The perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities for children

The perceived impact of the cost-of-living increase on parental attitudes towards sport and physical activity for children was assessed. Overall, only 10.7% of parents/guardians agreed or strongly agreed that they “have too many worries/concerns to think about sport and physical activity for my child(ren)” and only 5.3% of parents/guardians agreed or strongly agreed that “I no longer have the motivation to ensure my child(ren) are physically active”. Less than a fifth of parents/guardians (15.7%) agreed or strongly agreed that “I cannot make plans for my child(ren) to take part in sport or physical activity as I am unsure what the future holds”. The majority of parents/guardians (85%) agreed or strongly agreed that “I think sport and physical activity are more important than ever for my child(ren) to manage worries.” However, it is noteworthy that almost a third of parents/guardians (30.4%) surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that “I am unable to afford the equipment and clothing that my child(ren) need to participate in sport or physical activity”.

In terms of changes in sport and physical activity behaviours for children as a result of the cost-of-living increases, only a fifth (20.8%) of parents/guardians indicated that “My child(ren) have not changed their sport and physical activity behaviours”. Many parents/guardians (37.1%) stated that they have prioritised the sports and/or activities that their children enjoy, while 16.8% of parents/guardians have prioritised the sports/activities that helps their child(ren) manage their mental wellbeing. Overall, 28.5% of parents/guardians indicated that their children have started/increased the number of free activities that they do (such as walking and running). Parents/guardians (26.3%) indicated that “my child(ren) use exercise such as going for a walk or to the park to socialise with friends instead of paid social activities such as going to soft-play or the cinema”. In addition, over a quarter of parents/guardians (27.7%) have reduced the regularity of paid (pay as you go) activities that their child(ren) take part in, 12% indicated that “My child(ren) have stopped doing an activity altogether” and 13.3% have cancelled their child(ren)’s membership to specific sports/activities. In terms of transport costs, a fifth of parents/guardians (20.2%) have “reduced the distance I travel for my child(ren) to take part in an activity” and 9% indicated that “My child(ren) walk/cycle to get places rather than me driving them in the car wherever possible”.

As a result of the cost-of-living crisis, parents/guardians felt that opportunities for children to be physically active in the local area had decreased (21.5%), there were fewer to take part with (i.e. friends cannot afford activities for their children) (17.7%) and 14.7% of parents/guardians reported that “I can’t afford (financially) for my child(ren) to be physically active”. Lack of parental time was reported to have changed children’s sport and physical activity behaviours by 11.5% of parents/guardians, while 9.6% reported that since the onset of the cost-of-living crisis there have been negative changes to the physical activity experience (for example, lowering the temperature of the pool/showers). On average, parents/guardians reported spending approximately £66.60 per child (SD: 56.99) per month on sport and physical activity opportunities. More than a third of parents/guardians (35.1%) reported reducing spending on sport and physical activity for their child(ren) since the cost-of-living crisis began in late 2021. For 36.5% of parents/guardians, their child(ren) missed out on a sport or physical activity opportunity in the previous year because of the costs involved. Since 2021, almost a quarter (23.9%) of parents/guardians have used credit or borrowed money to cover sport and physical activity related costs. Significant differences were observed for average expenditure per month on sport and/or physical activity across the tertiles of deprivation (P < 0.001), tertile 1 (most deprived; median: £42 pm; 25th-75th percentiles: £25-£69 pm), tertile 2 (average; median: £47 pm; 25th-75th percentiles: £25-£75 pm) and tertile 3 (least deprived; median: £58 pm; 25th-75th percentiles: £38-£88 pm). Similar differences were found in relation to highest level of education attained (P = 0.022). However, there was no significant difference in the average expenditure per month on sport and/or physical activity between low (median: £50 pm; 25th-75th percentiles: £25-£75 pm) and high (median: £50; 25th-75th percentiles: £38-£75 pm) income households (P = 0.258).

As described in Table 5, the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity opportunities for children varied across the three indicators of SES (household income, postcode and level of education). A greater proportion of parents/guardians from low income households reported that their children missed out on a sport of physical activity opportunity in the last year because of the costs involved (53.5%), that they had reduced spending on sport or physical activity for their children since the cost-of-living crisis began (51.4%) compared to those from higher income households (32.7% and 31.6% respectively) (P < 0.001). In addition, more parents/guardians in low-income households (45.9%) reported having to borrow money or use credit to cover sport or physical activity related costs compared to those from high income households (18.3%; P < 0.001). Generally, there were no significant differences in the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity between rural and urban populations (Additional File 2), however there were clear differences dependant on family structure (Additional File 3), benefit entitlement (Additional File 4), employment (Additional File 5), marital status (Additional File 6) and number of children (Additional File 7).

Table 5 Perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on spending on sport and physical activity by measures of socioeconomic status (SES)

As outlined in Table 6, the main themes to emerge from the open-ended questions in relation to the questions in the ‘Impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity opportunities for children’ section were 1) Borrowing money to support physical activity; 2) Reducing or limiting opportunities for physical activity; 3) Spending less on physical activity; 4) How to support children to be more active.

Table 6 Thematic analysis of open-ended responses to ‘Impact of the cost-of-living crisis’ questions

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents in NI. Although parental support for physical activity was evident (median total score: 38, from a maximum of 48) and the majority of parents/guardians (85%) indicated that sport and physical activity were more important than ever for their children to manage worries, it is of concern that the financial cost of sport and physical activity continues to present a barrier for many families. Given the levels of parental support for physical activity reported within this study, it is clear that parents/guardians are keen to support their children to be active. However, the findings of the present study align with previous research that reports cost to be a barrier to children’s participation in sport [15] and physical activity [52] and policy makers must be cognisant of this. In the present study, 30% of parents/guardians were unable to afford the equipment and clothing that their children needed to participate in sport or physical activity, while since 2021, 24% of this cohort had used credit or borrowed money to cover sport and physical activity related costs. In addition, more than a third of parents/guardians (35%) had reduced sport and physical activity expenditure for their children since the cost-of-living crisis began in late 2021. It is recognised that there are a range of barriers to participation in sport and physical activity which may be exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis including time, resources, transport and equipment [15, 52]. Nevertheless, it is crucial that clubs, schools, local councils and other organisations harness parental support and engage parents and young people to develop and deliver opportunities for children and adolescents that are affordable.

Previous research has outlined that SES is positively associated with physical activity [33] and children and adolescents living in more affluent households are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines [35]. Despite recent calls from the WHO to address inequalities in access to and opportunities for physical activity [35], in the present study, there was evidence of socioeconomic disparities in the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents. Significantly more parents/guardians from lower income households, reported that their children missed out on a sport of physical activity opportunity in the last year because of the costs involved compared to parents/guardians in the higher income households. Similarly, more parents/guardians from lower income households had reduced spending on sport or physical activity for their children since the cost-of-living crisis began and reported borrowing money or using credit to cover sport or physical activity related costs compared to those from high income households. These findings are consistent with previous research that reports that even within youth sports teams, children of higher income/education parents participate in more sport than children of lower income/education parents [54]. There is also some evidence to suggest that socioeconomic gaps in children’s physical activity have widened in recent years [84], particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the evidence in this area is limited and further research is required to understand why those from lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to meet physical activity guidelines.

In the UK, figures from 2021/22 showed that 29% of children are living in poverty [85], and child poverty in 2027/28 is forecast to be the highest since 1998/99 [86]. It is recognised that exposure to poverty at a young age can have implications across the lifespan [87]. Importantly, for many children, the cost-of-living crisis will have occurred during their formative years or early childhood (0–5 years) when physical activity and sedentary behaviour habits are typically established [88]. Given that physical activity and sedentary behaviour levels track from these formative years into childhood [89], the reported changes in sport and physical activity, health and wellbeing during this important period of child development will have wider societal consequences for years to come [90]. The findings of this study, highlight specific population groups that have been worst affected by the cost-of-living crisis, including those with low household incomes, those living in areas of high deprivation, single parent families and households in receipt of benefits. Tailored support for these parents/guardians is required to narrow the ‘socioeconomic gap in physical activity’. In addition, long term planning at governmental level will be crucial to support children’s participation in sport and physical activity in the event of future economic downturns. The WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity aims to achieve a 15% relative reduction in the global prevalence of physical inactivity in adults and in adolescents by 2030 [63]. However, the cost-of-living crisis coupled with the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to hinder progress towards meeting this target. Policy measures and interventions are urgently required that will address health inequalities and the modifiable barriers to physical activity which will improve access to sport and physical activity and promote equity. In NI specifically, the government is currently developing an Anti-Poverty Strategy [91], and physical activity should be a priority within this to ensure that children from families with lower SES have the opportunity to participate in and obtain the health benefits of physical activity.

In the UK, the cost-of-living crisis has been described as “the second health emergency” and has been caused by a combination of factors including the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, and the Ukraine-Russia war [43]. Although the crisis has affected the entire population, the consequences are exacerbated among vulnerable populations including young children [43]. Throughout the crisis, there has been focus on food and fuel poverty [92] and a recent review by Meadows et al. [82] captured the physical and mental health conditions which may be affected by the cost-of-living crisis in the short-, medium- and long-term [43]. However, the impact on sport and physical activity for children and adolescents has been somewhat overlooked. Evidence suggests that children’s physical activity patterns have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic [84] and children’s activity is now dependent on more structured activities, such as active clubs, and less dependent on unstructured activities, such as playing with friends after school [93]. In terms of changes to sport and physical activity for children as a result of the cost-of-living crisis, in this study, many parents/guardians prioritised the sports and/or activities that their children enjoyed, their children started/increased the amount of free activities that they participate in and they reduced the regularity of paid activities for their children. Although the majority of participants (84%) were in employed/self-employed, there was clear evidence that many parents/guardians were struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. It was particularly evident from the thematic analysis that families were prioritising spending to cover the essentials, and sport and physical activity were seen as ‘extras’ as illustrated by the following quote “[The] cost of everything is going up, we barely make ends meet so there is no extra money for extracurricular activities/sports clubs, they are now a luxury.”

The present study details the perceived negative impact that the cost-of-living crisis has had on families and the sport and physical activity opportunities for children and adolescents; findings that will be of relevance to policy makers, commissioners and those in sports management. Parents/guardians recognised the importance of sport and physical activity for their children and were using various strategies to ensure that their children could still participate in sport and physical activity despite financial pressures. From the literature, the financial strain of sport and physical activity during the cost-of-living crisis is not affecting families in isolation but sports clubs are also under increasing financial strain [62, 83]. Sports clubs and providers have experienced significant increases in energy costs, facility hire and insurance costs [62, 83]. Added to that the availability of volunteers has decreased [62], and a survey by the NI Sports Forum found that almost half (49%) of participating clubs agreed that their participation/membership had been affected by the cost-of-living crisis [83]. It will be important for future research to understand how sports clubs and community organisations are supporting families and to share examples of best practice between governing bodies and organisations to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to participate regardless of SES. In addition, given that 35% of parents/guardians in this study had reduced sport and physical activity expenditure for their children since the cost-of-living crisis began in late 2021, alternative free or low-cost opportunities are required.

This is the first study to investigate the perceived impact of the cost-of-living crisis on access to sport and physical activity opportunities for children in NI and a key strength of this research is that a ‘Thinking Aloud’ pilot was carried out to identify any potential issues with the survey, layout, functionality, or any practical issues with completing test in advance of widespread dissemination. A representative sample (n855) of parents/guardians were recruited, there was representation from across all local council areas in NI and representation across deprivation tertiles. The minimum sample size was exceeded by 29%, for the majority of mandatory questions there was limited missing data (0–8%) and the majority of participants (89%) provided free-text responses to at least one open-ended question. Nevertheless, it is also important however to acknowledge the limitations of this research. Although the majority of children (73% of primary school and 71% of post-primary schoolchildren) in NI participate in community sport at least once a week [94], given the lack of research in this area, an inclusive approach was taken within the present study was to focus on sport and physical activity together. To advance knowledge in this area, future research should consider sport separately from physical activity. It is possible that the recruitment materials and questions asked within the survey which used the term ‘cost-of-living crisis’ may have biased participant responses as parents/guardians were detailing their experiences of an already defined ‘crisis’. Furthermore this study used a convenience sampling approach and participant motivation may have influenced participation, as parents most affected by the cost-of-living crisis may have been more inclined to complete the survey. The majority of respondents were female (92%), which is not uncommon in research of this kind as mothers/females are often the predominant caregiver for children [95] and more likely to participate in survey-based research [96]. There was a lack of diversity in terms of ethnicity with 98.5% of respondents identifying as white. However, this majority is in line with the most recent census data for NI where 96.6% of the population were white [97]. Furthermore, a limitation of the Jisc platform and the anonymous nature of the survey was that participants could submit more than one response, although no incentives were available for taking part in the survey which may have dissuaded people from submitting more than one response. In addition, visual inspection of responses based on age, gender, postcode, number of children and age and gender of children was undertaken to identify possible duplication. Lastly, it is possible that recall bias may have occurred as participants were asked to identify changes in spending and changes in the sport and physical activity opportunities for their children over a three year period (2021–2024).

Conclusions

Despite parental support for children’s sport and physical activity and parental recognition of the importance of physical activity for children, cost was cited as a barrier for many families and parents/guardians with lower SES appeared to be worst affected by the cost-of-living crisis. It was apparent from the data that families in NI were struggling with the cost-of-living crisis despite the majority of respondents being in employment and educated to college/university level. The findings that parents/guardians had reduced spending on sport and physical activity, children had missed out on a sport or physical activity opportunity due to the associated costs and many parents/guardians were using credit or getting into debt to cover sport/physical activity related costs are concerning. Establishing positive physical activity and sedentary behaviours during childhood is crucial for overall development, health and wellbeing. However, the impact of the cost-of-living crisis coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and wellbeing of children and their development may not be evident or fully understood for many years. In addition, the cost-of-living crisis is likely to worsen the existing socioeconomic gap in physical activity and requires urgent intervention.