Report: A Deep Dive into the UK Sports & Exercise Landscape (Focus on London & 18–35s)

Executive Summary & Key Insights

NBRH Opportunity: The UK sports and physical activity landscape is at a pivotal moment. Participation is near all-time highs, yet inequalities and drop-off points reveal untapped segments. Culture shifts – from Gen Z swapping pubs for Pilates to grassroots movements redefining “sport” – signal demand for accessible, affordable, community-driven options. NBRH’s mission to make social sport inclusive and fun aligns with both market gaps and policy tailwinds. Below are 10 bold, investor-ready insights from our research:

• 1. Record Activity, Post-Pandemic Recovery: Nearly two-thirds of English adults (29.5 million, 63.4%) are now “active” (150+ min exercise/week) – the highest level since records began . Activity rates have rebounded to pre-pandemic highs, with 2 million more active adults than in 2015 . The nation is moving again, underscoring a strong base market for NBRH.

• 2. Huge Disparities = Underserved Segments: Headline figures mask major inequalities. A quarter of adults remain inactive (under 30 min/week) , concentrated in certain demographics and regions. For example, some communities are twice as active as others – Brighton boasts 79% active adults vs. just 49% in Barking & Dagenham . Lower-income groups, ethnic minorities, women, and those with disabilities consistently have lower participation (often 10–20+ percentage points below average) . These underserved groups and areas represent a vast untapped market if NBRH can crack the code on inclusivity and access.

• 3. Gen Z Fueling a Fitness Boom: A generational shift is underway in leisure habits. Young adults (18–34) are the most active cohort (around 70% are active ) and are driving a record surge in gym memberships. UK gym membership hit an all-time high of 11.5 million people in 2025 – 1 in 6 adults – after a 1.6 million jump since 2022, mainly powered by Gen Z . Many young people now prefer socialising via fitness rather than in pubs . Health and wellness are becoming core to youth identity, a cultural tailwind for NBRH’s social sport offerings.

• 4. Traditional Sports Are Stagnating: Formal, organized sports are struggling to keep young adults engaged. Only 22% of British adults report playing a sport (e.g. football, tennis) regularly , versus 58% who at least follow sports as spectators . Team sports participation, especially among women and older teens, has declined – e.g. 1+ million teen girls drop out of sport, often by age 16 . Meanwhile, “casual fitness” and informal activity are surging: home workouts, recreational cycling/walking, group fitness classes, fun runs and pick-up games. This shift suggests NBRH’s community-driven, non-traditional approach can capture those turned off by rigid clubs or competitive leagues.

• 5. Barriers and Drop-Off = Opportunity: Significant friction points stop people from being active, even among willing participants. Top reasons for not exercising include disliking exercise (20%) or finding it boring (13%) , health conditions (19%), lack of time (commonly ~15% in surveys) , and cost. The cost barrier is glaring – 30% have quit a gym because it was too expensive . “Gymtimidation” is real too, especially for young women, though it’s easing (fear of judgement in gyms fell from 21% to 8% of people in one year) . At life transitions, drop-off spikes: e.g. after school/university (when structured sports opportunities vanish) and post-pregnancy or mid-career (time and access shrink). NBRH can win by addressing these pain points – offering fun, affordable, judgment-free sport on demand to fit modern lifestyles.

• 6. TAM is Massive (and Monetizable): The total addressable market for NBRH spans the booming £100+ billion UK sport economy and tens of millions of potential users. Broadly, 86% (£86.8 billion) of the UK’s £99.6 billion sports output comes from active participation (people playing, not just watching) . In consumer terms, households spend ~£25 billion annually on sport and physical activity in England (2018) , over half of which (£13.7b) is community sport participation spend . Our TAM estimate: ~15 million UK adults aged 18–35 who participate in or want to participate in social sports, and £10–15 billion in yearly spend on recreational sport/fitness that NBRH could tap. Even capturing a few percent of this market translates to a multi-hundred-million-pound business. (See detailed TAM/SAM/SOM calculations in Section “Market Opportunity”.)

• 7. Hybrid Models are Winning: The biggest growth is happening in hybrid and informal formats that blend tech, fitness and community. Apps and platforms are unlocking new participation – from the likes of Footy Addicts (28,000 casual football matches organized in 2022) and Parkrun (8+ million registered for free weekly 5Ks), to boutique studio classes booked via aggregators (ClassPass, etc.) and online-to-offline communities (Strava groups, Nike Run Clubs). People crave flexibility: the freedom to drop into activities on their terms (time, location, level) rather than commit to traditional club schedules. NBRH’s tech-enabled approach hits this sweet spot, acting as a matchmaker between under-utilised facilities, local organizers, and participants seeking spontaneous sport.

• 8. Competitive Gaps in UK Market: Despite a crowded fitness market, no single player yet dominates social sport meetups. Gyms are plentiful (over 7,000 facilities nationwide) and growing fast – especially low-cost 24/7 gyms – but they focus on individual workouts and memberships. Traditional sports bodies (clubs, leagues) struggle to engage the casual demographic. Community initiatives (e.g. Parkrun, GoodGym, StreetGames) do fantastic work but are fragmented and often limited by funding. And while there are fitness tech platforms, most target either solo fitness (Peloton, Fitbit) or generic event discovery (Meetup) rather than holistic social sports. This whitespace leaves room for NBRH to become the “go-to” platform for recreational sport, analogous to what Airbnb did for rooms or ClassPass for boutique fitness. Early adopters show the appetite: e.g. Footy Addicts saw 5.5 million player connections in 2022through local football games – organic proof of concept that tech can mobilise communities to play.

• 9. Policy Tailwinds & Public Health Alignment: NBRH’s mission syncs with UK policy priorities. The government’s new “Get Active” sport strategy (Aug 2023) explicitly aims to make sport more accessible to underrepresented groups , echoing NBRH’s focus. Sport England’s 10-year strategy “Uniting the Movement” directs funding to tackle inequalities in activity. The NHS is increasingly ‘social prescribing’ exercise – targeting 900,000 patients to be referred into community activities by 2023/24 – recognizing that physical activity is critical for health and can reduce burdens on healthcare. Campaigns like This Girl Can (which inspired millions of women to get active) and local investment (e.g. Sport England grants, local authority sports initiatives) create partnership opportunities for NBRH. There’s also an influx of funding into active travel and outdoor recreation as part of climate and health policies. An platform like NBRH can serve as a conduit for these public programs, while benefiting from a positive regulatory environment.

• 10. Strong Growth and Social Impact = Investor Appeal: The sports sector’s growth and resilience make it attractive for investment, especially with a community-tech angle. From 2010–2022, the UK sport sector’s economic contribution grew 32% (to £18.1 billion GVA), outpacing overall economy growth (21%) . Industry stakeholders expect 6–7% annual growth globally in sports revenues in coming years , with women’s sports and fitness communities as high-growth sub-sectors. Investors are already betting on fitness tech and experiences (witness the rise of fitness apps, wearables, and class platforms). Moreover, the social value of getting people active is enormous – estimated at £85.5 billion in England (2017/18) when factoring health, wellbeing, and community benefits – equating to a 4:1 return on investment for society . NBRH offers a compelling double bottom line: scalable profits by solving a pressing social need. This convergence of business and impact is a persuasive narrative for both venture investors and public funders.

The detailed report below expands on these insights with data visualisations, demographic analysis, trend deep-dives, and a full TAM/SAM/SOM market sizing. It is structured around key strategic questions, from “Who isn’t exercising, and why?” to “Where is the market headed?” Finally, it maps out how NBRH can seize the regional, audience, and behavioural opportunities to revolutionise social sport in the UK.

1. UK Sports & Physical Activity Landscape: Overview

A Nation Divided by Activity: The UK (and specifically England, which has the richest data via Sport England) presents a mixed picture – overall activity levels are robust and improving, but who is active varies widely. As of late 2023, 63.4% of adults in England are “active”, achieving the Chief Medical Officers’ guideline of 150+ minutes of moderate exercise per week . This means roughly 29.5 million people doing enough activity for substantial health benefits . On the flip side, 25.7% of adults are “inactive”, doing less than 30 minutes a week – about 11.9 million people effectively almost sedentary. The remaining ~11% are “fairly active” (some activity, but not hitting 150 min) .

Post-Covid Rebound: These figures mark a full rebound from the pandemic dip. During 2020–21, lockdowns drove activity rates down (e.g. active adults fell to ~61% in 2020) . But recovery has been strong – by Nov 2022–Nov 2023, the active rate climbed back to 63.4% (slightly above the 2018–19 pre-pandemic high of 63.3%) . In absolute terms, Sport England reports 2.0 million more active adults than in 2015–16 (+13%), despite population growth being slower . Inactivity rates, while still concerning, have inched down from ~27% in 2016 to 25.7% in 2023 . This long-term progress suggests structural shifts (e.g. greater health awareness, more exercise options) are outweighing headwinds like Covid or economic pressures.

London and Urban Hubs: Being the focus area for NBRH, London’s landscape is particularly important. Overall, London tends to be slightly more active than the national average – recent data shows London’s active rate around 64–66% (with an upward trend) . However, London also encapsulates the extremes. Within the city, there’s a stark east-west divide in activity. For example, affluent boroughs like Richmond or Kensington often report some of the highest activity levels in England, while Barking & Dagenham is the least active area in the entire country at only 49% active . Similar pockets of low activity exist in parts of Newham or Tower Hamlets, often correlating with higher deprivation and diverse communities. This shows London has both a high ceiling and low floor – a dense concentration of fitness offerings and active young professionals, but also communities left behind by the current sports infrastructure.

Beyond London, other major cities (Birmingham, Manchester, etc.) show a comparable pattern: city centres and suburbs with young, educated populations have higher sports participation, whereas many post-industrial towns and deprived urban areas lag (some under 55% active) . Rural and suburban areas vary, but inactivity is often an urban poverty issue more than a rural isolation issue. For instance, the North East and West Midlands regions have lower activity rates (~60%) while the South East and South West are higher (65–68%) , reflecting economic divides. This geographic mapping is crucial for NBRH’s roll-out strategy – it highlights where the need is greatest (e.g. East London, northern cities) and where early adopters might cluster (e.g. London core, university towns).What Counts as Sport/Activity?: It’s important to note the broad definition in these stats. Sport England counts not just traditional sports, but walking, cycling, gym workouts, dance, fitness classes, swimming, etc. towards activity . This means the “active 63%” includes a lot of informal exercise (a lunchtime walk, a YouTube workout) alongside sport. In fact, walking is the most common activity; about 25 million adults walk for leisure or travel regularly(driving much of the active population) . Sports participation in the narrower sense (playing an actual sport) is much lower, around 22% of adults as noted . This indicates a broad trend: movement is abundant, sport is less so. People are staying active through lifestyle and fitness routines, but fewer commit to formal sports. For NBRH, this underscores the opportunity to repackage “sport” in the language of lifestyle and community – tapping into the huge cohort that is active but perhaps not engaging in what they themselves would call “sport”.

London’s Cultural Edge: Culturally, London has been at the forefront of redefining sport as part of urban lifestyle. Over the past decade, we’ve seen the rise of the “London fitness scene” – from boutique studios in Shoreditch and Clapham to mass events like RideLondon or the London Marathon being over-subscribed. The city’s youth population has embraced fitness as social currency; even pre-Covid, observers quipped that “London’s gyms are basically the new clubs” as nightlife waned . This trend accelerated as many Gen Z and Millennials seek healthier social outlets. The Guardian in 2025 noted young Londoners “ditching the pub for Pilates”, reflecting how gyms and classes have become key social hubs . However, this often skews to the privileged – £20 spin classes or £100/month gym memberships are out of reach for many. That’s why despite London’s overall activity rate being high, certain boroughs with less affluent, more diverse residents have not benefited equally. NBRH’s challenge and chance in London is to democratise this fitness revolution – to take the city’s energy around movement and make it accessible in every neighborhood (“NBRH” literally).

In summary, the UK’s landscape shows strong demand (most people want to or do exercise) and rising participation, but also structural gaps in who, how, and where people get active. London exemplifies these contrasts vividly. This sets the stage for analyzing who those inactive or underserved groups are, why they face barriers, and how a new solution could unlock the next wave of participation growth.

2. Who’s Active, Who’s Not: Demographic Analysis

Understanding the demographics of sports participation is key to NBRH’s strategy – especially since we’re zeroing in on 18–35 year olds and other target user groups. The data reveals clear patterns:

• Age: Activity levels start high in youth and generally decline with age – but not as sharply in adulthood as one might think (until senior years). According to Sport England, 70% of 16–34 year-olds are active (meeting 150min/week), compared to 66% of 35–54 year-olds, and 62% of 55–74 year-olds . The big drop comes after 75 (only ~43% active) . So, the core adult population up to retirement maintains around 60–70% activity rates – with the 18–35 segment actually the most active of all. This busts the myth that young people are lazier or glued to screens; in reality, the youngest working-age adults are the most physically active group. However, the types of activity shift (younger people do more gym, sports, running; older adults more walking and gardening). For NBRH, this is encouraging: our primary audience (18–35s) already has a propensity for activity, we just need to channel it into our platform.

• It’s worth noting the teen drop-off before age 18: While our focus is adults, the pipeline matters. Many girls and some boys become inactive in their mid-teens (GCSE years). By 16, a lot of would-be participants have left sport. Indeed, only 37% of girls aged 11–16 enjoy physical activity, vs 54% of boys, and by 17–18, girls’ participation plummets further . Reasons include fear of judgment, body image, and lack of confidence during puberty . These former sporty kids become the inactive young adults of tomorrow. This trend is a big opportunity: 18–25 year-old women in particular are a segment ripe for re-engagement if sport is made fun and welcoming (an area NBRH can excel by fostering supportive community vibes rather than competitive or intimidating atmospheres).

• Gender: Men are more likely to be active than women, but the gap is not enormous. In England, 66% of men vs 61% of women are active . Inactive rates mirror this (about 24% of men, 27% of women). This ~5 percentage-point gap equates to roughly half a million fewer women meeting guidelines. Part of this is due to the aforementioned teenage drop-off and young motherhood years impacting women. Moreover, women often cite barriers like safety, self-consciousness, or cultural norms that men don’t face as acutely. Interesting nuance: the Sport England survey noted non-binary/“other” gender adults have about 61% active rate as well , similar to women. So the gender gap is primarily male vs non-male.

While men currently dominate traditional sport participation (e.g. football), women are actually driving growth in certain areas. For instance, gym and fitness classes have very high female uptake – in some surveys, young women (16–24) were more likely to do gym workouts than young men . Campaigns like This Girl Can have made strides; societal shifts are encouraging women’s sport (e.g. the Lionesses’ football success). Still, the fact that over 1.3 million teen girls who once saw themselves “sporty” have lost interest by adulthood is a wake-up call . NBRH can target the “lost” female athlete by providing judgment-free, social-oriented avenues back into activity (for example, women-only sessions, or beginner-friendly group activities). The demand is there – when offered non-judgmental environments, women respond enthusiastically (e.g. women’s only swim nights often sell out, This Girl Can spurred millions of new exercise episodes).

• Socioeconomic Status: Perhaps the starkest gap is by income and education. People from higher socioeconomic groups are significantly more active. Data by occupation class shows 73% of adults in the highest social grade (NS-SEC 1–2) are active, versus only 53% in the lowest grade (NS-SEC 6–8) . That’s a 20-point gap. In other words, poorer communities have almost half again the rate of inactivity of affluent ones. This is a persistent and troubling inequality – often termed the “activity poverty gap.” It’s driven by multiple factors: less access to facilities (and more facility closures in those areas), cost barriers, more insecure work schedules (harder to commit time), and cultural factors (if fewer peers are active, a person has less social motivation – indeed 62% of people who don’t play sport say they don’t know anyone who does , highlighting social network effects).

Geographic data illustrates this: regions with economic deprivation have lower activity. The North West, West Midlands, and Yorkshire each have around 59–61% active adults, whereas the more affluent South East is ~68% . Within cities, we noted the East London example; similarly, parts of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool with high unemployment show low sports uptake. For NBRH, cracking the lower-SES market is both the greatest challenge and the greatest social impact. Price and accessibility will be key – offering low-cost or free entry points (perhaps via sponsorships or public partnerships) and bringing sport to people’s doorsteps (e.g. utilising community halls, school gyms after hours, local parks) can help. The fact that 70% of people in the worst-off households don’t even know someone who plays sports underscores the need for community-building – exactly NBRH’s ethos. By creating local sports hubs and marketing through community leaders, there’s a chance to shift cultural norms in these groups.

• Ethnicity: Activity levels vary by ethnic background, often intertwining with cultural and socioeconomic factors. Broadly, White British adults are around the national average (mid-60%s active), while some ethnic minority groups have lower rates . Sport England data indicates the highest activity rates are among those of Mixed ethnicity (around 71%) and “White: other European” (67%), whereas South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi etc.) and Black communities are less active (roughly 55–58% active) . Chinese ethnicity adults were noted around ~57% active, and “Other ethnic” 60% . These differences have many causes: cultural preferences, religious practices, discrimination or lack of welcoming opportunities, and location (many minorities live in inner cities where facilities may be fewer or feel exclusionary).

Notably, ethnic minority women tend to have the lowest activity rates. For example, only 30% of South Asian women in some surveys meet activity guidelines (compared to 60+% of White women). There are initiatives (“This Girl Can” had targeted messaging for women of color, and groups like Muslim Girls Fence or Bengali girls’ dance classes have sprung up) – but mainstream sports often haven’t adapted. Culturally tailored programming can open doors: e.g. women-only sessions for communities where mixed-gender is a barrier, or sports that resonate (dance, martial arts, cricket in South Asian communities, etc.). NBRH’s platform could allow filtering or custom groups (imagine an NBRH group for “Women’s Only Zumba – South London” or partnerships with cultural associations). The key is to build trust and relevance in these communities.

• Disability and Health Conditions: There is a significant inclusion gap for disabled people. Adults with a long-term disability or health condition are far less active – only 48% of those with a disability are active, versus 69% of those without such conditions . That’s an enormous gap (21 points). While some disabilities physically limit activity, much of this shortfall is due to lack of accessible opportunities and support. For example, many sports clubs or gyms are not disability-friendly, transport is a barrier, and people with conditions often don’t feel catered to. Yet, the appetite is there: surveys show a majority of disabled individuals want to be more active for health and social reasons. This is a niche where NBRH can collaborate with specialist charities (like Activity Alliance) to offer adapted sports or simply inclusive marketing that welcomes those with different abilities. Even facilitating buddy systems or accessible venue info on the app can help. With nearly 1 in 5 UK adults reporting a disability, this is both a moral imperative and a considerable user base segment.

• Sexual Orientation: One interesting insight from Sport England: LGBTQ+ adults are actually more likely to be active than heterosexuals. The active rates were reported as heterosexual 64%, gay men ~71%, lesbian women ~73%, bisexual ~70% . This could reflect urban demographics (LGBTQ+ individuals may cluster in cities with more fitness options) or community subcultures valuing physical outlets. There are thriving LGBTQ+ sports leagues and clubs (e.g. London’s LGBTQ+ football league, Pride Run, etc.). However, this stat doesn’t mean all is rosy – many LGBTQ+ folks still feel unwelcome in traditional sport environments due to past stigma. The high activity rates might be because they choose individual fitness or inclusive clubs. NBRH should ensure a safe, welcoming space for LGBTQ+ users, as they can become passionate community-builders (we already see popular “gay-friendly” sports meetups; NBRH can amplify these).

In sum, the demographics show young, educated, higher-income people lead in activity, whereas older, poorer, minority communities lag – with gender and disability cutting across these. The 18–35 age range we’re focusing on intersects favorably with some of these (youth, tech-savvy) but also includes those underserved (e.g. young people from disadvantaged backgrounds or young women lacking confidence).

For NBRH, key audiences of opportunity include:

• Urban Young Professionals (male & female, 20s–30s) – already active but seeking social connections and variety.

• Young Women (late teens–20s) – who dropped out of team sports but would return in the right environment.

• Lower-income Youth (18–30) – who have fewer options; NBRH can bring free/low-cost sport to them.

• Ethnic Minority Communities in Cities – especially women; a platform that offers culturally sensitive activities (and perhaps female instructors, etc.) can tap latent demand.

• Individuals with Flexible Schedules (gig workers, students) – they may prefer ad-hoc activities at off-peak times; a tech platform matches well to that.

• Transitions: e.g. new graduates, who often lose their university sports network; and new mothers, who need flexible, family-friendly activity (NBRH could facilitate baby-friendly classes or playdates with exercise).

Data-driven profiling like this helps ensure NBRH’s product, marketing, and on-ground activations are tailored to the right people in the right way. It’s not one monolithic market – it’s a mosaic of micro-segments, each with different needs and friction points, which we will address in our strategy.

3. Why Are Some People Not Participating? (Barriers & Friction Points)

If the benefits of sport and exercise are so clear, why do a quarter of adults remain inactive? Understanding the “why not” is crucial for designing NBRH’s experience to overcome those barriers. Research – both quantitative surveys and qualitative insights – consistently highlights several key friction points:

1. “I don’t like exercise” – Enjoyment (or lack thereof): A significant chunk of the population simply does not enjoy the conventional exercise experience. A recent national survey found 20% of people don’t exercise because they dislike exercise itself, and another 13% because they find it boring . This was the number one barrier, even more than time or cost in that survey. Many cite traumatic or dull experiences in school PE or intimidating gym classes that turned them off . For these folks, exercise feels like a chore, punishment, or something irrelevant to their interests. This is a critical insight: the product (sport) needs to be fun. People are far more likely to stick with physical activity if it’s play, not work. NBRH can tackle this head-on by curating non-traditional, playful activities (think trampoline dodgeball, dance workouts to great music, roller-skating, group hikes with a social twist) and by emphasising the social fun over the fitness. The name “social sport” is key – many who hate “exercise” might love a kickabout with friends or a gameified workout when reframed. Essentially, making exercise enjoyable and social will convert a large cohort of the currently disengaged.

2. “I’m not fit enough / confident enough” – Psychological Barriers: Intimidation and lack of confidence stop many from participating, especially in formal settings like gyms or sports clubs. The concept of “gymtimidation” is real: previously 1 in 5 Britons felt too intimidated to even go to a gym , though that’s improved to 8% recently . Women and young people report this more – e.g. 13% of 18–24s and 10% of women still feel “gymtimidation” . The top cause is anxiety about exercising in front of others (70% cite this) – essentially fear of judgment, looking unskilled or out-of-shape. Similarly, many feel they need to be fit to join a sports team, or that they “aren’t sporty” so they don’t belong. This is a huge perception barrier.

The Women in Sport study on teenage girls found fear of being judged (68%) and low confidence (61%) were the main reasons girls quit sport in adolescence – and that sticks with them into adulthood. Overcoming this means creating environments that are inclusive, beginner-friendly, and non-judgmental. NBRH can implement solutions like explicitly beginner-level sessions, emphasis on fun over competition, peer encouragement (user reviews that highlight welcoming atmospheres), and perhaps features like anonymity or privacy controls for those nervous to show up initially. Also, showcasing diversity – seeing people “like me” being active – is key to confidence. In marketing and in the app, highlighting stories and images of regular people of all shapes, sizes, and skills enjoying activities can chip away at the psychological barrier.

3. “It’s too expensive” – Cost: Despite many free ways to exercise, cost remains a reported barrier, particularly for structured activities. As noted, 30% of people who quit gyms did so because of cost – gyms can be costly, and even public leisure centres often charge £5–£8 per session or require memberships. For sports like tennis or football, facility hire, equipment, or club fees can add up. Lower-income individuals consistently mention money as a reason for not participating. With the current cost-of-living crisis, this is even more salient. Yet, interestingly, people are still prioritising health spend; one report found 24% of Britons actually increased health and fitness spending in 2024 despite financial concerns . So there’s a willingness to pay if value is seen.

The goal for NBRH should be to lower the cost barrier to the user without sacrificing quality. This could be achieved by group economics (splitting the cost of a coach or venue among many participants), using free outdoor spaces, or subsidising via sponsorships/local authority support for certain groups. Also, offering a range of price points (from free community meetups to paid premium experiences) can ensure cost isn’t a hurdle to basic participation. Importantly, transparency and no long-term commitment are crucial – people hesitate to sign up if they fear wasting money (note the success of no-contract, low-cost gyms like PureGym in attracting those who avoid pricey year-long contracts).

4. “I don’t have time” – Time & Convenience: Modern lifestyles are busy, and lack of time is a classic excuse (or reality) for not exercising. About 15% say lack of time made them stop going to the gym , and it’s often among the top three barriers in surveys. People working multiple jobs or long hours, or with family responsibilities, legitimately struggle to find consistent time for sports. Traditional sports demand schedules (weekly training at 7pm, or matches every Sunday) which many can’t commit to. If someone misses a few sessions, they drop off entirely.

Convenience is king – that’s why home workouts and jogging (which you can do anytime) remain popular. NBRH can solve this by offering on-demand, localised activities: e.g. a user can find a game or class near them that fits into a free hour they have, rather than reorganising their life around sport. By aggregating many opportunities, the app increases the chances one fits a user’s schedule. Additionally, shorter formats (a 30-minute high-intensity game or express class) could appeal to time-crunched folks versus traditional 2-hour club training. Essentially, the “Uberification” of sport – summoning an activity when you can spare the time – is a game changer for those who would otherwise default to doing nothing because they can’t do everything.

5. “No one to go with” – Social & Structural Support: Humans are social creatures – having a friend or group to be active with is a big predictor of participation. Many inactive people lack an active peer group; as noted earlier, in the lowest socioeconomic groups 70% don’t know anyone who plays sports . Starting a new activity alone can be daunting. The absence of a “buddy” or mentor often means someone simply won’t show up. Conversely, those who do have social support – a friend inviting them to a class, a family that hikes on weekends – are far more likely to be active.

NBRH’s whole premise addresses this: build communities where none exist. By making it easy to join a friendly pick-up game or class, users instantly have people to exercise with. Features like group chat, community challenges, or referral incentives (bring a friend) can further strengthen the social glue. The goal is to ensure no one feels alone in their fitness journey. Over time, NBRH could foster micro-communities (neighborhood teams or regular meetups) that give people that sense of belonging which traditional clubs provided in the past.

6. Facility Access & Environment: Sometimes the barrier is literal – there isn’t a convenient place to go. If local leisure centres have closed or are in disrepair, if parks feel unsafe or are poorly lit, if one has to take two buses to reach a pool – people won’t go. The UK has seen a worrying decline in public sports facilities: e.g. almost 400 public swimming pools have closed since 2010 in England , often in areas of greatest need. UKActive warned in 2022 that up to 40% of council-run leisure centres were at risk of closure due to financial strain . This “last mile” problem disproportionately affects disadvantaged areas. Private gyms have expanded, but typically in profitable locations (city centers, retail parks) – leaving some neighborhoods as “activity deserts.”

NBRH alone cannot rebuild infrastructure, but it can better utilise what exists and lobby/partner for more. By working with schools, community halls, or even unconventional spaces, the platform can bring activity to facility-poor areas. Also, by highlighting all the free outdoor options (like listing safe running routes or outdoor gyms), it can connect people to resources they might not realise are there. Eventually, data from NBRH on unmet demand could support business cases for new facilities (i.e. showing councils “look, 500 people in this postcode want a badminton court weekly”).

7. Life Transitions & Priorities: Many drop-off points are linked to life changes – leaving school, starting a job, having children, moving cities, etc. During these transitions, routines get disrupted and sport often falls by the wayside. For instance, university graduates who played sports often stop afterwards because the easy opportunities (campus leagues, free facilities) are gone. New parents – especially mothers – face time constraints and often lack offerings that accommodate babies/children. Mid-career professionals hit “lack of time” issues. And older adults may quit as they develop aches or fear injury.

Addressing transitions requires targeted solutions: e.g. NBRH could partner with universities to onboard graduates into city-based sports social groups (so they continue playing when they move for work). Or create parent-and-child exercise sessions to keep young mums involved (like stroller fitness or creche-equipped classes). Flexible scheduling, as mentioned, helps those whose routine has changed.

In short, the barriers to participation are not fundamentally about people being lazy – they are about our sports offerings not fitting people’s lives and needs. People want to be active (76% say they aspire to be healthy ), but if the experience is dull, intimidating, costly, time-sucking or logistically hard, many understandably opt out. The clear opportunity for NBRH is to design out these pain points: make sport fun (tackle enjoyment), make it welcoming (tackle intimidation), make it convenient and flexible (time), make it affordable (cost), and make it communal (social support). If we do that, we remove the excuses and hurdles that keep millions inactive.

It’s heartening that even with current barriers, trends are improving – meaning when solutions appear, people take advantage. For example, as low-cost gyms proliferated, membership soared; as parkrun offered free, community 5Ks, hundreds of thousands started running regularly. It shows that when the offer is right, behaviour follows. NBRH aims to be the next catalyst by offering the “right” format for social sport.

4. The Evolving Sports Landscape: Traditional vs Informal, Digital vs Physical

Sports participation is no longer binary (you’re either on a formal team or you’re a couch potato). The landscape now is a spectrum from traditional organized sports to completely informal, with digital technology increasingly blending into the experience. Understanding this evolution will inform how NBRH positions itself and competes/collaborates with others.

Traditional Format (Organized Sport): This includes joining a sports club or league, training on a schedule, competing in matches or events, usually led by a coach or governing body structure. Examples: playing for a local football club in a county league, being part of a netball team, or attending a karate dojo. These traditional formats have a long-term commitment and often a competitive ethos. They tend to attract those already skilled or confident – and skew male and middle-class historically (though there are many exceptions). The strengths of traditional sport are structured progression, team camaraderie, and competition. However, they suffer from inflexibility and exclusivity: fixed training times, skill thresholds to join, costs (membership fees, kit), and sometimes an intimidating culture to newcomers.

Trends show that traditional sport participation has been either flat or declining among adults. Sports club membership rates are lower among young adults today than 20 years ago. For instance, in the YouGov poll cited earlier, only 10% of Brits said they play football regularly, ~4% play tennis or golf, and most other sports <4% . This is a huge drop-off compared to school-age participation. Traditional sports struggle to retain people after adolescence; many sports see the bulk of their participants under 18 and then a smaller veteran cohort 35+. National governing bodies (NGBs) are aware of this and have started to introduce more flexible offerings (e.g. shorter, social versions like “Just Play” kickabouts from the FA, or casual badminton sessions).

Informal Format (Casual/Drop-in/Play): This is the kind of activity that doesn’t require joining a club or committing to a season. It could be a group of friends playing basketball at the park, a casual running club, a pickup game you find via an app, or a fitness bootcamp in a park that you pay per session. Informal sport has exploded in popularity because it fits modern lifestyles. Offerings like “turn up and play” have emerged – for example, in football, there are commercial leagues and meetup games where individuals can just show up and be slotted into a team for that evening. Footy Addicts is a prime example: it enables people to find casual football games without being on a formal team, and thousands use it weekly in cities . Similarly, Parkrun is an informal, volunteer-led 5K run: no teams, no season, just show up on Saturday and run with others – attracting around 200,000 participants on a good weekend across the UK.

Informal formats typically emphasise inclusion and flexibility. They often welcome all skill levels and allow people to dip in and out. The social aspect can still be strong (regulars form friendships, there’s camaraderie without the pressure of competition). For many urban young professionals, these casual leagues or classes have essentially replaced joining a formal sports club. One can play a different sport every week if one likes – Tuesday football, Thursday dodgeball, Saturday ultimate frisbee – whereas traditional sport usually meant focusing on one sport.

The Rise of Fitness & Hybrid Activities: Adding to the mix, a lot of what we consider “sport” participation has shifted toward general fitness activities. Gyms, fitness classes, yoga, Pilates, CrossFit, spinning – these are not sports per se (no ball or team, usually), but they are organized physical activities often done socially. The lines blur: is a CrossFit box a gym or a sports club? It has coaching, a community, even competitions (the CrossFit Open). Many young people find their tribe in boutique fitness studios or bootcamps similar to how others do in sports teams. The data reflects this shift: “Fitness activities” (gym, cardio, classes) are one of the fastest-growing domains. In the last year alone, 802,000 more adults took part in fitness activities (a +1.5% increase) compared to the previous year . Fitness and active lifestyle sports (like outdoor hiking groups, climbing, etc.) are increasingly preferred over regimented sports practice.

Technology’s Impact – Digital and Hybrid Models: Tech has woven into sports in two main ways:

• (a) Facilitating real-world activity: via platforms that connect people or provide convenient access (this is where NBRH sits). Examples include apps for finding games (Footy Addicts, OpenPlay), booking platforms (MyLocalPitch, ClassPass) that let you find and reserve courts or classes, and social networks (Strava, Nike Run Club) that provide community and motivation for otherwise solo pursuits. These digital tools reduce friction – you can find a tennis partner at your level in an app or join a virtual challenge that keeps you running regularly. They also generate data (track progress, provide feedback) which can boost engagement.

• (b) Delivering virtual or at-home activity: e.g. Peloton and other home workout apps, VR fitness games, YouTube workout influencers (think Joe Wicks). During the pandemic, this side surged. In 2020–21, with gyms closed, millions turned to home fitness – Peloton’s subscriptions boomed (though have since stabilised or dropped), and overall home workout participation jumped from 24% to 36% of people during lockdown, before settling to ~33% in 2022 . Now we have a hybrid reality: many continue using digital workouts for convenience but also crave real-life experiences for variety and social contact.

Digital-Physical Hybrid: The likely future and the space NBRH inhabits is the blending of digital and physical. People use an app to enhance their physical activity experience – whether to find a group, augment a workout with tracking, or compete on leaderboards. Fitness tech trends indicate:

• Wearables & tracking are mainstream (Fitbit, Apple Watch, etc.), meaning users often have data and are goal-oriented. Integrating with these (e.g. rewarding people for activity via the platform) can gamify engagement.

• Virtual challenges and communities: e.g. Strava segments or Fitbit challenges show that a virtual layer of competition/fun can keep people engaged across geographies. NBRH might implement city-wide challenges (“London vs Manchester active minutes” or neighborhood leagues that tally points from various activities).

• On-demand fitness content: Many gyms now offer both in-person and online classes (hybrid memberships). While NBRH is focused on in-person social sport, there’s potential to include digital content for training, recovery, or rainy-day alternatives – keeping users in the ecosystem even when they can’t meet physically.

Changing Notions of Sport: There are also new forms of “sport” emerging that blend culture and activity:

• Example: E-sports and active gaming – not exactly our focus, but interestingly, games like Pokémon Go got people walking outside (augmented reality games bridging digital and physical).

• Movement culture – disciplines like parkour, street workout, calisthenics in parks, freeform dance, etc., which don’t require formal structure but have communities.

• Mass participation events with a twist – Tough Mudder (obstacle races), color runs, “rave runs” (5k with music and lights) – these are events that are fitness meets festival. They cater to experience-driven younger consumers.

The common thread in successful modern formats is experience, flexibility, and community. Traditional sports delivered community and competition, but perhaps lacked inclusivity and flexibility. Gyms delivered fitness but historically lacked community (though that’s changed with group classes and boutique studios emphasizing tribe-building). Tech delivers convenience and personalisation but can lack the in-person camaraderie.

NBRH’s value proposition can be seen as combining the best of all worlds: the social cohesion of a team sport, the flexibility of a casual meetup, the inclusivity of a group fitness class, and the convenience of a digital platform.We bridge traditional and informal by providing structure (a schedule of events, accountability) without rigidity (come when you can). And we leverage digital means to enrich the physical sport experience.

A quick comparison to illustrate:

• Joining a traditional football club: Requires tryouts or knowing someone, fixed weekly practice, season-long commitment, moderate cost for kit/fees, medium social (team of same people all season).

• Playing via NBRH (hypothetical): Open to all, pick-up game scheduled on demand when enough people join via app, commit one evening at a time, pay a small per-session fee, high social variety (meet new people each game, or stick with friends, your choice), and no long-term strings attached.

For a busy 25-year-old, the latter might be far more appealing. On the other hand, NBRH can also support more consistent cohorts for those who do want that team feeling (e.g. allow groups to form and re-book regular slots).

Competitive Landscape Implications: The move towards informal and digital means NBRH’s competition isn’t just local sports clubs, but also:

• Other apps/platforms in the UK doing sports organisation (our analysis of those comes later, but e.g. Meetup, Facebook groups, Footy Addicts, Let’s Do This for events, etc.).

• The gym and class industry, to an extent – since a fitness class might compete for someone’s evening slot vs joining an NBRH game.

• People’s own inertia with digital entertainment – i.e. Netflix, gaming at home, etc., which is the default leisure for many. Here, emphasising that NBRH offers fun and social connections as rewarding as going out could convince someone to choose an active hangout over passive entertainment.

In conclusion, the landscape has shifted to favor flexible, user-centric models. Traditional sports aren’t dead – they still engage millions (especially among children and elite pathways) – but for the everyday adult, there’s a clear gravitation toward “sport-lite” experiences: sociable, easy-in-easy-out, and aided by tech. NBRH sits squarely in that sweet spot, essentially formalising and scaling the informal. We don’t compete with sports, we elevate and connectthem in new formats. This section’s takeaway: NBRH is to sports what “on-demand” is to media – a modern delivery mechanism for an age-old product, aligned with contemporary consumption habits.

5. Market Sizing: TAM, SAM, SOM and the Overall Opportunity

To quantify the opportunity for NBRH, we have calculated the Total Addressable Market (TAM), Serviceable Available Market (SAM), and Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM), with clear assumptions for each. All figures use UK-focused data (given NBRH’s current scope), and primarily consider the 18–35 core demographic and related spending on recreational sport/fitness.

5.1 TAM (Total Addressable Market)

Definition: For NBRH, we define TAM in two ways – population TAM (total potential users in our target segments if we achieved 100% penetration) and revenue TAM (total annual consumer spending we could theoretically tap into).

• Population TAM: Our broadest market is all UK adults (16+) who engage in or want to engage in sport/exercise socially. Given trends of interest in health, we can assume nearly everyone has at least some desire to be active, but let’s be concrete. We’ll use the active population as a proxy for those who have intent. As of 2023, 29.5 million adults are active (did 150min in past week) . However, even some inactive might be future users if motivated, so TAM could include a fraction of the inactive. For generosity, include half of the “fairly active” 5.1m and some inactive who express interest. That yields roughly ~32 million adults who are plausible candidates.

But NBRH likely won’t target beyond middle-age initially (as our positioning is youthful). Focusing on 18–35 year-olds: There are about 14 million people in the UK in that age bracket (approx 21% of 67m population). Of those, ~70% are active , so ~9.8 million currently active. But many inactive young adults might still be reachable (they often cite lack of fun/opportunity as issues). If NBRH succeeds, it could attract some of those too. So we estimate TAM in 18–35 range as approximately 12 million young adults (this assumes maybe up to 80–85% of that demo could be drawn in if barriers were removed). If we widen to 16–45 year-olds, TAM would be larger (closer to 20 million), but let’s stay focused on the core.

Therefore, Population TAM ≈ 10–12 million prime-age adults in the UK who could use a social sport platform. This number aligns with evidence: e.g., 11.5 million gym members currently exist , which is a similar order of magnitude – indicating the number of people willing to pay for physical activity is in the low tens of millions.

• Revenue TAM: How much money do these potential users represent? The sports and fitness wallet can be substantial. A quick top-down approach: Consumers in England spent £25.1 billion on sport-related goods/services in 2017/18 , of which £13.7 billion (54%) was specifically on community sport participation (the rest being spectator sports, subscriptions, merchandise, etc.). Scaling England (85% of UK pop) to UK, that’s roughly £16 billion participation spend nationwide in 2018. Given growth in the sector (~3-5% annually) and inflation, by 2025 this could be in the ballpark of £20–£22 billion/year spent by UK consumers on participating in sport/physical activity (including gym memberships, class fees, equipment for personal use, entry fees, etc.).

Not all of that is NBRH-addressable (e.g. purchase of a bicycle or a pair of running shoes, which is part of that spend, might be outside our revenue streams). For a platform like NBRH, relevant spend categories include: gym memberships/class subscriptions, pay-as-you-go sports sessions, recreational league fees, personal training/group training fees, and possibly event fees. Let’s conservatively say about half of the total participation spend is in areas NBRH could facilitate (the rest might be equipment and apparel). That yields ~£10 billion/year directly addressable.

Another sanity check: If our ~12 million TAM individuals each spend on average £50/month on sport/fitness (which is plausible – e.g. a £40 gym membership + occasional £10 class; many spend far more, but some less), that’s £600/year each, which times 12m = £7.2 billion. If we assumed £75/month average, it’d be ~£10.8b/year. So Revenue TAM on the order of £8–12 billion annually is reasonable. To be bullish, one could include corporate wellness and government spending as well, but as TAM we’ll stick to consumer spend.

Thus, Revenue TAM ≈ £10 billion per year in consumer spend related to recreational sport/fitness that a comprehensive platform could potentially aggregate or compete for.

In summary, TAM ≈ 10 million people and £10+ billion annual spend in the UK. This is a “top-down” maximum – essentially the size of the prize if NBRH eventually captures everyone doing any sport informally, plus many who aren’t currently active. It’s huge and of course not all immediately reachable, which leads us to SAM.

5.2 SAM (Serviceable Available Market)

Definition: SAM is the portion of TAM targeted and reachable in the short-to-mid term with NBRH’s specific offering and geographic scope.

Assumptions for SAM:

• We focus on the UK urban population aged ~16–40 (slightly broader to include those up to early 40s who are still active and digitally engaged). Rural areas and older demographics are deprioritized initially because the model works best where there’s population density and tech adoption.

• We consider people who are already spending on or participating in some form of sport/fitness, i.e. the low-hanging fruit customers who would readily use NBRH to enhance/replace their current activities.

• Geographic: initial launch cities and near-term expansion. Likely starting with London (huge market itself: ~9M population, ~3M of 18–35 age) and then major cities (Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc.). London alone could be SAM phase 1. 

Population SAM: Let’s break it down:

• London: ~3.0 million people age 18–35. Assuming a high proportion are potential users (London has high activity rates but also high busyness – we might say 70% would consider using such a service). That gives ~2.1M in London. We might not reach them all at first, but they’re “available”.

• Other Core Cities: Say the next 10 largest metro areas – Birmingham (~1.1M city, 2.5M metro), Manchester (~2.8M metro), Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol, etc. Combined, perhaps another ~5–6 million 18–35s.

• There’s also a university town market (Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) but those could be later or peripheral.

If we take London + top 5 cities, we easily have ~5 million young adults. Expand to top 10 cities, ~8 million. Not all will hear of or have access to NBRH immediately, but as a Serviceable Market (reachable with effort), it’s reasonable to say SAM = 5–8 million people.

We will choose a midpoint: SAM ≈ 6 million people (roughly the population of target users in areas NBRH can serve within, say, 2–3 years of expansion).

Revenue SAM: These 6 million are likely above-average spenders on fitness (urban, young). If each currently spends ~£500/year on fitness (less than a full gym membership year, considering many use cheaper means), that’s about £3 billion annual spend already in play among them. Since NBRH could aggregate both existing spend (redirecting some gym/leisure spending) and unlock new spend (if currently inactive people start paying for sessions, or current actives add more activities), the revenue potential could be higher. But let’s align SAM revenue to something realistic like £3–4 billion/year accessible with full penetration in target cities.

Another approach: Sum of relevant market segments in UK:

• The gym market (mostly urban): IBISWorld estimated ~£2 billion market for gyms (and growing post-pandemic).

• The sports club/recreational league market: harder to size, but perhaps £500M–£1B (given Sport England’s numbers on community sport economic value).

• The pay-as-you-go classes/events market: ClassPass-type and recreational events likely also several hundred million.

So likely around £3B that is serviceable in near term via capturing share in those segments.

Thus, SAM (next few years, UK metro focus) ≈ 6 million users / ~£3 billion annual spend.

This represents the market NBRH could plausibly reach with concentrated marketing and operations – essentially the “beachhead” market of young, urban, already fitness-inclined consumers, plus some adjacent segments.

5.3 SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market)

Definition: SOM is the share of SAM we realistically aim to capture in the near term (e.g. 3–5 year horizon), given competition and our growth plan. It can be thought of as our initial market share or penetration.

We make assumptions for a 5-year outlook:

• NBRH scaling in London and 5 other cities.

• Achieving strong network effects in those locales (maybe 15–20% of the SAM in those cities become users).

• Expansion beyond that would be beyond 5-year, so SOM sticks to those first geographies mostly.

Let’s quantify:

If SAM is ~6 million people, we might target, say, 10% penetration as a bold but achievable goal in 5 years (this would be very ambitious already). 10% of 6M is 600,000 users. That feels plausible given a compelling offering and viral growth in the fitness community – for comparison, Parkrun got about 300k weekly runners (~1.5% of UK adults) in 15 years; ClassPass (pre-pandemic) had a few hundred thousand users in its markets; a popular fitness app like Strava has millions of UK users but that’s global scale and many years. So 600k active users is aggressive but not inconceivable if NBRH really takes off among youth.

We might instead project a range: maybe 300k to 500k users as SOM if things go well. But let’s keep one number for simplicity: SOM ≈ 500,000 users.

In terms of revenue, what does that yield? It depends on the monetisation model:

• If NBRH takes a cut of transactions or charges a subscription. Suppose on average each user spends £20/month via NBRH (e.g. one £5 session a week, or two a month at £10 each – reasonable for an engaged user). That’s £240/year each. 500k users would then generate £120 million gross transaction value. If NBRH takes ~20% commission, revenue would be £24 million/year from that base. If users spend more or we capture more value (ads, partnerships), it could be higher.

• Alternatively, if heavy users do multiple sessions, some might spend up to £50-100/month through the platform, which would raise averages.

To sanity-check: If we had 500k users, that’s about 8% of the gym membership count (11.5M). Gyms in UK get ~£2B revenue, so 8% would be £160M. Our model might monetize differently, but a rough analogy suggests a potential revenue in the low hundreds of millions if fully scaled to that user count.

However, SOM is not endpoint, it’s initial goal. So summarising:

• SOM ≈ 0.5 million users, corresponding perhaps to £100–150 million annual gross market throughput, of which NBRH could capture a portion (tens of millions revenue).

This SOM might correspond to, for example, dominating casual sport in London (say 300k users there) and having decent footprints in a handful of other big cities (the rest 200k). That would likely make NBRH the market leader in UK social sports by a distance.

We will present these figures clearly:

TAM: ~10M UK users (~£10B spend) — SAM: ~6M target users (~£3B spend) — SOM (5yr goal): ~0.5M users (potential ~£100M+ platform GMV).

Of course, these are estimates for planning; actual results will depend on execution, but even a fraction of SOM is a highly attractive business.

(Note: International expansion is not included here but could multiply TAM down the line. For instance, if NBRH eventually expands to Europe or Commonwealth countries, TAM could become ~100M people globally. Also, the TAM spending can increase as trends push more people to invest in health – e.g. global wellness industry is trillions of dollars. But for this report, we keep scope to UK with slight comparisons to similar markets later.)

5.4 Regional/Audience Opportunity Map

It’s also useful to map where and with whom the biggest opportunities lie (essentially a heat-map of high-potential segments). Based on our earlier analysis:

• London Metro: Highest priority region – huge young population, high spend, existing culture of trying new fitness experiences. Within London, focus on inner boroughs (where uptake will be fastest) but also target key underserved outer boroughs (opportunity to unlock new user pools). E.g. Clapham/Brixton (lots of young renters – likely early adopters) vs East London (large young population but fewer current options – high need).

• Major Cities (Tier 1): Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol – all have universities, youthful demographics and growing tech scenes. These are likely our next expansion hubs after London. Within these, certain neighborhoods (student areas, city centre) will spearhead adoption.

• Secondary Cities (Tier 2): E.g. Nottingham, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Newcastle – smaller but with dense pockets of 18–35s. Perhaps year 3-5 expansion.

• University Towns: Oxford, Cambridge, etc., where there’s transient population and many existing sports societies, but an opportunity to keep graduates or provide extra options beyond uni teams.

• Underserved Towns: This is more challenging pre-scale, but interestingly places that lost facilities (mid-sized towns in Midlands, North, or coastal areas) could have latent demand. They might become target for partnerships (with councils, Sport England funding) rather than pure market-driven expansion.

On the audience axis (who):

• Young professionals (20s): working in cities, often already spending on fitness. Easiest conversion if we offer something trendy and convenient.

• Students (18–22): have time and willingness, though lower budget; they churn by graduating but can seed networks.

• Recent graduates (22–30): key group that often loses sport after uni – target them to “continue the fun” in their new city.

• Young parents (late 20s–30s): often drop out due to kids; opportunity if we have kid-friendly or time-flexible offerings.

• Female-focused segments: as discussed, a big untapped market if we do it right (e.g. women’s only or just overall safer environment).

• Ethnically diverse youth: especially in cities like Birmingham or Leicester with large South Asian communities – design programs that resonate (e.g. badminton, cricket, dance fitness which are popular in these cultures).

• Fitness enthusiasts: those who currently only do gym could be lured into adding social sport for variety (e.g. the CrossFit crowd might try obstacle runs or sport leagues via NBRH).

• Beginner/returners: people in their 30s who haven’t done sport since school but are now wanting to get fit – they might prefer a social, team-based path to fitness rather than solo gym, if given an easy entry.

Behavioural segments:

• The Sampler – loves trying new things (NBRH can feed them endless variety).

• The Loyalist – wants a steady group (NBRH can facilitate consistent meetups).

• The Competitor – thrives on challenge (we can implement leaderboards, mini-tournaments).

• The Socialiser – primarily there for friends (we emphasise post-game hangouts, maybe tie-ups with pubs/cafes).

• The Improver – wants to build skills (we can offer coached sessions or skill workshops alongside casual play).

Mapping these opportunities, one can imagine a matrix of Region vs Segment, highlighting, for example:

• London – Young professional – Sampler (very high propensity, likely early adopter),

• Birmingham – Ethnic diverse youth – Socialiser (high need if we create inclusive groups),

• Manchester – Recent grads – Competitor (intrigued by social leagues to replace uni sport),

• etc.

This “opportunity map” thinking ensures our product and marketing can be tailored regionally. For instance, in London we might launch with a flashy multi-sport festival event to attract Samplers, while in a city like Bradford, we might work with community centres to host women-only fitness evenings for local South Asian women (tapping a very different segment).

In conclusion, the market sizing and mapping exercise shows a very large opportunity with a clear path to capture share. The UK has millions of target users and billions in spend, and we believe NBRH can realistically capture a significant slice by focusing on the right cities and demographics first. Achieving a 5–10% penetration of our core market would already be a highly valuable business and make a meaningful dent in the nation’s inactivity levels. And beyond that, scaling up to the full TAM (and eventually internationally) provides a long runway for growth.

(Sources for market data: Sport England Active Lives for participation counts , Sport England Economic Value report for spend , YouGov and UKActive for gym stats , IBISWorld/Mintel industry figures, and our own extrapolations.)

6. Consumer Spending, Satisfaction & Retention in Sport/Fitness

Understanding how consumers spend on sport and their satisfaction (or lack thereof) with current options provides insight into how NBRH can fit into wallets and improve on existing services. We’ve touched on spend levels in TAM; here we dig deeper into where that money goes, how happy people are with the status quo, and why they drop off.

Total Consumer Sport Spend: We established roughly £25 billion/year in England (£30b+ UK) is spent on sport and physical activity . Breaking that down:

• Gym/Health Club Memberships: Around 11.5 million Britons pay for a gym now . With an average membership ~£30/month, that’s ~£4 billion/year on gyms. Add boutique studios and class packs (boutiques like Barry’s, F45 can be £15-20/class), maybe another £0.5–£1b.

• Sports Participation Fees: This includes things like pay-to-play league fees (e.g. a 5-a-side football league might charge each team £500/season), recreational coaching sessions, facility hire (courts, pitches) by individuals, swimming pool admissions, etc. Hard data is scarce, but Sport England’s consumer survey suggests this is several billion. For example, indoor football alone: tens of thousands of small-sided teams pay to play weekly.

• Equipment & Apparel: People buy running shoes, bikes, racquets – these are one-off spends, part of the sport economy but not directly where NBRH makes money. However, they indicate commitment level. In 2019, Brits spent about £0.5 billion on sports equipment and even more on athleisure apparel. The rise of athleisure (wearing sports clothing casually) also reflects cultural penetration of sport.

• Events & Travel: A niche but some spend on entry fees (marathons, obstacle races etc.) and traveling for active weekends (hiking trips, sports tourism). This might be smaller relative to above, maybe a few hundred million.

Where the Money Might Not Be Well-Spent (Satisfaction Issues): Despite spending all this, are consumers satisfied? There’s evidence of frustration or under-utilisation:

• As mentioned, 50% of new gym members quit within 6 months on average . That implies people sign up (spend money) but don’t get long-term value, either due to loss of motivation or dissatisfaction. Many gym memberships go unused – with one estimate that 14% of members haven’t been to their gym in a year . Essentially, wasted spend.

• Retention challenges: An analysis of UK gym usage found that by month 6, only one-third of members are still attending regularly . This suggests traditional gyms are not solving adherence well – a gap NBRH can address by making activity more engaging and social (which tends to improve adherence).

• Sports Clubs churn: Less documented, but anecdotal – adult amateur clubs often lose members when life gets in the way, and many clubs struggle to recruit new blood. If one’s membership fee is £200/year but they only attend sporadically, satisfaction is low.

• ClassPass effect: People flocked to ClassPass (multi-studio subscription) for variety, indicating single-studio memberships weren’t satisfying the desire for diverse experiences. ClassPass’s popularity pre-Covid signaled that consumers enjoy flexibility and choice – something NBRH also offers (albeit in sport context). However, ClassPass also had issues with studio supply and pricing – showing that viability needs careful balance.

• Booking Friction: Many have money and intent to spend (say, to book a tennis court or a fitness class) but are put off by inconvenience (phone booking, memberships required at each venue, etc.). NBRH by simplifying discovery and booking can convert that intent to actual spend.

Consumer Satisfaction & Desires: According to a 2024 Mintel report, 70% of adults say being physically active is very important to them (so the intent and value are there). But fewer are satisfied with their current level of activity – the majority wish they could do more. Common desires include more affordable options, more fun options, and activities that fit their schedule. Convenience and enjoyment repeatedly top the list of what people seek in a fitness activity (aside from health outcomes).

We also see new metrics of satisfaction: People now often evaluate a workout by its experience – “Did I have fun? Did I connect with people? Do I feel good mentally?”, not just “Did I burn X calories?”. That’s why things like Zumba (fun dance vibe) exploded or why Parkrun emphasizes the social coffee after the run. NBRH should measure success in user satisfaction by these holistic metrics.

Drop-off Behavior: We’ve covered initial barriers and drop-offs, but to summarise retention issues:

• Seasonality: Big influx in January (New Year’s resolutions) and big drop by March. Up to 80% of resolvers give up by February according to personal trainers . This cycle is well-known. A savvy strategy could involve targeting those waning in Feb with a fresh approach (e.g. “try a new sport with NBRH to reboot your motivation”).

• Life events: when people relocate or their routine breaks (summer holidays, new job), they often drop their current fitness habit and may not resume or might try something new. This is both a challenge (could lose users) and an opportunity (to acquire users looking for a fresh start).

• Injuries or setbacks: One bad experience (injury, or even feeling very sore/out-of-place) can cause a person to drop an activity. Ensuring proper guidance and gradual intensity in NBRH activities will be important to avoid negative experiences that break the cycle for novices.

Emerging Spend Trends:

• Digital spend: Consumers now allocate part of their fitness budget to digital services – e.g. app subscriptions, connected equipment. The at-home fitness equipment market is growing (expected $21B globally by 2035 ). In the UK, however, people largely returned to outside/gym when able – Peloton’s boom leveled off. Still, many keep hybrid habits. NBRH might capture some of this by possibly offering a premium membership for content or partnering with digital providers (so users don’t have to choose one or the other).

• Group vs Solo: There’s a willingness to pay more for group experiences than solo. For instance, a person might balk at £50/hour for a solo trainer, but happily pay £10 to join a bootcamp with 20 others (which is effectively £200/hour business for the trainer). People perceive more value in group energy and also get a better price per head. This bodes well for NBRH’s model – group sessions monetise well and feel like value to users.

• Subscription Fatigue: On the flip side, consumers have many subscriptions (Netflix, Spotify, gym, etc.). Some may prefer not to add another recurring cost. NBRH’s likely transaction-based or flexible subscription model could appeal to those who want to pay-as-they-use rather than a flat fee, improving satisfaction as they only pay when they play.

The Cost of Inactivity: While not directly a consumer spend, it’s worth noting inactivity has a cost to society (£9.5b/year in health conditions as earlier mentioned ). There is increasing talk of how to incentivize activity financially (e.g. insurers offering discounts, employers paying for gym memberships). NBRH could tap into that via partnerships (companies paying for employee access, health insurers promoting our app). That effectively enlarges the pot of money available for our services and can improve user stickiness (free to them if paid by third party).

Loyalty and Community = Retention: Traditional businesses have learned that building a community increases retention (e.g. CrossFit’s cult-like community yields very low churn; running clubs keep people coming for the social bond). We expect NBRH, by its very design, fosters community which in turn should yield higher satisfaction and retention than solitary activities. One could imagine in a few years, NBRH users identify with their local NBRH “crew” or team, making it part of their identity – at that point, the likelihood of dropping out goes way down.Addressing Satisfaction Gaps: To summarise, current offerings leave gaps in:

• Motivation and fun (many find it a slog) – NBRH addresses with variety and social play.

• Flexibility (rigid schedules don’t suit) – NBRH offers on-demand.

• Inclusivity (intimidation) – NBRH fosters welcoming, mixed-ability sessions.

• Value for money (pay and then not use) – with NBRH, you pay per session or low commitment, so less waste; also potential to be cheaper per use than alternatives because of sharing economy aspects.

• Discovery (knowing what’s out there) – our app makes finding opportunities far easier, improving satisfaction by reducing the hassle.

By directly attacking these pain points, NBRH can not only attract users but likely keep them engaged longer, translating to higher lifetime value per customer than many fitness businesses achieve. For instance, if the average gym-goer sticks 6 months, and we can keep an average NBRH user active 12+ months by virtue of better experience, we double the retention and value.

In summary, consumers are spending more than ever on getting active, but they aren’t entirely happy with their options – evidenced by high churn, boredom, and continual search for something that sticks. Satisfaction in the sports/fitness market is up for grabs; whichever provider best meets modern consumers’ criteria will reap loyalty. We believe NBRH can be that provider by delivering enjoyment, community, flexibility, and value. In doing so, we’ll convert more of that latent spending potential into actual usage (growing the pie) and grab share from less satisfying modalities (gyms, etc., shrinking their pie slice).

(Sources: Sport England economic report ; UKActive/YouGov surveys on gym drop-outs ; Mintel 2024 Sports Participation report highlights ; Club industry retention stats via IHRSA/Ipsos .)

7. Behavioral & Cultural Trends Shaping Sports and Movement

Sports and exercise do not exist in a vacuum – they are influenced by broader cultural currents and, in turn, influence lifestyle trends. In recent years, several behavioral and cultural trends have been redefining how people approach movement and sport. Recognizing these will help NBRH stay ahead of the curve and resonate with its audience on a deeper level.

Trend 1: The “Wellness Generation” – Health as a Lifestyle & Identity

Younger generations (Millennials, Gen Z) increasingly view physical activity as part of a broader wellness lifestyle, intertwined with mental health, socialising, and personal identity. Gone are the days when sport was just a hobby; now working out or playing a sport can be a statement about who you are. A UKActive report calls Gen Z “the healthiest generation ever” in terms of attitude . They often prioritize going to the gym or a fitness event on Friday night instead of the pub or club. Phrases like “fitness is the new clubbing” capture this shift. This is partly health-consciousness (less binge drinking, more mindfulness of mental health) and partly the influence of social media (where looking fit and active is aspirational content).

This trend means our target users are likely to embrace a platform that enhances their healthy lifestyle and gives it a social flair. They might even use NBRH activities as social currency (“I went to this cool NBRH paddle-boarding social on the weekend”) much like they would a music festival. We see wellness festivals, healthy raves (Morning Gloryville dance parties with smoothies instead of alcohol), and other fusions of fun and fitness. NBRH can ride this wave by making sport not just about competition but about experience – marketing activities as events, with music, culture, maybe even fashion elements (e.g. themed runs, partnership with athleisure brands).

Trend 2: Social Connectivity & Belonging

In an era of digital social networks, paradoxically, loneliness and disconnection are on the rise among young people. Sports and group exercise are being rediscovered as a way to forge real-world connections. Movements like Parkrunexplicitly highlight community and volunteering; post-run coffee chats are as integral as the run. Midnight Runners (a London-founded running crew) blast music and do exercises around the city, mixing nightlife vibes with running, creating a tribe-like feel. People are seeking communities where they feel they belong; sports can provide that tribe.

We also see identity-based sports communities growing: e.g. LGBT-inclusive clubs, women’s only clubs, faith-based sports groups (Muslim women swim group, church football leagues). These provide safe spaces and shared identity bonding. NBRH can incorporate this by allowing communities to form on the platform (e.g. an LGBTQ+ tag or women-only sessions, etc.). The emphasis should be on inclusivity and making everyone feel welcome, turning the platform into not just a service but a social network of its own (with the benefit of being physically active together).

Trend 3: Gamification & Competition in New Forms

While traditional competitive leagues might be down, the competitive spirit has taken new forms through gamification and personal challenges. Apps like Strava turned solo running/cycling into a social competition with segments and leaderboards (and indeed millions partake in that “friendly competition”). People use FitBit step challenges or Apple Watch rings to compete with friends on daily activity counts. Even corporate wellness programs introduce team steps competitions. This shows people enjoy competition when it’s flexible and fun, and often when it’s cooperative/for a cause (like a team working together for a step count, or charity fitness challenges).

We see mass participation events like Tough Mudder explicitly removing the winner aspect – it’s untimed and about finishing together – a shift from competition to challenge/cooperation. Meanwhile, e-sports and fantasy leaguesdemonstrate younger folks’ penchant for competitive play, but often in a more virtual or cognitive realm. A success example bridging physical and virtual is Zwift, a platform where cyclists connect their trainer and ride in virtual worlds against others – essentially turning a workout into a multiplayer video game.

NBRH can utilize gamification to boost engagement: leaderboards not just for fastest or fittest, but for participation (most diverse activities tried, consistency streaks), achievement badges, friendly rivalries between groups, etc. We can incorporate challenges that tap into that gaming mindset – for example, a city-wide “Sportathon” where neighborhoods compete for most active minutes logged, turning physical activity into a city game.

Trend 4: Holistic Health – Mental Health and Mindfulness

Society is increasingly aware of the mental health benefits of exercise. Many young people exercise more to manage stress or anxiety than to look a certain way. The NHS even prescribes exercise for depression now. Alongside this, practices like yoga and mindfulness have mainstreamed and often integrated with fitness routines (think yoga with live DJ, or meditation at the end of a tough bootcamp). People are seeking endorphins, flow states, and mood boosts.

This means activities that blend mind and body can be popular. For example, outdoor activities in nature (hiking, trail running, outdoor bootcamps in parks) are drawing people who might not like the gym’s four walls but want the calming effect of nature plus exercise. There’s also an emphasis on “listen to your body” rather than no-pain-no-gain now. Recovery, mobility, and wellness recovery activities (stretch classes, foam rolling sessions, etc.) are getting attention.

NBRH could incorporate this by offering not just high-energy sports, but also restorative or mindful sessions – like a community yoga morning, or a guided meditation cooldown after a game. By showing we care about members’ overall wellbeing, not just performance, we tap into why many are active today (to feel good, not just to win). It also might attract those intimidated by “hardcore” exercise by providing gentle entry points (e.g. a group walk or yoga in the park as an NBRH activity).

Trend 5: Diversity and Inclusion Movements

Culturally, there’s a strong push for inclusivity in all domains – sports included. Campaigns such as This Girl Can (for women), Black Girls RUN! (originating in US, but similar initiatives here), disability sport awareness (Paralympics coverage, etc.) are making an impact. People expect providers to be inclusive. They celebrate role models like the hijabi boxer or the plus-size yogi. Sport England’s strategy explicitly prioritises underrepresented groups .

For NBRH, championing diversity isn’t just moral but strategic: it widens our market and builds a positive brand. We should highlight diverse imagery in our marketing, success stories of “everyday people” who found their community via NBRH. Perhaps even run initiatives during things like Mental Health Awareness Week or Pride Month (e.g. special events for those causes). The more NBRH aligns with these social values, the more it becomes a culturally relevant brand, not just a service.

Trend 6: Flexible Work and Lifestyle Changes

The pandemic upended work habits – remote/hybrid work is common, which means people aren’t tied to 9-5 in the office as strictly. This opens daytime slots for exercise and means locality matters more (people spending more time in their residential area). Gyms have noticed increased daytime usage by home workers. Also, with flexible hours, someone might go to a 3pm fitness class then work later in evening.

This flexibility trend benefits NBRH – we can schedule activities at various times and find an audience (not just the pre/post-work 6am or 6pm slots, but 11am, 3pm). It’s easier to organise local pick-up games on a random afternoon now that more people are around in neighborhoods. It also means companies might support employees’ mid-day exercise since they’re not in an office – maybe even partner with NBRH for team-building sessions on company time (some progressive firms encourage an hour of exercise in workday).

Trend 7: Tech Integration & Quantification

We touched on wearables – the Quantified Self movement (tracking steps, heart rate, sleep, etc.) persists. Many users will want to sync NBRH with their wearables or get stats like how many calories they burned in a session, etc. That’s become expected. On the horizon, more sophisticated uses of tech like AI coaching or VR activities might come. While not core to NBRH’s initial model, being tech-forward (maybe AI suggests activities based on your history, or AR treasure-hunt runs) could become a differentiator down the line.

Trend 8: Sustainability and Green Exercise

People are also thinking about the environment and sustainability. “Ploggging” (jogging while picking up litter) became a mini-trend; cycling commuting is encouraged. There’s synergy between eco-conscious living and active living (less driving, more walking/biking; enjoying parks). We can expect interest in things like community gardening workouts or beach clean-up hikes. NBRH can align by hosting eco-friendly events (maybe partner with environmental orgs for a “clean-up run” or ensure our activities minimise waste, etc.). This resonates with younger users who often care deeply about causes.

Trend 9: Merging Entertainment with Sport

Sports content is huge (think YouTube fitness stars, or football skill challenges on TikTok). There’s an entertainment aspect to even doing sport – people recording their 5k run and posting, etc. Additionally, events like Red Bull’s extreme sports stunts or freestyle competitions show sport as a spectacle blending music, art, and culture. We mentioned things like dance parties + exercise. Even sports commentary and storytelling (podcasts like Tifo analyzing sport culture or Huck magazine profiling skate communities) enrich the narrative around sport participation, not just sport spectating.

NBRH can create content around its community – highlight user stories, do short videos of cool meetups, maybe have a blog or zine about the cultural side of grassroots sport (Vice/Dazed style coverage of interesting subcultures – e.g. the rise of urban climbing or the new vogue-dance workout trend). This positions NBRH not just as an app, but a tastemaker in the culture of movement.

In summary, these trends paint a picture of an audience that is health-conscious but fun-loving, socially hungry but time-poor, diverse and inclusive, tech-savvy yet craving real connections. They want experiences that tick multiple boxes: fitness, friends, fun, purpose. Movement is medicine, but also play.

NBRH’s approach – making sport social, accessible, modern – is almost a direct response to these trends. We make exercise fun (addressing wellness + entertainment), we build community (addressing social needs), we are flexible (suiting new work patterns), we’re inclusive (tapping diversity waves), and we incorporate tech (with our app as the facilitator). The cultural winds are blowing in our favor; it’s on us to put up the sail.

(Sources for trends: UKActive CEO comments on Gen Z ; Guardian/Observer lifestyle pieces on fitness culture shifts ; Sport England “Uniting the Movement” strategy acknowledging wellbeing and inclusion; various media like Vice on parkour , Dazed on gym culture ; participation data like Strava’s annual report for digital trends, etc.)

8. Public, Private, and Informal Sectors: Contributions & Gaps

Sports and physical activity in the UK are delivered by a patchwork of public, private, and informal sector players. Each contributes in different ways, and each has shortcomings that NBRH can help fill.

8.1 Public Sector Contribution

The public sector historically has been a backbone for community sport:

• Facilities: Local authorities own and run leisure centres, swimming pools, parks, and sports pitches. There are around 2,800 public leisure centres in the UK (including those run by council or trusts) – providing affordable access to gyms, pools, courts. Many people learn sports at council facilities or use the local park for recreation.

• Schools & Education: Schools (through PE and after-school clubs) and public universities (with their sports facilities) are major providers, effectively publicly funded. School sports instill basic skills and habits. However, school PE time has been slightly declining (from 8.4% to 7.7% of curriculum 2013–2017) and many schools have limited resources. The government has recently put money into school sport (e.g. Primary PE and Sport Premium), but it remains patchy.

• Government Funding & Campaigns: Sport England (a public body) distributes around £250m+ a year into grassroots initiatives. Campaigns like This Girl Can (by Sport England) are publicly funded and have successfully reached millions of women with empowering messages. There are also specific inclusion programs (disability sport funds, etc.). The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) sets sport policy; in 2023 they launched the “Get Active” strategy after a long gap since the 2015 strategy . That strategy acknowledges gaps and aims for cross-sector collaboration.

• Health sector: The NHS promoting exercise (social prescribing, “Better Health” campaigns, Couch-to-5k app by Public Health England) is a newer public effort linking health and sport. GPs in England now can prescribe exercise referrals; the target is 900k people referred to social activities by 2023/24 via link workers . This essentially generates demand for community sport – but the supply needs to be there (where NBRH can step in to provide activities for referred individuals).

Gaps/Issues in Public Provision:

Despite its importance, public sport provision has struggled due to funding cuts and rising costs:

• Aging or Closing Facilities: Many public sports centres were built in the 1970s/80s and need renovation. Budget cuts led councils to reduce hours or shut facilities. For example, as cited earlier, 276 local authority pools closed since 2015 . The energy crisis in 2022–23 hit pools and rinks hard (heating costs soared). The government did announce a £63m support fund for pools in 2023, but experts say it’s not enough .

• Access & Inequality: Councils in deprived areas often lack funds to invest in sport, so the people who need free/cheap facilities most have the worst provision (e.g. certain northern towns have very few leisure centres per capita). There’s a known pattern: areas with higher health needs lost more pools since 2010 – a negative inequality cycle.

• PE & Youth sport declines: Pressure on academic subjects has sometimes squeezed school sport. Also, fewer community fields (lots of school playing fields were sold off in past decades). This potentially reduces the pipeline of engaged young people.

• Bureaucracy: Public programs can be bureaucratic or poorly marketed – many citizens might not even know about council-run classes or find sign-up cumbersome.

8.2 Private Sector Contribution

The private sector (for-profit companies) has grown immensely in delivering sports/fitness:

• Gyms and Health Clubs: The private gym sector (from budget chains like PureGym and The Gym Group to premium clubs like David Lloyd, Virgin Active) serves millions. PureGym alone has 300+ clubs with ~1.7 million members. The budget gym revolution made exercise accessible 24/7 at £20–£30/month, attracting many who wouldn’t pay £60 for a traditional club. The result is a record number of gym-goers as we saw (11.5m) . However, gyms mainly cater to individual exercise and might not solve the social sport need (though some have classes and sports halls).

• Boutique Fitness and Studios: These are specialized (spin studios like SoulCycle/Psycle, HIIT studios, yoga studios). They deliver high-quality, community-driven experiences but often at a premium price per class. They thrive in London and big cities, targeting young professionals with disposable income. They contribute innovation in experience (music, lighting, instructors as quasi-celebrities).

• Professional Sports Clubs (Community programs): Top football clubs, etc., have community arms (like Arsenal in the Community) doing outreach, running local sport schemes. While their main business is pro sport, these foundations fill some grassroots gaps, especially in inner cities. Still, they usually engage kids more than adults and depend on club funding/CSR.

• Event Organizers & Recreational Leagues: Many small businesses or orgs run pay-to-play leagues (Powerleague, Goals Soccer Centres for five-a-side; local companies running netball leagues, etc.). There are also event companies organizing races, obstacle runs (Spartan, Tough Mudder – which was private, now partially charity-run after bankruptcy, illustrating the challenge in that market). These provide outlets for those inclined, but typically focus on one sport or one format.

• Sports Retail & Tech: Companies like Nike, Adidas contribute via campaigns (Nike Run Clubs, Adidas Runners – essentially brand-sponsored free clubs). Fitness tech companies (Peloton, Fitbit, etc.) have built online communities around their products, indirectly encouraging activity.

Gaps/Issues in Private Provision:

The private sector understandably targets profitable demographics and locations, leaving gaps:

• Affordability: Many offerings are out of reach for low-income individuals. Boutique classes at £15 each or even budget gym fees can be too much for some. The private sector under-serves those who can’t pay.

• Sport vs Fitness focus: Private sector mostly zeroed in on fitness (gyms, classes) because it monetises well. Team sports and casual play are harder to monetise, so fewer businesses focus there. This leaves a gap for adult social sport – a gap NBRH aims to fill. There are some commercial social sport providers (e.g. Go Mammoth, a company running social sport leagues in London), but it’s not as saturated as gyms.

• Fragmentation: Each private operator is its own silo – one gym chain membership doesn’t let you access another, class studios require separate sign-ups, etc. Consumers juggle multiple memberships or have to choose. This fragmentation is partly what aggregator models (ClassPass, MoveGB) tried to solve. NBRH similarly acts as an aggregator but in the sports realm, uniting various activities in one platform.

• Profit vs Participation: Private companies won’t operate in areas they can’t profit (e.g. rural areas, very deprived neighborhoods) without subsidy. So they leave those to public/charity. Also, they may not cater to niche groups unless there’s money (e.g. disabled sports require investment in equipment, which private gyms often don’t have specialized gear for, unless mandated).

• Retention and churn issues: As covered, many private offerings don’t hold people for long (gyms churn ~50% a year). This indicates a gap in keeping people engaged – which an approach like NBRH’s, focusing on fun and community, could improve.

8.3 Informal and Third Sector Contribution

Between public and private, there’s the voluntary or informal sector: charities, community groups, and just people organizing things among themselves.

• Community Sports Clubs (Voluntary-run): Thousands of local amateur clubs (Sunday league football teams, local running clubs, martial arts dojos, etc.) are run by volunteers or non-profits. They provide inexpensive opportunities and often have strong community roots. E.g., a local cricket club might be run as a members’ club with minimal fees, or a youth football club coached by parent volunteers for free. These are vital, especially in sports like football, rugby, cricket which have big club networks. Sport England supports many via grants.

• Parkrun: Worth singling out – Parkrun UK is a nonprofit initiative that’s become one of the largest mass participation phenomena. Over 8 million registered and ~300k weekly participants (pre-Covid) for free 5k runs across 700 locations. It’s volunteer-led each week. Parkrun has demonstrated the power of informal, community-led sport and also serves as a health intervention (some GPs prescribe Parkrun to patients).

• Charitable Programmes: Organizations like StreetGames (charity focusing on doorstep sport in deprived areas) bring free sessions to housing estates and community centers, training local volunteers as coaches. Sported is another that supports grassroots groups. Many disability sport groups (e.g. WheelPower for wheelchair sport) or specific initiatives (like “GoodGym” – combining running with community service tasks) operate as charities or social enterprises.

• Ad-hoc Groups & Meetup Culture: There’s a whole layer of informality: friends forming WhatsApp groups to play basketball on Tuesdays, colleagues forming a company team, Meetup.com groups for hiking or casual badminton, Facebook groups organising skate meetups, etc. These often fly under the radar of any official system. They show that if people want an activity and can’t find it formally, they’ll DIY it. However, these rely on a few motivated organisers and can fizzle if those individuals stop.

• Cultural/Social movements: For example, the #ThisGirlCan campaign not only advertised but spawned local women’s exercise groups. The “Januhairy” campaign (women doing exercise in January focusing on body positivity) or others might spark informal clubs. Also, faith institutions sometimes host sports (e.g. churches have recreation nights, gurdwaras have kabaddi events, etc.).

Gaps/Issues in Informal/Third Sector:

This sector is wonderful but:

• Capacity and Consistency: It relies on volunteers who can burn out. A community club might offer limited sessions due to lack of coaches or funding. Waiting lists exist in some places (like youth football clubs often have more kids than volunteer coaches).

• Visibility: Informal opportunities can be hard to discover unless you’re in the know. If you’re new to town or not connected, you might not hear of the local pick-up game or running group.

• Scale and Quality: Many small clubs have minimal resources (old equipment, no access to good facilities except maybe a borrowed school hall). The experience might not be as slick as commercial options. Some potential participants might be put off if it seems too amateur or cliquish.

• Funding dependency: Charitable initiatives often run grant to grant. If Sport England or a sponsor pulls funding, the program might end, regardless of community need.

• Inclusivity vary: Some volunteer clubs are wonderfully inclusive, others might be insular (the local cricket club that’s mostly one ethnicity or one social circle might not actively welcome outsiders). There’s no uniform standard.

Where NBRH Fits – Bridging Sectors:

NBRH can serve as a connector and enhancer across all three sectors:

• We can bring users to existing public facilities, increasing their usage (which helps justify keeping them open). E.g., by listing council leisure centre sports sessions on NBRH, or organizing group bookings to use a half-empty sports hall at off-peak times, we generate revenue for public facilities and activity for users. Councils might even partner, giving us favorable rates or promotions.

• We can generate business for private providers too, by acting as a new customer acquisition channel. For example, a local boxing gym could list a one-off class on NBRH to attract newbies who wouldn’t commit to membership outright.

• We can empower informal organisers: The guy who always organizes Sunday football could use NBRH to manage sign-ups and payments, making his life easier and his game more discoverable to new people. Community clubs could find new members via our platform.

• We effectively create an ecosystem where public, private, and community offerings are all visible in one place to the consumer. This transparency can highlight gaps (if no one is offering something in an area, NBRH might spark someone to start it, or we facilitate pop-up events).

• By handling logistics (booking, payment, communication), NBRH can lighten the admin load on volunteer organisers, hopefully sustaining those informal groups longer.

Policy Alignment: The public sector increasingly encourages cross-sector approaches (e.g. “local delivery pilots” that mix council, charities, businesses to get areas active). NBRH could become a key tool in a city’s strategy to get people active, by aggregating all opportunities and data-tracking participation. If we show councils that our platform increases engagement, they might subsidize certain activities on it for target groups (like offering discount codes for the inactive, funded by public health budget). That’s public and private working hand in hand.

A Note on COVID Aftermath: During Covid lockdowns, a lot of public indoor facilities shut, and people moved to parks (informal) and home (private tech). The recovery has seen public and private providers try to lure people back. Many learned to be active informally (home workouts, neighborhood walks) and might not return to old habits. This disruption is precisely why a fresh approach like NBRH can capture those who fell through the cracks – e.g. someone who didn’t renew their gym but is jogging alone; we can bring them into a new community activity instead.

In conclusion, each sector alone has limitations, but together they form a sort of net that catches different groups. Right now, that net has holes – certain demos (young adults post-school, women, low-income groups) slip through because neither public, private, nor volunteer orgs adequately serve them in an appealing way. NBRH can weave a tighter net by linking resources and providing a new model that complements all sectors.

The aim is to leverage the strengths of each: public sector’s reach and affordability, private’s innovation and capacity, community’s trust and grassroots connection – while mitigating weaknesses (lack of innovation or funds in public, exclusivity in private, inconsistency in informal). If done well, NBRH could become an integral part of the sports provision tapestry in the UK, effectively a fourth sector: a social-tech sector enabling the others.

(Sources: Local Government Association reports on leisure provision ; House of Lords Library brief on government strategy ; ukactive/CIMSPA warnings on closures ; examples of initiatives via Sport England, StreetGames, etc.; ParticipACTION Canada model as comparison for integrated approaches; our compiled data on facility closures and funding.)

9. Competitive Landscape (UK): Gyms, Platforms, and Community Initiatives

NBRH operates in a landscape with various players competing for consumers’ “active hours” and money. Here we compare and evaluate key categories of competitors in the UK – from gym chains to tech startups to grassroots initiatives – and how NBRH differentiates or can collaborate.

9.1 Gym and Fitness Chains

Key Players:

• Budget Gyms: PureGym (largest UK chain, ~1.5–1.7M members), The Gym Group (~750k members). Also regional ones like Xercise4Less (recently acquired by JD Gyms). They offer 24/7 access, large footprint of equipment, some classes. PureGym’s UK market share is significant – they spearheaded the 48% of Brits now exercising regularly . They are expanding (PureGym eyeing more openings, The Gym Group too).

• Premium Health Clubs: David Lloyd Leisure (family-oriented clubs with tennis, pools; ~100 clubs in UK), Virgin Active, Nuffield Health (which combines medical wellness). These are pricier (£70–150/mo) and offer full facilities, often including racquet sports and kids’ programs.

• Boutique Studios: Not one chain dominates but notable ones: Barry’s Bootcamp (HIIT classes), F45 (functional training, franchised widely), Boom Cycle / Psycle (spin studios), Third Space (London high-end multi-modality). Also FRAME (dance/fitness classes chain in London).

• CrossFit Boxes: Many independent affiliates – CrossFit has a cult following; participants pay ~£100/mo to train in small community gyms.

• Others: Yoga/Pilates studios (e.g. Hotpod Yoga has multiple UK locations), boxing gyms (some upscale ones like 1Rebel’s boxing classes). Also ClassPass (though not a provider, an aggregator of studios – in London since 2015, had gone bankrupt in pandemic but restructured under Mindbody).

Threat/Overlap:

• Gyms mostly focus on individual workouts, so direct competition is limited in terms of the social sport concept – in fact, gyms could be partners (we might rent their studio for a group class through NBRH at off-peak times, etc.). However, they compete for the same leisure time. A person might either go to gym or play sport. Notably, 1 in 6 Brits are gym members – that’s a portion of our TAM already engaged elsewhere.

• Chains like David Lloyd do offer social sports internally (tennis leagues, group classes etc.), but their reach is niche (suburban families).

• Budget gyms, due to low cost, attract many newbies – but as we saw, ~50% quit within months. Those dropouts are prime target for NBRH (“Tired of the treadmill? Come play a sport with new friends instead!”).

• Boutique studios compete more for people seeking group motivation, akin to NBRH’s social appeal. However, they tend to be specialized (e.g. only spin). NBRH offers variety and might attract someone who doesn’t want just one modality.

NBRH Edge:

• Variety & Social vs Monotony: Gyms can be intimidating or boring to some; NBRH offers playful alternatives. We’re not bound to one location or equipment set.

• Cost & Commitment: Many gym contracts or class packs require commitment; NBRH is pay-as-you-go and potentially cheaper per session.

• Community focus: While CrossFit and some clubs have strong community, the average budget gym experience is solitary. NBRH is community-first by design.

• Facility-light model: We aren’t weighed down by owning infrastructure like gyms are. We can pop up wherever, including outdoors – gives flexibility in a way gyms can’t match. (But it means quality control is something we manage via partners).

We may collaborate with forward-thinking gym chains to host “members meets” or sport nights via our platform – but that’s to explore later. For now, gyms are more indirectly competing (for time and discretionary spend).

9.2 Sports Tech and Platforms

This is closer to NBRH’s domain – digital platforms trying to make sport easier to organise or access. Key ones in UK:

• Footy Addicts: A London-based social platform primarily for casual football. Users can find or host football games, pay per play (usually around £5–£8). It’s quite popular in London and some other cities. They claim thousands of active users and, as noted, ran 28k sessions in 2022 . Strength: focused on UK’s most popular sport, strong grassroots traction among young men. Weakness: single-sport, and relies on hosts (some games get cancelled if not enough players).

• OpenPlay / Playwaze / Spond: These are more B2B2C platforms or tools. OpenPlay (and MyLocalPitch, acquired by PayAsUGym and rebranded?) aimed to aggregate facility bookings and activities (some council partnerships). Playwaze and Spond are apps to manage amateur teams/leagues (schedule, chat, payments), used by existing clubs rather than creating new opportunities. They’re essentially management tools not discovery marketplaces like NBRH.

• Meetup.com: Not sports-specific, but many sports groups use Meetup to list events (e.g. social volleyball, hiking clubs). However, Meetup isn’t tailored for recurring play or payments – it’s more general and often free gatherings.

• Facebook Groups/WhatsApp: The ultra-informal competitor – hard to quantify, but many use these for coordinating games. They’re a “competitor” in that people might be satisfied with their WhatsApp five-a-side group and not need NBRH. But those groups also have issues (when players drop last minute, etc., NBRH could supplement them).

• ClassPass / Mindbody: For fitness classes, not sports, but competes for same user time. ClassPass does list some recreational classes (dance, martial arts) but mainly gym studios. Its presence means users have an aggregator mindset in fitness – which helps NBRH concept acceptance.

• ACTIVE Network / Let’s Do This: These focus on events (like listing marathons, triathlons to sign up). More for competitive events rather than casual play, but in the space of connecting users to activity events. Let’s Do This (UK startup) is like an entry portal for races.

• GoodGym (platform side): GoodGym is a charity where runners do community tasks. They have an online platform to coordinate local “missions”. It’s not open-for-all sporting events, but does gather people for active outings. They have ~run groups in 50 areas. While not competition for revenue, they compete for the narrative of “doing good while getting fit” – NBRH could even partner with them or emulate some volunteerism aspect.

NBRH vs. Other Platforms:

• Breadth: NBRH aims to cover all sports/activities, whereas most others are niche (Footy Addicts just football, etc.). This breadth is a USP – one app for all your social sport, which currently doesn’t exist at scale in UK.

• UI/Community Focus: Many existing tools (Spond, etc.) are utilitarian. We can differentiate with a slick, social-media-like interface, profiles, friend finding, etc., making it more engaging and network-driven.

• Transaction Support: FootyAddicts handles payments, which is good. Meetup doesn’t (works mostly for free events or cash on day). Having integrated payments, easy splitting, etc., is a killer feature to remove organiser headache. NBRH will excel here, learning from what ClassPass did for studios.

• Network Effects: The platform game is about critical mass. Footy Addicts has that in London football – tough to beat in that niche. But NBRH can attract those users by offering other sports too (maybe FootyAddicts players cross-use NBRH for gym classes or a different sport; eventually they might consolidate to one platform if ours offers football too). We have to strategically seed key sports to overcome incumbent advantage.

• Partnership vs Rivalry: We could consider partnering with a niche like Footy Addicts (if not directly, mimic strategy). But they’re likely a direct competitor on football. Meetup groups, we could convert them to NBRH by offering benefits (visibility, payment handling).

• LocalGov or SportEngland backing: If we can secure institutional support, we might outcompete tech rivals. For example, if Sport England recommends NBRH as the go-to app to find activities, that’s huge. There was a past initiative called “OpenActive” to open data on sports sessions; NBRH could harness that or become the friendly interface for that data. Smaller platforms haven’t achieved public mindshare – NBRH could.

9.3 Community Initiatives & Non-profits (Competitors/Collaborators)

While not competitors in a commercial sense, these initiatives compete for participants’ time and could be considered alternatives to using NBRH:

• Parkrun: Free, weekly, consistent – someone might choose Parkrun on Saturday instead of any other activity. Parkrun’s strength is simplicity and massive community. However, it’s limited to a run at a fixed time. NBRH might attract those who want more variety or who can’t make Saturday 9am. We certainly wouldn’t “compete” with Parkrun’s volunteer model, but we might list Parkrun events for convenience or partner by encouraging NBRH users to do Parkrun as part of their mix.

• Sport England’s own programs: e.g. We Are Undefeatable (targeting people with health conditions to be active in any way). It’s more campaign than offering events. They often direct people to resources – possibly to local community classes. If NBRH becomes known, such campaigns might direct folks to us to find classes, making them partners not competitors.

• Local Clubs & Leagues: A local amateur league might see us as competition if we draw players to casual games instead of their formal league. But we can also funnel people to clubs if they want to advance. There’s room for synergy: clubs might recruit talent from casual games, or use NBRH as off-season training.

• Charity sports events: e.g. Race for Life (Cancer Research’s women-only run series), or charity bike rides. These attract non-sporty people for a cause. They are typically annual events. Not direct competition, but they show people will get active if motivated by a cause or social pressure (friend group does a charity run). NBRH could incorporate charity partnerships as a way to motivate participation (e.g. a portion of event fee to charity).

NBRH Approach to Community Competitors:

• Collaboration: We aim to be complementary. For instance, encourage NBRH users to volunteer or join Parkrun, while Parkrun participants might use NBRH for mid-week workouts.

• Filling the gaps: Community groups often limited by schedule or demographic. NBRH can offer the other 6 days beyond Parkrun, or cater to those who find a club too high-commitment.

• Amplification: We can amplify what charities do by hosting special events on our platform (like a charity tournament). This ingratiates us with the non-profit sector rather than positioning as a threat.

Overall, NBRH’s differentiation:

• One-stop-shop: For the user who currently needs multiple apps/groups to satisfy their activity needs.

• Youthful brand and culture: Many existing sports offerings feel either corporate or old-school. We can build a cool brand (like the Red Bull of participatory sport or the Nike of community fitness). Think vibrant marketing, influencer partnerships, creative events – competitors in community space often lack marketing (Parkrun grew but rarely “marketed”; we can reach those who aren’t already converts).

• Operational focus on social sports: Gym chains focus on equipment, tech apps focus on either one sport or just the tech. NBRH’s entire operation (from ambassadors on ground to app features) is tailored to social play. That specialization can yield a superior user experience for that use-case.

Potential Competitive Responses:

• Gym chains might start offering more social sport sessions themselves (e.g. PureGym could launch internal member sports leagues or classes that mimic sports). But they may lack expertise or interest.

• Niche apps might expand beyond their niche (Footy Addicts adding basketball or netball). Being a first mover across sports could pre-empt that.

• Big tech could theoretically enter (if, say, a company like Decathlon (sports retailer) launched a global app, or if Nike ups its Nike Training Club to coordinate in-person meetups). But currently no sign of a giant doing exactly this in UK.

• Government might try to build a platform (they attempted some open data projects), but public sector digital projects often struggle for uptake compared to startups.

Key Competitive Advantage: NBRH’s ability to aggregate demand and supply in a fragmented market is a huge advantage. Sport participation options are fragmented – we unify them, making a network effect that competitors who stick to one modality can’t match. Once a user is in our ecosystem for one activity, they have incentive to use us for all (convenience of one profile/payment, etc.). This cross-pollination means we can quickly grow usage beyond what any single-sport platform can, given enough initial liquidity.

In essence, while there are many players in the broad space of “getting people active,” none currently dominate the social sport at scale arena in the UK. NBRH seeks to carve that new category. We will need to keep an eye on and perhaps partner with certain competitors (e.g. facility booking systems or local councils) to ensure we integrate well. But by focusing on the user’s need for ease, fun, and community, we differentiate from both the iron-pumping gym down the street and the disorganized Facebook sports group.

(Sources: Competitor websites and press releases, e.g. Footy Addicts blog stats ; ClassPass UK info from news; UKActive and Leisure DB reports for gym sector sizes; anecdotal evidence from use of Meetup/FB for sports; knowledge of local leagues and initiatives.)

10. Policy Alignment, Investment Flows, and Public Health Initiatives

For NBRH to succeed and create impact, aligning with macro trends in policy, investment, and health initiatives is crucial. Fortunately, current UK trajectories are favorable – physical activity is high on the agenda for government, investors see potential in sports tech, and health bodies are pushing exercise as medicine. Here we examine how NBRH fits into these broader trends:

10.1 Policy and Government Strategy

“Get Active” – UK Government Sport Strategy (2023): After years without an updated sports strategy, DCMS published “Get active: a strategy for the future of sport and physical activity” in August 2023 . Key points of this policy:

• Emphasises universal access to sport, acknowledging that certain groups (women, low-income, minorities) are left behind.

• Stresses the role of community sport in health, crime reduction, and social cohesion. For example, it cites evidence that sports programs can reduce youth crime .

• Calls for leveraging technology and innovation to drive participation (the policy explicitly notes modernizing delivery).

• Ambition to make children active for life, strengthen school sport, and support the workforce of coaches/volunteers.

• Importantly, it signals funding: e.g. continued support via Sport England (£360m was pledged over 2021-25 to grassroots via Uniting the Movement strategy), and infrastructure funds (some money for facilities upgrades, pool rescue fund, etc.).

How NBRH Aligns: We are essentially a case study in what the strategy calls for: using tech to make sport accessible to all. If we can show improved participation among target groups, we may attract grants or partnerships under this strategy. For instance, the strategy may prompt Sport England to fund innovative projects – NBRH could pitch as a solution to, say, get 100k more women active in cities (matching This Girl Can goals). The government also wants to see better data on participation – our platform’s data could be valuable, making us a friend to policymakers (with appropriate privacy guards). Engaging with DCMS and Sport England early to demonstrate alignment could open doors (perhaps pilot programs in the government’s 12 Local Delivery pilot areas to test new approaches).

Local Government and “Levelling Up”: Many local councils have health & wellbeing plans that include increasing physical activity. Also, the government’s “levelling up” agenda (reducing regional inequalities) indirectly ties in – investing in sport in deprived areas as a means of levelling health. Some city governments (e.g. London’s Mayor) have sport initiatives via London Sport, aiming to make London “the most active city”. London Sport has even experimented with technology grants, open data, etc. NBRH can partner with these local bodies, positioning our platform to help them hit their KPI of more active residents. For example, working with Birmingham City Council to boost activity ahead of or after hosting big events (like the Commonwealth Games legacy – Birmingham hosted in 2022 and wants to convert inspiration into participation).

Educational Policy: There’s discussion of extending school sports (some politicians call for two hours PE/week guarantee). Also, potentially opening school facilities after hours for community use (many are underused). If policies encourage that, NBRH could be a mechanism to coordinate community bookings at school sports halls/fields in evenings – a win-win making use of public assets.

Transport/Urban Planning: Not obviously linked, but active travel (walking, cycling infrastructure) is big in policy now. Encouraging cycling to work or walkable neighborhoods indirectly fosters a culture of activity. If cities invest in cycle lanes and pedestrian zones, people might feel more like being out and about – potentially raising willingness to join local sport events. Additionally, new housing developments often have to consider sports amenities (Section 106 agreements etc. provide funds for community facilities). NBRH might consult on ensuring new developments plan for flexible sport spaces that we can activate with programming.

Social Prescribing and NHS: We covered the NHS link – the NHS Long Term Plan (2019) explicitly set the goal for social prescribing link workers and referencing 900k patients to community activities by 2024 . There’s now a National Academy for Social Prescribing and regional schemes hooking up GPs with local charities and classes. Usually, these link workers use directories of activities (e.g. an online “Activities Finder” for their area). If NBRH can integrate into those systems (or even better, if those link workers use our app to find and refer patients into beginner-friendly sessions), that’s huge additional user flow and a great social outcome. We might tailor a special interface or program for referred individuals (ensuring the sessions are supportive for, say, someone with diabetes or mild depression who’s been told to exercise). Our data showing improved wellbeing could then feed back to NHS – closing the loop on efficacy.

UK Government Investment: Noting that, in House of Lords debate (May 2024), sports charities said more is needed from govt despite ambition . Possibly new funds could be announced. Also, devolved governments (Scotland, Wales, NI) have their own strategies (Sport Wales, sportscotland etc. have analogous missions). If NBRH expands UK-wide, aligning with each (e.g. Wales has a strategy to get more women in sport, etc.) can unlock devolved funding sources.

Bottom line: Policy context is favorable – government wants solutions like NBRH. The key is demonstrating impact so that public bodies embrace and perhaps subsidize usage for target groups (e.g. free credits for low-income users courtesy of council funding, etc.).

10.2 Investment Flows and Industry Trends

Sports Tech and Venture Capital: Sports tech is an emerging niche in VC funding. In 2021–2022, despite COVID setbacks in in-person, we saw:

• Peloton had huge valuations (though later fell), raising awareness of fitness tech.

• In Europe, firms like Elysian Park Ventures, KB Partners, SportInvest focus on sports startups. There was a stat that global sports tech investments were growing ~30% per year pre-2020.

• UK examples: FitXR (VR fitness, London-based) raised $30M+; Zwift (though US-based, heavy UK user base) raised ~$450M in 2020 to build an e-sports platform for cycling ; ClassPass got big funding (but ultimately was acquired at reduced valuation post-Covid).

• Sifted.eu listed sports tech startups to watch, which included community and grassroots focused ones like Heja (Swedish team management app) , and others in fan engagement, etc.

• Active Partnerships with VCs: A UK VC, Active Partners, invests in consumer wellness brands (they’ve backed Leon restaurants, Rapha cycling apparel, etc.) – they likely have an eye for innovative fitness models.

• Moonfire Ventures (London-based seed fund) has mentioned interest in social apps for wellness.

• We saw a mention that in 2023, investor sentiment was that sports industry revenues would grow 6.6% annually , and particularly women’s sports and participatory fitness are hot.

Where investment is flowing:

• Digital fitness and at-home: had a boom (Peloton, Tonal, Mirror etc.), now cooling. Investors might rotate to companies that bring people back together IRL (like NBRH) as a post-pandemic play.

• Healthtech meets fitness: apps that prevent illness via exercise, corporate wellness platforms – somewhat overlapping our space.

• Experience Economy: Even before pandemic, VC was keen on companies that deliver experiences millennials prefer to owning things. NBRH fits the “experience” bill.

• Community-driven brands: get premium valuations (e.g. Glossier in beauty, or Gymshark in apparel built a community). In fitness, a community plus tech play is compelling.

Public Market and M&A:

• Gym groups: PureGym shelved an IPO in 2021, but is expanding – that might reattempt listing, reflecting confidence in sector.

• Tech giants in fitness: e.g. Apple Fitness+ competes in content, Google acquired Fitbit – big tech is circling health but usually personal health tracking or content. They haven’t tackled community sport yet.

• If NBRH scales, potential acquirers could be companies like Lift Brands (which owns FitnessOnDemand), or even a large chain wanting to diversify (PureGym might acquire a platform to offer more services).

• But our goal would likely be to prove out UK then possibly attract global interest to expand.

ESG Investing: Many investors now focus on Environmental, Social, Governance impacts. A company that gets people healthier and fosters community has a strong “Social” impact story. We could potentially tap into impact investors or ESG-focused funds, as we deliver on SDG goals (health, reduced inequalities). Some health-focused impact funds or even government-backed funds (like UK’s Future Fund for innovative startups, or Sport England’s venture arm if they have one) might support us.

Corporate Sponsors: Not investment per se, but note companies like Nike, Adidas frequently sponsor grassroots sport initiatives (for brand goodwill and long-term market growth). They might partner or invest in a platform that drives more people to play (which eventually means more people buying trainers/clothes). E.g. Nike’s run clubs are free marketing events essentially. Possibly an exit or partnership scenario could be being acquired by a sportswear company wanting direct engagement with community.

So, flows summary: Money is available for proven concepts in this space. NBRH’s model touches tech, health, and social impact, a combination that can attract a broad range of investors (from traditional VC to strategic corporate to impact funds).

10.3 Public Health Initiatives and the Preventative Health Agenda

The NHS and public health authorities are increasingly focusing on preventative health – keeping people fit to avoid disease – to alleviate strain on healthcare:

• Physical Activity Guidelines & Campaigns: Chief Medical Officers recommend 150min exercise/wk for adults, muscle strengthening 2x/wk, etc. Public campaigns like “Better Health – Let’s Do This” replaced Change4Life, urging adults to get active, often with free app tools (like NHS’s Couch to 5k app had millions of downloads). We can align by being a platform where Couch to 5k graduates can find a running group to continue with, for example.

• Obesity Strategy: UK has alarming obesity rates, and government has policies (sugar tax, considering banning junk food ads). Exercise is half of the equation. There’s an NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) that includes physical activity support for at-risk individuals. Perhaps our platform could partner to offer suitable beginner programs to those in DPP in a friendly group environment (many such schemes currently rely on sending people to Weight Watchers-style sessions – perhaps group walks or dance classes could be more fun via NBRH).

• Mental Health Initiatives: GPs prescribe not just antidepressants but activities – there’s the concept of “green gym”(conservation work as exercise and therapy), and many local Mind charities do walking groups. A platform that increases social interaction and exercise would tick mental wellbeing boxes. NHS England might co-promote something like that especially for mild to moderate depression/anxiety cases (the largest mental health burden category).

• COVID Aftermath and Deconditioning: After lockdowns, some people became deconditioned or fearful of going out. There are efforts to re-engage older adults in activity. While older demographics aren’t our first target, eventually we could support them (like easy beginner sessions, or intergenerational activities). Public health England had campaigns specifically for older adults to do strength/balance exercises to prevent falls. NBRH might host a local “strength and balance” class series which the NHS would happily refer patients to.

• Workplace Health: Public Health England’s Workplace Health program encourages active breaks, cycle to work, etc. Some companies provide employees gym discounts or cycle schemes. We could approach large employers to suggest using NBRH for company team-building sports or sponsoring NBRH credits for staff. If employees are healthier, employer wins (less sick days, more productivity). This ties into corporate social responsibility (CSR) too.

Social Impact Evidence: Sport England’s own research valued the social and health value of sport at £72 billion in 2017 (including things like improved health, wellbeing, productivity) . Also, physically active people have significantly lower risk of diseases (30% lower risk of depression, etc.). So, any initiative that raises activity rates yields huge potential savings to NHS (in context, physical inactivity costs the NHS ~£1bn/year by some estimates, and costs the economy £7.4bn when including sickness absence). If NBRH can even dent that, public health agencies should be supportive.

One Public Health Caution: Ensuring we reach those who benefit health-wise (often older or less fit) vs just cannibalising those who already do enough. But since our focus is younger demo who are largely already active, we should also plan to gradually include more sedentary groups. Possibly we will have special entry-level events to attract inactive people (and maybe doctors could refer them). It could become a bragging point that “10,000 previously inactive people got active through NBRH”, which strengthens our public health case.

Pandemic Resilience: If a new health crisis arises, having a flexible model (small local groups vs big gatherings) might be beneficial. Parkrun had to shut down in Covid; an app-coordinated small group run might have been allowed sooner. So, in a weird way, NBRH model could be more pandemic-resilient (just a note for any concerns investors might have after seeing gyms locked down).

Policy Risk: There’s minimal risk of adverse policy – perhaps data/privacy laws (we handle health-related activity data carefully) or any regulation on sports coaching standards (we need to ensure safety in organized events, e.g. qualified coaches for certain high-risk sports). But those are manageable.

In summary, NBRH is riding a wave of favorable trends:

• Government wants innovative solutions to get people moving (we are that).

• Investors see the sports/fitness market as ripe for disruption and social impact investing is looking for scalable interventions in health (we fit).

• The health sector is practically asking for platforms to refer patients into (we can serve).

Our task is to actively engage these stakeholders: talk to Sport England, local councils, NHS link workers, etc., early on to integrate and perhaps secure support. If we do, NBRH won’t just be a business, it could become part of the public health infrastructure (like a public utility that is privately run – akin to how weight loss groups became part of NHS referrals, we could be the physical activity referral of choice).

Leveraging these trends, we can accelerate growth (via partnerships, funding) and cement legitimacy (trust from users who see official backing). At the same time, we maintain the cool factor and convenience that attract the general consumer – bridging the gap between grassroots and officialdom in a way few entities have done.

After covering all these dimensions – market landscape, demographics, behavior trends, competition, policy, etc. – we have a comprehensive understanding to inform NBRH’s strategy. We will now summarize the most compelling insights and strategic recommendations to carry forward, followed by an appendix of sources and methodology.

11. Top 10 Bold Insights (Recap for Investors)

(Reiterating the earlier key insights in a concise list form, tailored to investors and strategic stakeholders.)

1. UK Sports Participation at All-Time High: 63% of adults are now active , a post-pandemic record – signaling strong baseline demand. NBRH enters a growing market of 29.5 million active Britons, plus the opportunity to activate the remaining inactive quarter.

2. Huge Untapped Segments: Traditional sport is underserving many groups – e.g. over 10 million young adults (18–35) want flexible, fun activities beyond gyms, and millions of women and lower-income individuals remain sidelined by current offerings . This is NBRH’s sweet spot: bringing sport to those the industry hasn’t fully reached.

3. Youth-Driven Fitness Culture Shift: A “generation rent” of Gen Z and Millennials are making gyms and workouts their social life, driving a boom to 11.5m gym memberships . But they’re also craving community and variety – evidenced by high churn rates and the popularity of group classes. NBRH capitalises on this by turning workouts into social micro-events, matching how younger consumers behave.

4. Barriers = Market Opportunities: Key barriers like cost (30% quit gyms over expense) , intimidation (especially among women) , and boredom (1 in 5 find exercise boring) are systemic failures of current providers. NBRH’s model (affordable, friendly, fun-first) is purpose-built to smash these barriers, effectively converting non-customers into customers.

5. TAM, SAM, SOM Underpin Strong Financial Upside: We size TAM at ~10M UK users / ~£10B spend, of which our initial SAM is ~6M users / £3B in urban young adults. We aim to capture SOM ~0.5M users in 5 years, translating to a potential £100M+ annual platform GMV. Even a 5-10% penetration yields a business with £10–£20M+ revenue (assuming our take rate), demonstrating venture-scale upside in the UK alone – not counting global expansion.

6. Light Competition in Social Sport Space: While fitness is crowded, no dominant player exists in the social sport aggregator market. We face niche competition (e.g. Footy Addicts for football) and alternatives (gyms, Meetup), but nothing that replicates our cross-sport, community-centric platform at scale. First-mover advantage is ours to seize, creating a network effect moat.

7. Policy & Public Sector Tailwinds: The UK government’s new sport strategy explicitly seeks innovations to include underserved groups , and the NHS is actively referring people to community activities . NBRH aligns 100% with these objectives. This opens doors for partnership funding, user acquisition through health referrals, and public endorsement – fueling growth at low cost and validating our impact.

8. Multi-Sector Business Synergies: We are positioned at the intersection of tech, health, and consumer experience– meaning multiple avenues for monetization and support. We can tap VC investment (in sports tech, wellness, community apps), corporate sponsorships (sports brands supporting grassroots sport), and public grants (for delivering social outcomes). Few startups can generate revenue from both B2C customers and B2B/government deals; NBRH potentially can.

9. Social Impact = Engagement + Retention: Our mission to build community through sport isn’t just feel-good – it drives user LTV. People who form friendships and see real health benefits through NBRH will be highly loyal users. This engagement moat (users stay because it’s part of their social life) leads to lower churn than transactional fitness services. Additionally, our 4:1 social ROI for every £ spent (per Sport England data) could attract impact investors and PR, amplifying brand goodwill.

10. Clear Expansion Path & Scalability: Starting in London (Europe’s largest urban sports market), we have a template for rapid expansion to other UK cities and beyond. Our platform model is asset-light (leveraging existing facilities and freelance coaches), and our community-led growth is replicable (seed a city with ambassadors, leverage university networks, etc.). This scalability, combined with the universality of social play, means NBRH can scale to millions of users and international markets with relatively low marginal cost – a key investor criterion.

Investor Bottom Line: NBRH stands at the convergence of positive trends – high consumer demand, weak incumbent solutions, supportive policy, and potential for network effects – giving us a window to become the market-defining platform for social sport in the UK and a frontrunner globally. The prize is not just financial (capturing a slice of a £10B market) but also owning the community sports graph (data and relationships that others can’t easily replicate). With a strong strategy and execution, NBRH can deliver outsized returns both in profit and in societal good, making it a compelling venture in the 2025 landscape.

12. Regional, Audience & Behaviour Opportunity Map

(Visualisation/description mapping where the biggest opportunities lie, as discussed, summarised succinctly.)

• Regional Hotspots:

• London: Highest priority – young, diverse, trendsetting. Inner London (e.g. Shoreditch, Clapham) for early adopters; Outer East London (e.g. Barking, Newham) for high-need communities ready for engagement . Aim for deep penetration in London’s Zone 1-2 (influence and density) and targeted programs in Zone 3-4 (inclusion).

• Major Cities: Next hubs – Manchester (large student + young professional scene), Birmingham (very young demographic, Commonwealth Games legacy), Leeds, Glasgow, etc. Each with universities and active public communities to plug into.

• Underserved Regions: Later focus – Northeast England, parts of Northwest and Midlands where inactivity is higher . Possibly via partnerships (e.g. Active Partnerships in those regions). Great opportunity to demonstrate social impact once model refined in easier markets.

• Audience Segments:

• Urban Young Professionals (20–35): Tech-savvy, already spending on fitness, crave social experiences. Easy conversion – target with high-energy, novel events (e.g. after-work multi-sport mixers).

• University Students & Recent Grads: Transient but influential. Use campus ambassadors to onboard students; provide a platform for grads relocating to new cities to find sport communities (filling the post-university drop-off).

• Young Women (16–30): Huge upside if we get this right. Tailor women-only or beginner sessions to rebuild confidence . Leverage campaigns (e.g. partner with This Girl Can for marketing). Success here not only grows user base but builds brand equity as an inclusive platform.

• Lower-Income Youth (18–25): Possibly not gym members due to cost, but love sports (football, basketball culture is strong). Engage via free or £1 sessions subsidised by grants initially, convert to sustained participation. Key to unlocking volume in areas others can’t reach.

• Older Adults (40+): Not initial core, but an eventual segment – especially the “young retirees” (50s) who have time for weekday activities and might prefer social sport over solitary gym. Could pilot walking football, masters games, etc., later on.

• Behavioural Personas: (with tailored strategies)

• The Social Butterfly: Comes for fun and friends. Offer plenty of mixers, post-game hangouts, and a vibrant online community to keep them engaged.

• The Competitor: Wants challenge. Introduce light-hearted leagues, leaderboards, and an option to track personal bests or compete regionally (e.g. city-wide tournament).

• The Newbie: Nervous but curious. Ensure events are labeled by level, have welcoming hosts, maybe “Intro to ___” workshops to ease them in. Their successful onboarding = big word-of-mouth as they’ll bring friends once comfortable.

• The Routine Seeker: Looking for a consistent schedule (like a weekly volleyball game). Allow creation of recurring groups and give them features to bond (team profiles, etc.) – increases retention.

• The Sampler/Explorer: Always up for something new. Continuously rotate special events (today dodgeball, tomorrow parkour workshop) to keep them using the app and evangelizing the variety.

Mapping these on a chart: For example, X-axis could be “Need for accessible sport” (low to high), Y-axis “Current provision strength” (low to high). We’d see clusters where need is high and provision is low – that’s where NBRH should focus. E.g. “Young women in urban areas” – need high (they want to be active) but current provision low (few feel served) – prime opportunity (high-need, low-competition quadrant). “Athletic young men in urban areas” – need medium (many already playing 5-a-side), provision medium (they have options like Footy Addicts) – still an opportunity but more competitive quadrant. “Inactive low-income communities” – very high need, current provision often low – opportunity but requires outreach and perhaps external support to realise. We target a balance: some low-hanging fruit (to build momentum and revenue) and some high-impact segments (to build brand and access funding/partnerships).

13. Conclusion & Strategic Recommendations

In conclusion, our research confirms that NBRH is launching at an opportune moment in a robust yet underserved market. The UK sports landscape is ripe for innovation: participation is high but not evenly distributed, traditional providers leave many gaps, and cultural trends favor our community-driven approach. By leveraging technology and a fresh ethos, NBRH can unlock new participation and become the go-to platform for social sport.

Strategic Recommendations:

• Focus Initial Efforts: Begin with London as the pilot market, specifically targeting 18–35-year-olds. Curate a mix of activities popular with this crowd (5-a-side football, yoga in the park, running clubs, social netball, etc.) and launch in neighborhoods with high densities of target users (e.g. Clapham for young professionals, Shoreditch for trendsetters, Stratford for diverse youth). Use learnings and success in London as playbook for other cities.

• Nail the User Experience & Trust: Ensure the app is intuitive and fun – think social features like profiles, friend invites, and achievement badges to reinforce the community feel. Implement a robust review/rating system for sessions and hosts to build trust and safety (similar to Airbnb experiences). Early positive word-of-mouth will come from delightful experiences, so invest in training hosts/organisers to be welcoming and inclusive.

• Seed Communities Proactively: Don’t rely purely on organic user-created events at start. Proactively organise anchor events in each area (e.g. a free launch day sports festival, weekly “NBRH Community Night” at a local sports hall) to generate interest and set quality standards. Recruit “Ambassadors” (local sports enthusiasts/micro-influencers) to champion NBRH in their sport or community group. This seeding strategy ensures liquidity – a critical mass of sessions and participants – in each launch region.

• Strategic Partnerships: Pursue partnerships with:

• Local authorities (to access facilities cheaply and for promotional support to residents – e.g. co-branded community sport programs).

• Corporate sponsors (e.g. sporting goods brands providing equipment or rewards – imagine Decathlon lending gear for trial sessions, or Nike sponsoring a series of women’s fitness meetups via NBRH).

• Universities and Colleges (to onboard students and use campus facilities during off-hours).

• NHS Social Prescribing networks (establish a referral scheme where doctors can recommend NBRH to patients – perhaps with a code for a free first session; this taps a new user base and reinforces our social mission).

• Marketing & Positioning: Craft a brand image that is vibrant, youthful, and inclusive. Use content marketing to tell the stories of NBRH members (e.g. a video of how a shy newcomer found her confidence through our community sports). Leverage social media heavily – user-generated content from events, challenges like “#JoinYourTeam” weeks, TikTok clips of fun moments. Also, highlight the cultural angle – partner with music or food at events (a DJ at a pop-up volleyball game, or a healthy food truck after a run) to create shareable experiences that differentiate NBRH from a sterile gym or a random meetup.

• Data and Measurement: Use our rich participation data to continually refine offerings and demonstrate impact. Track metrics like new joiner retention, average events per user per month, and demographic mix to ensure we’re hitting inclusion goals. Also measure health impact proxies (e.g. self-reported wellbeing improvements). This data will be powerful in dialogues with investors (for growth story) and with public bodies (for impact validation).

• Monetization Strategy: While building user base, keep pricing accessible. Possibly start with a freemium model: basic use free or very low cost, and a subscription or credits for more frequent usage or premium features (like advanced booking, exclusive events). Alternatively, small per-event fees with package discounts. Given the sensitivity to cost in drawing certain groups, consider subsidy where needed via sponsors or grants (e.g. a council might underwrite sessions in a deprived ward to be free for attendees). Aim for diverse revenue: B2C from users, B2B2C from partnerships (corporate wellness deals, council contracts for outreach programs, etc.).

• Stay Agile and User-Centric: As we expand, remain attuned to user feedback and local nuances. What works in London’s hip East End might differ from what Sheffield students want. Maintain a lean, community listening approach – e.g. hold quarterly user forums or polls to decide new sports to add or improvements. The community-driven nature should extend to co-creating the platform with our users.

• Long-Term Vision: Communicate a compelling vision: “NBRH will be the Nation’s Neighborhood Sports Club – accessible to anyone, anywhere, at any time.” This means in the long run, we aim to be nationwide, integrated with every local sport ecosystem, perhaps even expanding to casual play in workplaces, travel (find a pick-up game when you’re in another city), and internationally (take this proven UK model to other countries with similar urban young populations like Germany, Australia, Canada as benchmarks we examined). Investors and partners should see that we’re not just running meetups – we’re building the infrastructure for social physical activity for the 21st century.

With these strategies, NBRH can capture the market opportunity outlined, delivering strong growth, competitive defensibility through network effects, and meaningful social impact. We have the data, the trends, and the plan – now it’s about execution, team, and continued innovation to ensure we remain the home of social sport in the UK.

Appendix: Sources, Data & Methodology

• Sport England – Active Lives Adult Survey (2019–2023): Provided participation rates, demographic breakdowns, and trends in types of activity . Key data cited include the 63.4% active rate and disparities by gender, age, socioeconomic status, etc. This is the foundational dataset for understanding who is active/inactive.

• Sport England – Economic Value of Sport (2018): Gave figures on consumer expenditure (£25.1bn England) and GVA/job contribution , used to estimate TAM spending. Also social value research (SIRC at Sheffield Hallam) which quantified health & social benefits (~£85bn value, £4 return per £1) .

• DCMS / House of Lords Library (2024) – Sport Strategy Briefing: Summarized the new government sport strategy and its context . We used this to align NBRH with government objectives and to cite that policy ambition is high but delivery needs innovation.

• The Guardian (2025) – UKActive Gym Report: Article by Denis Campbell with stats on gym memberships hitting 11.5m and commentary that Gen Z drives it by preferring gym over pub . This illustrated cultural change and market size of gyms.

• PureGym – UK Fitness Report 2024/25: Offered insights on attitudes: 48% exercising regularly (+2m YoY) , barriers such as 20% dislike exercise, 8% feel gym intimidation (down from 21%) , and reasons for quitting gym (cost 30%, time 15%) . These data shaped our understanding of consumer pain points and were heavily cited.

• Women in Sport Survey (2022) – Teenage Girls Drop-off: From Guardian coverage showing 1.3m girls lose interest in teens, reasons (68% feel judged). This supported the narrative on underserved female demographic.

• Leisure Database / ukactive (2023): Data on facility closures (nearly 400 pools lost since 2010) and risk to leisure centres . Underlined gaps in public provision and urgency.

• Footy Addicts (2022) – Blog Stats: Showed volume of casual games (28k games/year, 5.5m connections) , demonstrating appetite for informal sport and giving a benchmark for what a single-sport platform achieved.

• YouGov (2023) – Sports Engagement Poll: Indicated 22% adults play a sport, 58% follow at least one , with breakdown by sport showing the dominance of football and low participation in others . Used to highlight how few engage in formal sport relative to general activity, implying growth potential in recreational formats.

• ParticipACTION Canada / Clearinghouse for Sport Australia: We peeked at international stats (49% of Canadian adults meet guidelines , 41% of Aussies do weekly sport ) to gauge UK’s standing. We referenced these in our international benchmarking to show UK is relatively well-engaged but still behind ideal levels.

• House of Lords Library (2024) – Sport and Economy: Provided economic stat: sport sector £18.1bn in 2022, 0.8% GDP, and growth 32% 2010–22 outpacing economy . Also projected sports industry growth 6.6%/yr and women’s sport 15%/yr from PwC survey – used to argue investor optimism.

• NHS Long Term Plan (2019) / Social Prescribing Facts: From NHS England and NASP, target of 1000 link workers and 900k people on social prescriptions by 2023/24 . Key for highlighting how health system might funnel users to us.

• Various Media (Vice, Dazed, etc.): Provided qualitative context on youth culture and fitness (e.g. Vice piece noting gyms replacing clubs in London nightlife , Dazed highlighting issues like toxic gym culture ). These were used to colour our cultural analysis.

• Methodology: Our approach combined quantitative data (surveys, reports) with qualitative insights (media, trends analysis). We triangulated between sources – e.g. using Sport England’s large-sample survey for core participation rates, then corroborating with independent polls (YouGov) or sector reports (ukactive) for nuance. Where exact data was scarce (e.g. market size of recreational sport), we made estimations using available pieces (consumer spend from SE report, gym member counts, etc.) and stated assumptions clearly.

• Data Limitations: We focused mostly on England data for participation (since devolved nations have separate surveys but similar patterns). We assumed England’s situation is indicative of UK overall. Some figures (like number of community clubs) were not readily available, so we used proxies or anecdotal evidence (ensuring not to overstate). We emphasised recent data (2019–2024) to ensure trends are up to date, given post-pandemic shifts.

• Citations: In the report, each major factual claim is cited with the source in the format 【source number†lines】. For instance, participation stats from Sport England are cited , cost/quitting stats from PureGym report , etc. All citations refer to the reference list captured above, ensuring traceability.

By synthesising these diverse sources, we developed a comprehensive picture that underpins NBRH’s strategic roadmap with evidence and current context. The combination of hard data and cultural insight is a strong foundation for both our strategy and for making the case to stakeholders about NBRH’s potential.