In cooperation with the Sports Association of the Palatinate (SBP), a survey was conducted on substance use by recreational and amateur athletes. Distribution of the online questionnaire took place by means of chain-referral sampling, and questions on substance use were presented using the randomized response technique (RRT) to protect the anonymity of respondents and prevent socially desirable answers. The estimated lowest limit for the population share for use of prohibited substances during the last season (4%) and for lifetime use (3.6%) did not differ significantly. Approximately 21% of respondents had used substances for training or competitions that were taken for a purpose other than performance enhancement (e.g., to improve their mood or to help with recuperation from a minor injury or illness) in the last year. 49% had done so at some point in their life.

Background and Aim Measuring the prevalence of doping in recreational sport is difficult. However, to fit their initiatives, National Anti-Doping Organizations are interested in knowing the numbers, so their scarce resources are not wasted. The present study aimed to estimate the prevalence of doping and over-the-counter medicine use for performance enhancement among recreational athletes in eight European countries. Design A survey covering + 200 sports aimed at recreational athletes 15 years and older was distributed via social media to sports clubs and individuals in eight European countries. To overcome social desirability bias, we applied indirect questioning by using the Randomized Response Technique and asked for the use of over-the-counter medicine and doping for the year 2019. Results The prevalence of the use of over-the-counter medications for performance enhancement was estimated at 10.4%. We differentiated between the concept of “doping” as the behavior to enhance performance in a certain sport and the concept of “a doper” as a property of a person. The prevalence of dopers in recreational sport was found to be 0.4%, with 3.1% male and 0% female dopers. Responses were separated into four categories: “Artistic sports,” “Combat sports,” “Games,” and “CGS sports” (i.e., sports measured in centimeters, grams, and seconds). The overall prevalence of doping in recreational sports was found to be 1.6%, and the results from Artistic and CGS sports did not differ significantly from this. However, in Games we found an estimated doping prevalence of 6.9%. Discussion The estimates for the prevalence of dopers and doping in this study do not equal Anti-Doping Rule Violations as stipulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Still, while doping is not absent in recreational sport in Europe, it appears to be a low frequent phenomenon. Also, the differences in doping prevalence between the sports categories might reflect structural and competition-related differences, rather than differences in the logic of the sporting competition or discipline-related subcultures. Conclusion While few recreational athletes appear to use illegal drugs to enhance performance, those who do use them are more often men than women. Yet, 1 in 10 recreational athletes uses over-the-counter medication for performance enhancement and more than 4 out of 10 use medication for other reasons than performance enhancement when doing sports. The highest doping prevalence was found in the sub-category of Games, which can likely be attributed to competition-related differences between the categories. Therefore, research on doping in recreational sports needs tailored approaches to come to a better understanding of the phenomenon.

Although match fixing threatens the integrity of competitions in sport, studies on the prevalence of match fixing are scarce. We measured the prevalence of competition manipulation by German elite athletes and the total percentage of these athletes who had been asked to participate in match fixing by using the randomized response technique. Approximately 8% of the athletes were asked to participate in match fixing, and approximately 7.5% were actually involved in competition manipulation during their careers. More than 30% of athletes reported an attempt to illegally influence referees’ decisions, but only 4.9% had ever directly participated in such attempts. Only the parameter of the financial status provides a different perspective. In general, this study shows that the dissemination of deviant behavior is not extremely high.

Transfer fees in European football have experienced a rapid increase in the past years. Simultaneously, an increasing number of domestic and recently foreign investors — who are assumed to further increase team spending in European football — have entered the football market by becoming club owners. In light of these developments, fears associated with an increasing influence of foreign (majority) investors from the financial as well as the emotional fan perspective have increased. Given the rather limited number of empirical studies focusing on the impact of investors on transfer fees, we shed further light on this topic. Based on a data sample including transfer fees, player characteristics, player performance and team performance from 2012–2013 to 2018–2019 for the English Premier League, we estimate OLS regressions and quantile regressions to analyze the effects of ownership concentration and investor origin on the amount of individual transfer fees. While we do not find strong evidence that ownership concentration increases the willingness to pay, we find fairly consistent results that foreign investors are willing to pay a premium compared to domestic investors. Our results also indicate that especially foreign investors who own a majority share of a club have a positive effect on transfer fees for the upper quantiles.

No abstract