In the first part of this article it will be shown that the investigation of human behaviour in sport can be carried out only in its entirety. Instead of monocausal explanations multicausal explanations are needed. To achieve this goal multi-, trans- and interdisciplinary paradigms of sport science are a precondition as is also a programme – a programme of cooperation between sport scientists of different disciplines in order to combine and develop knowledge and methods from these various sources.

An example of such a paradigm is the study “Sport and Health. A Socio-Economic Analysis” which was commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Social Security and the Generations and undertaken by the Austrian Federal Sports Organization in collaboration with the Institute of Sport Science, University of Vienna. This project is a cost-benefit analysis of active sport in Austria and will be the second part of this contribution.

Figure 1. Paradigm of Sport Science (Past)

If we look into the history of sport science the starting point was more or less physical education and the analysis of sport at school. With the development of sport outside schools (leisure sport, top level sport etc.), sport medicine, kinesiology, psychology of sport, sociology of sport and other disciplines of sport science were established and have investigated sport from many different perspectives.

However, if we look into the future development of sport science we have to take into consideration that sport has become a social phenomenon of great magnitude and complexity. This can be seen and demonstrated most clearly by looking at the example of the economic significance of sport, which is increasing world-wide. A shorter working week, an increase in the value we place on leisure, and the growth of the television industry have helped sport to become a commodity to be produced, marketed, and sold to the public.

As a result sport has become a huge industry. In order to explore this relationship, this symbiosis between sport and economy not only the scientific discipline “economics of sport“ is necessary, but disciplines such as psychology of sport, sociology of sport and many others are also needed.

In the same way the analysis of sport and health requires knowledge and methods sociological, psychological, anthropological to name a few. The field of health and sport is very heterogeneous and complex; its investigation does not by any means take one particular research paradigm as the law but rather prefers pluralism in theory and methodology. As an integrative discipline sport science needs integrative concepts and research designs. In brief, the development of sport science in the past century was characterised by the genesis of and differentiation between various disciplines which developed independent of one another into kinesiology, sociology of sport, economics of sport and so on. Cooperation and integration of these disciplines could be the programme of sport science for this young century.

This shows that multi-, trans- and interdisciplinarity could be the most important paradigms of sport science in the future.

Multidisciplinary research means the cooperation between different and appropriate disciplines.

Transdisciplinary research means the introduction of foreign elements into an established science.

Interdisciplinary research means the development of comprehensive theoretical concepts through integration of knowledge and methods from different disciplines.

In Vienna we conducted an inter- and indeed also transdisciplinary study concerning the cost/benefit balance of sport participation in Austria. A study of this sort entails cooperation between health economists, sport sociologists and sport physiologists, which seems to be a good example of such a multidisciplinary paradigm.
Physiologists evaluated the epidemiological results, economists did the calculations, and sociologists were responsible for the concept and for the interpretation of the results.
Due to increasing sport participation in Austria, the question was raised in particular in the media whether sports accidents and sports injuries were too expensive from the national economic point of view. It was argued that those who were not involved in sport would have to pay for the pleasure of the sport participants in particular when they are involved in extreme sports. In order to objectivize this question the study “Sport and Health” was undertaken.
This project is a socio-economic analysis of the costs of sports accidents on the one hand and the benefits of sport participation on the other.

During 1998 98,626 sports accidents were registered in Austria. The direct costs (for medical treatment and rehabilitation) and the follow-up costs (for sick leave, invalidity pay or death) amounted to € 302 million. Table 1 shows the division of these costs according to type of expense.

§ In 1998 the average total cost per sports accident was approximately € 3.050.
§ If the total cost of sports accidents is broken down according to the seriousness of injuries the result is as can be seen in table 2.

The Austrian population was divided into three groups. The first group was not or little active (1-2 times per month). The second group “moderate” participated in sports 1-2 times per week. Within the third group sport participation was high or vigorous, at least 3 times per week.

Figure 3 should be interpreted as follows: the risk of falling ill or dying of any of the diseases and disorders under scrutiny was least for the (extremely) active (that is to say, the relative risk factor between 1 and 1.15), followed by the moderately active (with RR factor between 1 and 1.45). The group of inactive or marginally active were most at risk with RR factor ranging from 1.27 to 1.85.

The relative risk figures (multiple of 1) help to calculate the rates of morbidity and mortality (getting ill or dying). The Austrian RR distribution has been derived from the results of epidemiological studies which were conducted mainly in the United States. Forty years of epidemiological research have shown that physical activity is inversely related to morbidity and mortality in men and women. This association is likely to be causal. The moderately and most active or fit individuals (group II and III) experience morbidity and mortality rates that are approximately one-third to one half lower than the rates among those least active or fit (group I).

It turned out that the decrease of morbidity and mortality was relative to the increase in sport participation. That means that the benefits of sport participation result from less expenditure for morbidity and mortality.

According to these disease groups the avoided costs - that is to say the benefits due to sport participation – were calculated.
Figure 4 shows an example of the relative risk value with reference to coronary heart diseases.

The risk of coronary heart diseases is less in the (extremely) active than in the moderately active (RR factor of 1.1 in the active as opposed to an RR of 1.3 in the moderately active). The highest risk of contracting a coronary heart disease is to be seen in the inactive and marginally active group (RR 1.85).

Using a special formula (Colditz 1999), a population adjusted risk factor (PAR factor) for each group was calculated from the size of the relevant risk group and its average “relative risk” factors (morbidity and mortality). The reduction of risk achieved by doing sports can be given as a percentage, using these PAR factors. With the aid of the PAR factor saving in costs to the economy can be determined.

Avoidance of diseases and lower mortality rates are the benefits and saving effects of active sport. On the basis of the present levels of physical activity the saving in public expenditure is calculated in terms of the type of disease (Figure 5) and the type of cost (Figure 6).

Saving in Cost according to Type of Disease (in Austria in 1998)

A comparison of the economic costs and benefits of active sport gives the following picture for 1998:

Table 6. Cost-Benefit of Sport Participation in Austria

This credit balance can be explained first and foremost by the fact that sports injuries on the whole require shorter term and cheaper treatment than diseases caused by lack of exercise. That is to say it is not, as generally assumed, sport activity which causes greater expense but rather non-participation in sport.
The decrease of morbidity and mortality is relative to the increase in sport participation. And so from an economic point of view the benefit of sport participation is less expenditure for morbidity and mortality. It is clearly to be seen that more economic costs are incurred not from doing sports but from NOT doing sports. As immaterial values in sport such as mental, physical and social well-being cannot be quantified, these remain as an additional benefit.

Figure 7. Savings Potential of Sport Participation in Austria

The expenditure caused by the relative inactivity of the population group which does little or no sport amounts to some € 840 million. In other words: if half the “inactive” risk group were transferred to the “moderately active” group and the other half to the “active – extremely active” group this would result in an additional benefit or saving effect of € 840 million.

In order to obtain a net potential effect as target variable this potential sum (€ 840 million) must be set against the relevant cost of sports injuries and accidents at each particular level of activity. However, this balance could be improved by introducing effective measures for avoiding injury.

The results of the study can be summed up as follows: Promotion of sport and exercise as a significant facet of lifestyle in a modern health and social system not only helps to improve general well-being but it also contributes towards saving economic costs.