“Influence of general government expenditure on the development of sports entrepreneurship: The case of some OECD countries”

The low level of the nation’s health and physical activity highlights the need to find additional mechanisms for the development of the sports sphere, one of which is to increase its financing. This paper aims to investigate how an increase in general government expenditure on recreation and sports affects sports entrepreneurship (turnover or gross premium written in the sports industry; value added at factor cost of sports enterprises; sports industry market size) and the share of the population involved in sports (as an indicator characterizing the development of sports). The study used the panel unit root test and fixed and random effects models. Modeling proved that the increase in general government expenditure on recreation and sports by 1% largely determines the increase in value added at factor cost of sports enterprises (by 5.48%). A significantly less effect is for turnover or gross premium written in the sports industry (by 0.85%), and the smallest is for the sports industry market size (by 0.4%). A 1% increase in general government expenditure on recreation and sport has the greatest impact in the Czech Republic (by 2.37%) and Slovakia (by 2.44%) and the least – in Australia (by 0.4%). The share of the population involved in sports is almost independent of general government expenditure on recreation and sports in all 10 OECD countries.


INTRODUCTION
One of the areas of business activity that has been gaining popularity in recent years is sports entrepreneurship.The constant decline in the nation's health level and the increase in its morbidity and mortality rate are associated, among other things, with low physical activity.According to the WHO, today, only 30-40% of young people are sufficiently active, while among teenagers, the figure is at most 20% (WHO, 2022).At the same time, there is a constant increase in the amount of time young people spend watching TV, on the Internet, or using mobile phones.tors every year.According to estimates of individual experts (World Health Organization, 2022), the value of the global sports industry ranges from 400 to 500 billion US dollars on average and grows by 6-8% annually.
The sports industry is a significant source of filling state and local budgets.Mass sports events held at the local level, state and international championships, and the Olympic Games are a source of income for their organizers.In addition, the construction of infrastructure, modernization and reconstruction of sports facilities, and training of athletes attract a sufficiently large amount of investment funds, charitable contributions, and budget allocations.
Thus, the sports industry and the economy become interrelated and interdependent components of the state's development.On the one hand, sports is a socially beneficial activity that provides various services to preserve and strengthen the population's health, raise the level of its culture, and fight bad habits.On the other hand, the development of the sports industry ensures an increase in the population's life expectancy and its working age, an improvement in the quality of labor resources, and a decrease in morbidity and staff turnover.All of this is essential for the country's economic growth.
Despite the relevance and importance of sport entrepreneurship, the theoretical justifications for the dependence between general government expenditure on the development of sports entrepreneurship and indicators of its development are isolated and unsystematic and require a more thorough analysis.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The high popularity and profitability of the sports industry worldwide leads to an increase in the number of interested parties in financing its development.Howard (2018) • the state, which finances the development of the sports industry for the realization of its national interests; • sponsors, who finance this industry for profit, promotion of their products, expansion of the distribution network, etc.; • national and international sports organizations for which the development of the sports industry is the basis for their functioning.
State and local budget funds are the main funding source for sports entrepreneurship.According to Amara (2020), in addition to the social effect of increasing the level of health of the population and reducing its morbidity, investment in the sports industry opens many opportunities for the country.Thus, the active participation of the state in the development of the sports industry contrib-utes to a positive brand of the country, both from the point of view of the development of tourism and conducting business.In addition, it opens access to the international network of business and political elites ( The founder of the concept of "sporting countries" Xifra (2010), emphasized that the development of the sports sphere contributes to realizing the main task of political and social structures -establishing relations with the public as their potential audience.In general, it contributes to the development and building of the nation, maintaining and/ or changing the relationship between government officials and the public.
Lee and No (2022) studied the reasons for attracting foreign direct financial investment in the sports industry.Using the example of nine Chinese firms that acquired football clubs during 2014-2017, in most cases, firms have their own specific reasons influencing the decision to invest in sports, while political factors are decisive when purchasing sports clubs.
Peredo and Chrisman (2006) consider sports entrepreneurship as a catalyst for improving the current economic situation in the country, reducing the rate of economic decline, and identifying new opportunities for value creation.Legg and Gough (2012) substantiated the role of entrepreneurship in transforming sports organizations into professional and highly competitive companies.Finally, Vamplew (2018) considered sports entrepreneurship as agents of change that direct their efforts to increase labor productivity in sports, increase social interest in sports products and services, and create new markets for sports services.
Thus, the results of the conducted analysis prove the relevance of financing the sports industry considering their impact on the indicators of development of sports entrepreneurship (Čingienė, 2020 Considering the importance of sports in improving the population's health, the object of the re-search is the impact of budget funding on the development of sports entrepreneurship.This will make it possible to determine the role of budgetary funding in sports development and justify the most effective tools for its stimulation.Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate how general government spending on recreation and sports affects the indicators of the development of sports entrepreneurship.

METHODOLOGY
This The study used the panel unit root test and fixed and random effects models.In the first stage, the study checks the analyzed data series for non-stationarity and the presence of unit roots.The null hypothesis assumes the presence of a unit root, and the alternative hypothesis assumes the stationarity of the data.For this purpose, the panel unit root test is used: where D t -the deterministic component; z t -the stochastic component; ε t -the stationary error process.
To choose a model that most reliably formalizes the relationship between indicators (model with fixed and random effects), the Hausman test is used: where ε -error.
The value of the Hausman test statistic is estimated by: ,

H
Var Var where β 0 and β 1 -model with the fixed and random effects, respectively.
Based on the values of the test statistic, p-values are obtained.If the p-value is less than the statistical significance level, the relationship between the indicators should be described using a fixed effects model.Otherwise, the random effects model is more efficient.In addition, the test statistic values are compared with the critical table value.If the value of the test statistic exceeds the critical value of the table, a random effects model should be used.

RESULTS
The prerequisite for determining the model that best describes the relationship between indicators is to check the data for stationarity.For this purpose, the study analyzes time data using panel unit root tests (Levin, Lin, and Chut test; Im, Pesaran, and Shin W-stat; ADF -Fisher Chi-square; and PP -Fisher Chi-square tests).
The results of the Levin, Lin, and Chut test, Im, Pesaran, and Shin W-stat, ADF -Fisher Chisquare, and PP -Fisher Chi-square tests (Table 1) show that all variables are stationary.The null hypothesis is rejected because all the p-values are smaller than 1%.This indicates the stationarity of the data series.Furthermore, both the resulting and the factor indicators are homogeneous variables of the first order.Thus, in further calculations, the paper uses the values of the first differences in the data to avoid false regressions.
The regression coefficients were calculated at the next stage using a regression fixed effects model (Hausman test).The results are given in Table 2.
The results of the assessment of the dependence between the general government expenditure on recreation and sports and the indicators of the development of sports entrepreneurship (Table 2) stress the feasibility of formalizing the dependence between the indicators using a fixed individual effects model.Thus, for all analyzed indicators, the p-value is less than the statistical significance level, and the coefficient of determination is high.This rejects the null hypothesis about the feasibility of using the random effects model.To verify the conclusions' validity, the study evaluates the parameters using the random effects model (Table 3).
The results indicate the feasibility of formalizing the relationship between general government expenditure on recreation and sports and indicators of the development of sports entrepreneurship using a fixed effects model.At the same time, the results of the calculations testify to the insignificant impact of budget funding on the development of sports entrepreneurship.

DISCUSSION
The The main limitation of this study is the need for more data on the amount of investment in the development of sports entrepreneurship.Thus, the obtained results are based primarily on the analysis of the relationship between the indicators of the development of sports entrepreneurship and general government expenditure on recreation and sport, and not on the amount of sponsorship, investments of national and international sports organizations, and private investors.
In addition, the lack of data characterizing the activity of sports entrepreneurship for an extended period (more than five years) reduces the results' reliability due to the impossibility of considering a larger number of indicators.

CONCLUSION
This study is devoted to analyzing the impact of general government expenditure on recreation and sports on the development of sports entrepreneurship.The paper used a panel unit root test and fixed and random effects models to model the impact of general government expenditure and private investments on the main indicators of the development of sports entrepreneurship (turnover or gross premium written in the sports industry, value added at factor cost of sports enterprises, and value added at factor cost of sports enterprises).According to the results of economic and mathematical modeling, it was proved that budgetary funding has an insignificant influence on sports entrepreneurship.
The value added at factor cost of sports enterprises is the most sensitive to changes in the volume of general government expenditure on recreation and sports.Their increase of 1% leads to an increase in the value added at factor cost of sports enterprises on average by 5.48% (by 7.9% in the Czech Republic, 6.4% -in Germany, and 5.4% -in Poland).The volume of turnover or gross premium written is in second place regarding the influence of the volume of general government expenditure on recreation and sports (an average of 0.85%).Among all analyzed indicators, the impact of general government expenditure on recreation and sports on the volume of the sports industry market size is the smallest (on average by 0.4%).An additional analysis of the sensitivity of the share of the population involved in sports to changes in the amount of general government expenditure on recreation and sports showed a slight dependence between them.However, this indicator does not exceed 0.01% for most of the analyzed countries.
The insignificant impact of general government expenditure on the development of sports entrepreneurship proves the vital role of private investment in developing this sector.At the same time, the government must consider the importance of the sports industry for improving the nation's health, the growth of the country's image in the international arena, and the improvement of its culture.Therefore, the government policy toward sport should increase the amount of state funding for this sector (providing access to sports services for poorly protected segments of the population and people with disabilities, improving the quality of training of participants in international competitions), as well as the receipt of funds from national and international sports organizations, private investors (for whom this area is a tool for obtaining profit and increasing capital).

Table 2 .
Hausman test for indicators of development of sports entrepreneurship

Table 3 .
Random effects model for indicators of development of sports entrepreneurship