Section 1
What this calculator is for
Proof of Play helps grassroots sports clubs estimate the wider social value they create through participation, volunteering, community activity and related outcomes. It is designed to turn published social value evidence into a usable club-level tool for reporting, funding conversations and community communication.
The tool is built on UK social value and wellbeing methodology — the same methodological foundations used across the public sector when evaluating community sport investment — but applied at club scale, with club-entered data, to produce outputs that clubs and their partners can actually use. Some outputs also include clearly labelled modelling assumptions.
What Proof of Play is
An evidence-informed estimation tool that combines club-reported data with published national proxy values to produce a structured, credible picture of a club's social contribution.
What Proof of Play is not
A formal SROI (which requires deadweight, displacement and attribution modelling), a clinical assessment, a substitute for independently verified evaluation, or a guarantee of the precise value stated. Figures are estimates and should be presented as such.
Section 2
What goes into the calculation
Every figure in a Proof of Play assessment is either directly reported by the club or estimated by the model from national data. The distinction matters — and both types are clearly labelled throughout the tool and its outputs.
Reported by the club
- Player numbers by age band and gender
- Disability participant numbers
- Number of volunteers
- Average volunteer hours per week
- Community programme reach
- Club infrastructure — welfare officer, school links, MH provision
- Annual expenditure (optional — enables social value ratio)
- Year founded, accreditation level (England Football Accredited / SFA Quality Mark)
- Club postcode (for deprivation lookup — IMD in England, SIMD in Scotland)
- Quotes from players, parents/carers/guardians and volunteers
Estimated by the model
- Participant wellbeing value (WELLBY methodology)
- Health and productivity savings estimate
- Volunteer economic value (replacement cost)
- Volunteer wellbeing value
- Community programme reach (qualitative — no monetary proxy)
- Neurodivergent player prevalence estimate
- Mental health difficulty prevalence estimate
- Value at Stake scenario estimate
- Social Value to Cost Ratio
- Deprivation decile — IMD in England, SIMD in Scotland (via postcode lookup)
The key distinction for grant applications
Club-reported figures can be cited as club records. Model-estimated figures should be presented as evidence-informed estimates grounded in published national research — and paired with local qualitative evidence for strongest impact.
Section 3
Where the major values come from
The major proxy values used in Proof of Play are drawn from named primary sources. Some values are internal modelling assumptions and are labelled as such. The table below shows each value category, what it represents, how it is calculated, its primary source, and the confidence level we assign to it at club scale.
| Category | Value applied | How calculated | Primary source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wellbeingchild 5–6 | Removed | Previously £1,500/yr — an internal interpolation below the UK Social Value Model Year 2 published range. Removed from the calculation engine because no sourced value exists for this age band. The youngest published band is 7–11. U5/U6 players are recorded but contribute £0 to the wellbeing total until a defensible value can be documented. | N/A — proxy removed. UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) does not publish a monetised value for this age band. | N/Aremoved from calculation |
| Wellbeingchild 7–11 | £3,100 / yr | WELLBY unit value × published life satisfaction gain for active children in this age band. The UK Social Value Model defines "active" by activity volume threshold, not session count — the session-frequency labels used in this tool are our own mapping to that threshold. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) (Sheffield Hallam University / MMU / State of Life, published via Sport England but applicable UK-wide) | High |
| Wellbeingchild 7–11 (fairly active) | £1,700 / yr | WELLBY unit value × published life satisfaction gain for fairly active children in this age band. Defined as an average of 30–59 minutes of activity per day. The session-frequency labels used in this tool are our own mapping to the model's activity thresholds. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) (Sheffield Hallam University / MMU / State of Life, published via Sport England but applicable UK-wide) | High |
| Wellbeingchild 11–16 | £4,300 / yr | As above — higher value reflects greater wellbeing return in this age band per UK Social Value Model Year 2 research. Session-frequency labels in the tool are our own mapping to the model's activity thresholds. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) | High |
| Wellbeingchild 11–16 (fairly active) | £3,300 / yr | WELLBY unit value × published life satisfaction gain for fairly active children in this age band. Defined as an average of 30–59 minutes of activity per day. Higher than the 7–11 fairly active rate, reflecting greater wellbeing return in older children per UK Social Value Model Year 2 research. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) (Sheffield Hallam University / MMU / State of Life, published via Sport England but applicable UK-wide) | High |
| Wellbeingactive adult | £2,600 / yr | WELLBY unit value × published life satisfaction gain for adults meeting the UK Social Value Model's "active" threshold. Note: the model defines this by activity volume, not by sessions per week. The session-frequency label used in this tool is our own translation of that threshold. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) | High |
| Wellbeingfairly active adult | £1,200 / yr | Reduced WELLBY value applied for adults meeting the UK Social Value Model's "fairly active" threshold. As above, session-frequency labels in the tool are our own mapping to the model's activity definitions. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) | High |
| Wellbeingdisabled adult / adult with long-term health condition | £5,300 / yr | Highest published WELLBY rate — reflects disproportionate wellbeing return of sport for disabled adults and adults with long-term health conditions. Note: the £5,300 figure applies to adults only. Disabled children 11–16 are published at £2,800 in the same model — applying £5,300 to all ages would overstate value for younger players. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) | High for adultsMedium if applied to mixed-age disability groups |
| Wellbeingdisabled child / child with long-term health condition (under 16) | £2,800 / yr | Published WELLBY rate for disabled children and children with long-term health conditions. Lower than the adult disabled rate (£5,300) as the child baseline wellbeing value is also lower. Applies to participants under 16 only — use £5,300 for disabled adults aged 16 and over. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) | High |
| WELLBY monetary unit | £15,900 / WELLBY | HM Treasury-approved monetary value of a 1-point improvement in life satisfaction; uprated to 2024 prices from £13,000 (2019 base) | HM Treasury Green Book Supplementary Guidance on Wellbeing (2021, uprated) · LSE / Simetrica-Jacobs methodology · gov.uk | High |
| Health & productivity valueactive adult | £478 / yr | Published secondary wider health value per active adult from the UK Social Value Model. This figure includes healthcare savings and productivity benefits — it is not a healthcare-only figure (healthcare alone is approximately £301). Where a more conservative healthcare-only estimate is needed, £301 should be substituted. The £330 figure applies to fairly active adults in the same model. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) — Secondary Value (wider health, including productivity) | Mediumupper-bound active adult figure; includes productivity |
| Health & productivity valuechild / youth (internal proxy) | £90 / yr | Internal conservative estimate. The UK Social Value Model Year 2 explicitly applies wider health values to adults only — for children and young people the model includes wellbeing value only, noting that evidence for wider health savings in younger age groups is limited. The £90 figure is a cautious internal proxy and is not attributable to the published model. | Internal estimate — UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) does not publish a child/youth wider health value. Figure is a conservative internal proxy retained for planning purposes. | Lowinternal estimate only; not in UK Social Value Model Year 2 |
| Volunteer economic value | £13.20 / hr | Volunteer hours × replacement cost rate from DCMS/London Economics 2024 methodology. This rate is based on SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) mapping of typical volunteer roles to paid equivalents, producing a more methodologically appropriate figure than the previous ONS median wage proxy (£17/hr). | DCMS/London Economics 2024 replacement cost methodology · gov.uk | High |
| Volunteer wellbeing value | £2,100 / yr | Number of volunteers × annual wellbeing value of regular volunteering per UK Social Value Model Year 2. The current build uses a single regular-volunteer rate (£2,100/yr). A monthly-volunteer rate (£1,000/yr) exists in the source model but has been removed from the calculator because the input captures hours per week, not volunteering frequency category — meaning the tool cannot reliably distinguish weekly from monthly volunteers. | UK Social Value Model Year 2 (November 2025) — Secondary Value (volunteering). Primary sources: DCMS/London Economics 2025 replacement cost methodology (England, used as a proxy for volunteer time across the UK). | Medium |
| Community programme value | Removed | Previously £650/participant/yr — removed as no defensible evidence base could be identified. The £14.2bn community cohesion figure belongs to earlier Sport England research (pre-2024) and is not part of the current Year 2 (November 2025) model. Community programme reach is recorded qualitatively but excluded from the headline social value figure. | N/A — proxy removed. Community reach reported for context only. | N/Aremoved from calculation |
| Neurodivergent prevalence | 10–20% (default 14%) | Internal composite estimate. Individual source figures: ADHD ~5% in children (NICE via NHS England), Autism ~1.2% in 5–19 year olds (NHS England), Dyslexia ~10% of population (British Dyslexia Association). The combined 14% default applies an internal overlap adjustment — this composite rate is not directly published by any of the named sources and should be presented as an internal planning estimate. | Internal composite — individual components from NHS England · British Dyslexia Association · NICE. The 14% combined figure is an internal estimate, not a directly published rate. | Mediumindividual components sourced; composite rate is internal estimate |
| Mental health difficulty prevalence | 20% planning proxy | Approximately 1 in 5 children and young people aged 8–25 in England experienced a mental health difficulty in the past year (NHS England MHCYP 2023). Applied to total player population as a planning proxy — not a Scotland-specific or UK-wide confirmed prevalence rate. The 20% figure is more appropriate for youth-heavy grassroots cohorts than the broader adult 25% figure, but it is drawn from an England-only survey of a specific age range and should be presented as an approximate planning estimate, not a population fact. | NHS England Mental Health of Children and Young People Survey 2023 (ages 8–25, England; used as a planning proxy) · Mind — Mental Health Facts and Statistics · mind.org.uk | MediumEngland-only survey, used as planning proxy across UK |
| ND/MH co-occurrenceoverlap adjustment | 30% applied (lit. 38–72%) | Conservative composite. The calculator subtracts a 30% overlap from the additive ND + MH total to estimate distinct individuals likely needing support. The published evidence supports a substantially higher figure: anxiety co-occurrence rates of 69–72% in autistic individuals with ADHD and depression rates of 38–39% in autistic adolescents with ADHD (UK Parliament POSTnote 733, 2024); around 70% of autistic people have at least one mental health condition (NHS England, 2025). The 30% figure is applied as a deliberate conservative floor — chosen to avoid overstating the number of distinct affected players in club populations, even though the published evidence supports a higher figure. | UK Parliament POSTnote 733 — Support for neurodivergent children and young people (October 2024) · NHS England — Update on Learning Disability and Autism Programme (2025) · post.parliament.uk · england.nhs.uk | Mediumdeliberate underclaim against published evidence |
| Value at Stakescenario | 12% disengagement rate | Planning assumption only: additional-need players × 12% assumed disengagement × average wellbeing per player. The 12% figure is conservative relative to the published attrition range in CYP sport interventions — a 2024 scoping review of 143 studies (Smith et al., Edge Hill University / Sport England) found attrition rates of 7–33% in single-arm studies and 2–51% in RCTs. The 12% planning assumption sits at the lower end of this range and is presented as a conservative prompt for reflection on inclusive practice, not a prediction of specific loss. | Model assumption grounded in published attrition evidence — Smith et al. (2024), Edge Hill University / Sport England scoping review (N=143 studies). Planning prompt, not an evidence-based projection of individual club disengagement. | Low as predictionHigh as planning prompt |
| Deprivation wellbeing upliftEngland IMD / Scotland SIMD | ×1.10 (Decile 1–3) | A 10% uplift is applied to the total wellbeing figure for clubs whose postcode falls within Deprivation Decile 1, 2 or 3 — the most deprived areas in either index. This reflects the disproportionately greater wellbeing return of sport participation in high-deprivation communities, as evidenced by Sport England's Active Lives Survey (November 2022–23 data) for England, and Scottish Government SIMD participation evidence for Scotland. No uplift is applied to clubs in Decile 4–10. The 10% rate is a conservative estimate of the deprivation premium; no uplift is applied to health savings or volunteer values. | England: Sport England Active Lives Survey (November 2022–23) — inactivity-loneliness-deprivation association; IMD via Office for Health Improvement & Disparities. Scotland: Scottish Government SIMD 2020v2 participation evidence. Uplift rate (10%) is a conservative internal modelling choice applied consistently across all editions. | MediumEvidence of deprivation premium is strong; 10% rate is a conservative modelling choice |
Section 4
Understanding the four output types
Every figure in Proof of Play is one of four types. These types are labelled throughout the tool with coloured badges — so any user or reviewer can immediately see what kind of number they are looking at.
Reported by club
Hard data, club records
Player numbers, volunteer counts, hours, community reach, income. Entered directly by the club. These figures are factual inputs and can be cited as club records in grant applications or stakeholder reports.
Estimated from model
Calculated from published proxies
Wellbeing value, health and productivity savings, volunteer economic and wellbeing value, community programme value. Derived from national datasets applied to the club's own figures. Statistically grounded — present as evidence-informed estimates.
Contextual area data
Government data, postcode lookup
The deprivation decile — IMD in England (from the Office for Health Improvement & Disparities) or SIMD in Scotland (from the Scottish Government, SIMD 2020v2). Not entered by the club — sourced automatically via postcode lookup. Official government data; high confidence.
Scenario estimate
Illustrative planning figure
The Value at Stake figure. Based on a stated planning assumption (12% disengagement rate), not verified evidence. A prompt for reflection and inclusive practice — not a forecast. Never present as a confirmed outcome.
The rule of thumb
Green = club said it. Amber = model calculated it. Blue = government data. Orange = planning assumption. When in doubt, check the badge.
Section 5
How outputs should and should not be used
Proof of Play is designed to help clubs and partners explain likely value, strengthen funding narratives, support stakeholder reporting and communicate wider community impact. The following guidance applies to all outputs.
✓ Good uses
- Grant applications — presenting evidence-informed social value estimates alongside qualitative evidence
- AGM reporting — showing the club's wider contribution beyond sport outcomes
- Stakeholder communications — to trustees, local authorities, sponsors, County FAs / SFA regions
- ESG and sponsorship conversations — providing a quantified community impact narrative
- Funding eligibility planning — using deprivation data (IMD / SIMD) to inform programme targeting
- Active Partnership, County FA and SFA submissions — demonstrating community sport value
✗ Unsuitable uses
- Presenting estimated figures as confirmed, audited or precise outcomes
- Claiming ND/MH figures represent diagnosed individuals or confirmed cases
- Using the Value at Stake figure as a verified risk forecast
- Substituting for formal social value evaluation in academic or major institutional contexts
- Presenting as a substitute for audited accounts or independently verified impact
- Removing the "estimated" qualifier from model-derived figures
Recommended house style — use these phrases consistently
evidence-informed estimate
based on published social value research
club-entered data combined with modelled estimates
designed for reporting, planning and communication
not a substitute for formal evaluation or audit
statistical estimate, not confirmed diagnosis
scenario estimate, not forecast
calculated using HM Treasury WELLBY methodology
Section 6
Country-specific application
The calculation engine — WELLBY rates, health savings, volunteer values, deadweight — is identical across all editions of Proof of Play. The underlying research is UK-wide. What differs between countries is how the tool handles deprivation data, governance structures, accreditation, and the funding landscape.
Applied in England
- Deprivation data: Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) via postcodes.io and Supabase fallback
- Governance unit: County FA
- Accreditation: England Football Accredited (1 Star / 2 Star / 3 Star)
- Funding landscape: Football Foundation, Sport England, National Lottery Community Fund (England), Peter Harrison Foundation
- Legislation referenced: Social Value Act 2012 (Public Services)
- Deprivation source: Office for Health Improvement & Disparities — IMD 2019
Applied in Scotland
- Deprivation data: Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2020v2) via Supabase lookup of 6,976 data zones
- Governance unit: SFA Developmental Region (6 regions)
- Accreditation: SFA Quality Mark (Bronze / Silver / Gold / Platinum)
- Funding landscape: Scottish Football Facilities Fund, sportscotland, Scottish Football Partnership Trust, National Lottery Community Fund (Scotland), Pitching In Fund
- Legislation referenced: Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015
- Deprivation source: Scottish Government — SIMD 2020v2 Postcode Lookup
Why the same proxy values work across the UK
The wellbeing, health and volunteer proxy values are drawn from the UK Social Value Model Year 2, which uses UK-wide academic research (Sheffield Hallam University, Manchester Metropolitan University, State of Life) and HM Treasury WELLBY methodology. These values are not England-specific — they reflect UK population data on life satisfaction, health outcomes and volunteering. The model was published via Sport England but the underlying evidence base is applicable to clubs across the UK.
| Feature | England | Scotland |
|---|---|---|
| Deprivation index | IMD 2019 — 32,844 LSOAs across 7 domains | SIMD 2020v2 — 6,976 data zones across 7 domains |
| Deprivation lookup | postcodes.io API (with Supabase fallback) | Supabase scottish_simd_postcodes table (227,066 postcodes) |
| Geographic validation | postcodes.io returns country — validated as England | postcodes.io returns country — validated as Scotland; deprivation from SIMD lookup |
| Supabase identifier | tool_version = 'football' or 'grassroots' |
tool_version = 'scottish_football' |
| Proxy values | Identical — UK-wide research (Sheffield Hallam / HM Treasury) | |
| Calculation engine | Identical | |
| Deadweight assumption | 40% — identical, applied as a modelling choice | |
| Deprivation wellbeing uplift | ×1.10 for IMD Decile 1–3 — evidence base: Sport England Active Lives Survey (Nov 2022–23) | ×1.10 for SIMD Decile 1–3 — evidence base: Scottish Government SIMD participation evidence |
Section 7
Limits and caveats
Transparency about what a tool cannot do is as important as explaining what it can. The following limitations apply to all Proof of Play outputs. They are not weaknesses to hide — acknowledging them is what makes the tool credible to serious buyers.
1
Proxy values simplify a complex reality. The wellbeing, NHS and community values used are national averages applied to your club's specific context. They do not capture every outcome your club generates, and they cannot prove causation at an individual level. A player improving their mental health because of your club is real; the £2,600 figure is an approximation of what that improvement is worth on average.
2
ND and MH figures are statistical projections, not diagnoses. The estimated numbers of neurodivergent players and those experiencing mental health difficulties are derived from published national prevalence data applied proportionally to your player numbers. They represent the likely scale of need — not confirmed individuals. They must never be presented as diagnosed counts.
3
The Value at Stake figure is a planning prompt, not a forecast. The 12% assumed disengagement rate is a conservative planning assumption. No published study directly measures dropout rates attributable specifically to unmet neurodivergent or mental health need in grassroots sport. This figure is intended to prompt clubs to consider the importance of inclusive practice — not to predict a specific loss.
4
The Social Value to Cost Ratio is not a formal SROI. The ratio divides net social value (after a 40% deadweight assumption, applied as a modelling choice) by full investment cost (club expenditure + the replacement-cost value of volunteer time). This is a recognised ratio approach but is not an independently audited SROI report — true SROI requires additional deductions for displacement and attribution. For formal SROI assessment suitable for academic publication or major institutional submissions, commission a full evaluation through Sheffield Hallam SIRC or Portas Consulting.
5
The deprivation decile reflects area, not the club directly. The deprivation score — IMD in England or SIMD in Scotland — is linked to the postcode entered and reflects the local area's relative deprivation, not an assessment of the club itself. For clubs in Decile 1–3 (the most deprived areas), a 10% uplift is applied to the total wellbeing figure, reflecting the disproportionately greater benefit of sport participation in high-deprivation communities. Clubs in Decile 4–10 receive no uplift. All clubs still generate genuine social value regardless of decile — the uplift recognises where the marginal return of participation is evidenced to be highest.
6
Not all value is captured. Proof of Play does not measure every outcome a club generates — mentoring relationships, community safety, cultural participation, intergenerational connection and many others lie outside the scope of published proxy values. The figures produced are a structured undercount of total value, not an exhaustive measurement.
The honest summary
Like all proxy-based social value tools, Proof of Play simplifies a complex reality. It is best used as a structured, evidence-informed estimate of likely value created — not a precise monetary audit. Used honestly, it is a powerful communication and planning tool. Used carelessly, it can undermine credibility. The guidance above exists to help you use it well.
For formal evaluation
If your organisation requires a formal SROI report — for academic submission, major grant applications or formal impact reporting — we recommend commissioning a full evaluation through Sheffield Hallam University SIRC (Sport Industry Research Centre) or Portas Consulting. Proof of Play can provide the initial evidence base and help frame the scope of a formal evaluation.