The Waitakere Table Tennis Association (WTTA) has embarked on a privately funded and resourced national survey of the (currently) 90 Table Tennis Clubs in New Zealand.

The national survey aims to provide the table tennis sector with up-to-date data concerning the size, scope, activity, priorities, and engagement regarding the sport of Table Tennis in New Zealand.

Data collected from the national survey will be anonymized, collated, and then the results of the national survey will be freely shared with any table tennis club who would like to receive a copy of the national survey summary.

There are four primary purposes of this national survey:

1/ To assist table tennis clubs around New Zealand in growing their membership, so as to;

2/ Assist table tennis clubs in New Zealand to increase their income, so as to;

3/ Better resource the sport of table tennis in New Zealand, so as to;

4/ Attract more people to the sport of table tennis in New Zealand.

Any inquiries related to the National Table Tennis Club Survey 2024 may be addressed to waitakeretabletennis@gmail.com

NATIONAL TABLE TENNIS CLUB SURVEY 2024 REPORT

Introduction:

Between 15/9/24 – 4/10/24, The Waitakere Table Tennis Association (WTTA) embarked on a privately funded and resourced independent national survey of the (currently) 90 active Table Tennis Clubs in New Zealand, entitled “The National Table Tennis Club Survey 2024”, hereafter referred to as “the national survey”.

The national survey aimed to provide the table tennis sector with up-to-date data concerning the size, scope, activity, priorities, and engagement regarding the sport of Table Tennis in New Zealand.

Data results collected from the national survey were anonymized, collated, and now inform this report.

There were four primary purposes of this national survey:

1/ To assist table tennis clubs around New Zealand in growing their membership;

2/ To assist table tennis clubs in New Zealand to increase their income;

3/ To better resource the sport of table tennis in New Zealand;

4/ To attract more people to the sport of table tennis in New Zealand.

There are 18 listed Regional Associations that are claimed by Table Tennis New Zealand (TTNZ) to “represent all table tennis players” in New Zealand.

The following is the list of the 18 TTNZ Regional Associations, followed by the number of table tennis clubs that each region claims reside under its regional umbrella, and which are reported to be affiliated with TTNZ:

Auckland: 11

Bay of Plenty: 9

Canterbury: 6

Counties Manukau: 8

Hawkes Bay: 3

Manawatu: 10

Marlborough: 1 (Own Stadium)

Nelson: 1 (Own Stadium)

North Shore: 2

Northland: 1 (Own Stadium)

Otago: 5

South Canterbury: 1 (Own Stadium)

Southland: 5

Taranaki: 2

Waikato: 9

Waitemata: 1 (Own Stadium)

Whanganui: 1 (Hires stadium space from Whanganui Community Sports Centre)

Wellington: 10

Total: 86 / 90 Table Tennis Clubs

As will become clear within the national survey results below, the claim by the TTNZ Regional Associations to represent almost the entire number of table tennis clubs (86) in the country (currently 90 clubs) appears in marked contradiction to the reported TTNZ and regional affiliation from the clubs themselves, in response to the national survey.

It is worthy of note that 33% of the TTNZ Regional Associations report having only 1 venue (their own stadium), which brings into focus the question of what initiatives (if any) these single-venue facilities are engaged in, to plant and grow other table tennis clubs within their particular region, thereby growing engagement in the sport overall. However, it may be that these singular venues have focused on growing a regional membership utilizing one venue and that this model of membership growth within their region is entirely appropriate for the local population.

The national survey attained a 50% response rate during the national survey period (15/9/24 – 4/10/24), an excellent response for a survey, which most often returns responses of between 5% and 30%.

Survey Method:

To work towards attaining the survey purposes listed above, it was first necessary to identify the size of the table tennis sector and to ascertain the correct contact details of all currently active table Tennis Clubs in New Zealand.

The survey employed the use of several methods of contact procurement for table tennis clubs, including:

• Club websites;
• Club Facebook Pages;
• The Table Tennis New Zealand (TTNZ) “Venues North & South” online public Directory and online 18-region Association list;
• The Citizens Advice Bureau Community Directory;
• Word of Mouth Referral (i.e. one club identifying the existence of another club);

During this part of the survey process, It quickly became apparent that much of the information contained within these various resources was out-of-date.

The contact dataset presented with examples such as:

• Live Weebly and Sporty web pages for clubs that were out of date, or no longer existed;
• Facebook pages that recorded their past club post as several years prior;
• The TTNZ “Venues North & South” online public directory not being fit for purpose for a professional organization claiming formal representation of the sector;
• Details on the TTNZ 18-region Association list not being up to date;
• A plethora of out-of-date email address contacts, discontinued phone numbers, incorrect contact people, incorrect club address locations, and abandoned Facebook pages and websites, across the contact dataset.
• Contact phones going unanswered, or messages (text, voice, and email) not being returned.

One can imagine the “pain point” a prospective member of a table tennis club would experience if they tried (and failed) to make contact with a club, utilizing the above dataset; many would just give up trying to make contact, which would then have a negative outcome for clubs in terms of new member recruitment and attendance over time.

Two methods of survey data were utilized for the national survey:

• Online Survey via the “Survey Monkey” platform (sent to 90 table tennis clubs in New Zealand);
• Telephone Survey (utilizing blinded randomization selection methodology);

These combined methods of data collection attained a 50% survey response rate, between 15/9/24 – 4/10/24.

The Survey Monkey Platform only permitted one survey response per ISP, and Telephone Survey respondents were asked if they had completed the Survey Monkey online platform Survey, before embarking on the Telephone Survey response option. This process ensured that the national survey did not experience a “double-up” response error, utilizing two dataset collection methods.

Why were two dataset collection methods used in the national survey?

On 15/9/24, the privately funded and resourced independent national survey was sent out to the sector with an online survey response link, utilizing the Survey Monkey Online Platform for responses.

Within approximately 90 minutes of the survey being launched nationwide, the survey office began receiving phone calls from representatives of table tennis clubs, alleging that some clubs were being instructed by TTNZ not to respond to the survey, as the survey had not been initiated by TTNZ.

At the survey office, we found this alleged response to the national survey by TTNZ to be puzzling.

The national survey was privately funded and independent of TTNZ, so it would logically follow that the survey had not been initiated by TTNZ.

What was puzzling to us was to question of why TTNZ would allegedly attempt to interrupt such an initiative, as the national survey.

In response to this alleged action by TTNZ, the survey introduced a second dataset collection method, a Telephone Survey.

In doing so, the national survey gave the opportunity to directly speak with many sector representatives and players regarding the size, scope, activity, priorities, and engagement regarding the sport of Table Tennis in New Zealand, an opportunity that would not have been afforded to us if the survey method had been confined to an Online Survey only.

Regardless of TTNZ’s alleged action and reasoning in response to the launch of the national survey, it became clear from the national survey response that the table tennis sector was determined that it would seek its own counsel on this matter, and so it did (an outstanding 50% response rate to the national survey).

Going forward, TTNZ is invited to make direct contact with the national survey, to raise any concerns TTNZ may have about this sector initiative, for 2025.

National Survey question results and commentary:

The national survey asked 11 questions in the survey, the completion time which took between 90 seconds, and up to 45 minutes.

The reason for the longer completion times sat firmly in the area of the Telephone Survey, and for very welcome reasons.

Survey responders in the main were people with a wide breadth and depth of knowledge about the sector, and who were only too happy to share their knowledge, wisdom, stories, and experience of the sector with the national survey.

The result of these longer interviews revealed one additional dataset of information about a specific topic regarding the sector, which has been separately reported below, under the title “Additional National Survey Feedback: “Reported dysfunction in table tennis clubs and associations”.

The results of the 11 questions of the national survey are below:

Q1: What year was your table tennis club founded?

This question was designed to establish how long a table tennis club has been operating for in New Zealand.

Responses to this question ranged from 1 year to 104 years in existence, with a reported average age of a club being 43 years in existence in the sector.

Commentary:

Some survey respondents were able to immediately quote or locate the answer to this question, whilst for others, the history of their club had not been formally recorded, and so was lost to the mists of time, requiring some “digging around” as one respondent put it, to try and find the answer to the question. What was remarkable is that several survey respondents to this question were the very same people who had been involved in establishing a club from its inception. Correspondingly, some survey respondents declared their advancing years, and their decades of involvement in the sector, revealing a deep wisdom and knowledge base that the sector would do well to properly capture.

Q2: How many table tennis tables does your club currently have?

Responses to this question ranged from 2 tables to 21 tables, for a reported average of 7 table tennis tables per club in the sector.

Commentary:

Venue space and player demand were two significant influencing factors that informed responses to this question. For a smaller number of survey respondents, their clubs had reached player capacity (at times over-capacity) for the tables available, and these respondents (understandably)  did not want to increase their membership base. For other survey respondents, they had managed to secure venues in which they could set up as many or as few tables as they may require in the circumstances. For still others, they had a sufficient number of set tables to welcome more members but were not sure how to go about increasing their membership base. As one survey respondent put it “We’ve tried everything to increase our membership numbers without success, so we are open to inspiration!”.

Q3: How many financial members (i.e. paid-up subs), does your table tennis club have?

Responses to this question ranged from 0 to 200 financial members, for a reported average of 38 financial members per club in the sector.

Q4: How many non-financial members (i.e. casual) does your table tennis club have?

Responses to this question ranged from 0 to 200 non-financial members (casual)  for a reported average of 24 non-financial (casual) members per club in the sector.

Commentary:

What is it that defines a “member” of a club? For some survey respondents, anyone who showed up to a casual session for a game was a “member” of their club (see Q4). For other survey respondents, a “member” was defined by their decision to pay a formal annual membership fee to properly affiliate with the club. In a future survey, it may be helpful to provide a distinction between a club member (i.e. someone who has paid a formal membership fee to a club), versus a club attendee (i.e. a casual player who attends the club on a pay-as-you-go basis). As a general rule and observation, players (of any sport) who pay a formal membership to a club tend to have a stronger allegiance to the club. Having a formal membership fee can also assist in automatically being able to meet venue cost hireage fees, rather than relying solely on casual income. For example, if the annual venue hire of a facility is $1000.00 p/a, and the club can host 100 members p/a, then an annual membership fee of $10.00 per person would cover the cost of the venue before any session fee income is required. For clubs who may then be concerned as to whether all 100 annual members would show up for a club night, they needn’t be, for the same reason that gyms and fitness centres are not concerned about their annual membership capacity – because not everyone shows up to work out (or in this case, play table tennis), every week.

Another consideration was whether this reported low-level average of members per club was enough to sustain the club financially. This question becomes particularly pertinent when one considers the reported rapid rise in costs for venue hire across the country, including for community-owned or funded venues a cost which can eat up a significant percentage of the table tennis clubs income.

Q5: How many playing sessions per week does your table tennis club offer?

Responses to this question ranged from 1 to 9 playing sessions per week, for a reported average of 2 playing sessions per week per club in the sector.

Commentary:

Again, venue space and player demand were two significant influencing factors that informed responses to this question. Another factor raised by survey respondents was venue hire fees. A surprising finding regarding responses to this question was that Councils have reportedly raised their venue hire fees significantly across the board, treating not-for-profit clubs such as table tennis the same way that a commercial hirer may be treated in terms of hire-fees expectation. This is a concerning development for the sector, considering that council-owned buildings (in the main) are funded (directly or indirectly) by local ratepayers. Some advocacy for the sector regarding this issue would appear to be timely.

Q6: What is your table tennis club’s session fee rate?

Responses to this question ranged from $0.00 to $20.00 for a club’s session fee rate, for a reported average of $6.00 per head per club in the sector.

Commentary:

Decisions that informed the answer to this question by survey respondents ranged widely, as did the session rates that were reported as being charged. Some respondents had negotiated terms and conditions with their respective venues that resulted in minimum costs and overheads, negating the need to charge a session fee (or to charge only a small fee). As one respondent opined: “Not-for-profit clubs like ours mustn’t hold lots of money in the bank account, otherwise there is always the risk that someone’s sticky fingers will help themselves to the cash”. For many survey respondents, a session fee rate was set to cover costs only. For others, a session fee rate was set to cover costs and to hold some money in reserve for the eventual replacement or repair of tables, bats, and balls, or to fund club activities such as coaching for juniors. It may be that, with the $6.00 average fee having now been established, some clubs may be encouraged and reassured that they can increase their session fees slightly. In most regional centres around New Zealand, $6.00 isn’t even going to buy a large latte, and it is not clear as to what other activities offer 2.5 hours of venue playing time for $6.00, a session fee which for some clubs reportedly includes free refreshments as well.

Q7: What is your table tennis club’s annual membership fee?

Responses to this question ranged from $0.00 to $899.00 annual membership fee, for a reported average of $59.00 p/a for an annual membership fee, per club in the sector.

Commentary:

As mentioned in Q 4 above, there are potential financial management and membership engagement and retention incentives for clubs to charge an annual membership fee, if these combined incentives are deemed as welcome by the clubs themselves.

Q8: What sort of fund-raising activities (if any) does your table tennis club engage in?

Responses to this question ranged from “Nil” to various descriptions of fundraising activities, which were summarised as:

Applying for Grants: 31% of survey respondents.

Securing Sponsorship: 16% of survey respondents.

Raffles: 11% of survey respondents.

Selling Wine: 2% of survey respondents.

So, while 60% of survey respondents reported that they engaged in some sort of fundraising activity for their club, 40% of survey respondents reported that they did not engage or initiate any fundraising activity for their club.

Commentary:

One common response from respondents to the national survey regarding the subject of fundraising for their club was various renditions of “Yes, we would like to fundraise: but who is going to do it”? The 80/20 rule would seem to apply to the table tennis player environment as well, whereby 20% of the membership may shoulder 80% of the work of running and administering a club. Applying for grants could be described as an “acquired skillset”, and often means giving an agency that is holding forward a grant, access to private and sensitive club information, and scrutiny that may not be welcome by club administrators. Seeking sponsorship involves time, personal confidence to approach potential sponsors, and resilience to disappointment if one is not successful in the endeavor. Raffles are easier to administer but take a lot longer to raise money. The national survey team has no cogent response to the selling of wine as a fundraising idea, however, if a fundraising idea is legal and it works – then why not 😊

Q9: Would your table tennis club be interested in growing its membership?

89% of survey respondents to this question affirmed that they did wish to increase their membership numbers to their table tennis club.

11% of survey respondents to this question affirmed that they did not wish to increase their membership to their table tennis club, all citing that their table tennis club was “at membership capacity”.

Commentary:

Reported membership management methods from survey respondents were wide and varied. Some clubs reported using digital membership software tools; some other clubs reported using manual method of membership management; while others reported “guessing” what their membership numbers were. For a small number of clubs, they had been caught out by over-subscribing their membership, against their actual club capacity, resulting in extended periods of player “sit-outs” on a club day or night, as players waited patiently, bat in hand,  to “pounce” on an available table when it next became free to play on. A useful formula for membership management in the sport and recreation sector is to (round numbers) assume that 20% of a club’s annual membership will attend a club night. Assuming a table tennis club has 4 table tennis tables, which at maximum capacity can accommodate 16 players (assuming everyone is comfortable playing doubles during a session), then a club could safely sign up to 80 annual members for a club night (16 being 20% of 80). Of course, if the club’s attendance on a club night exceeds 20% of the annual membership number, then the annual membership “player comfort” number can be adjusted to suit player comfort and preference.

Q10: What type of legal entity is your table tennis club?

Responses to this question ranged from no formal legal entity to incorporated societies and private clubs, which were summarised as:

No formal legal entity: 62% of survey respondents.

Incorporated Society: 31% of survey respondents.

Private Club: 7% of survey respondents.

Commentary:

It seems clear from the majority of survey respondents to this question that there are no demonstrable benefits in them formalizing their club as a legal entity. A feature of responses from respondents to this question mirrored (in part) Q8, which indicates that, for every additional formal or informal activity a table tennis club signs up for, additional human resource is required to administer and manage that additional formal or informal activity. For several clubs, this human resource is either not available, or the members of the club that were engaged in the administration and management of the formal or informal activity have ceased doing so. Common reasons for this outcome included the lack of motivation to continue the task, burnout, subsequent geographical absence, or death.

Q11: Is your table tennis club affiliated with Table Tennis New Zealand (TTNZ)?

29% of survey respondents reported that their table tennis club was affiliated with TTNZ

71% of survey respondents reported that their table tennis club was not affiliated with TTNZ.

Commentary:

To put it mildly, the national survey team was stunned by the survey response outcome to this question, and not least because this survey result was in marked contradiction to the claim by the 18 TTNZ Regional Associations that they collectively represent 86 of the currently 90 active table tennis clubs in New Zealand (see above).

The Survey Management Teams’ collective experience in working in and with professional associations in New Zealand, Australia, and the USA resulted in the survey team making an assumption about TTNZ that was brutally knocked out of us by survey respondents: that assumption being that TTNZ were the duly representative legitimate umbrella organization for the table tennis sector in New Zealand. However, in our opinion at least, a professional organization such as TTNZ cannot reasonably claim to be representing a sector of which only 29% claim affiliation to TTNZ. As one respondent described this situation “If TTNZ is the umbrella organization for the table tennis sector, then it’s only a bloody cocktail umbrella, isn’t it?”

During discussions with survey respondents reading this question, survey respondents gave various reasons and comments as to why their table tennis club was not affiliated with TTNZ, including:

“Our members keep voting the option down at our AGMs for our club to join TTNZ”

“TTNZ doesn’t provide any tangible benefits for us to join”

“We never see or hear from anyone at TTNZ”

“TTNZ offered us a half-price option to join up, but we still couldn’t see the value in the offer, so we said No”

“We tried their Table tennis Kidz program, but that fell over before it got started, so we lost interest”

And so, on it went.

It is deeply, deeply concerning that a reported 71% of table tennis clubs in New Zealand do not seem to have any representation, advocacy, or resource for their clubs that they would choose to engage with, despite apparent claims by the 18 TTNZ Regional Associations to the contrary.

This situation in the sector illustrates a large disconnect between those who may require or desire sector representation and those who have seemingly lost sector confidence in being able to provide these same services to the sector.

Given that a clear and large majority of table tennis clubs in New Zealand self-report as having no sector representation, it may be prudent for these clubs to consider what type of independent and alternative sector representation options may be able to be established, from within the sector itself, for them.

Additional National Survey Feedback:

In addition to the 11 survey question responses received by the national survey, respondents willingly shared other pertinent information about one specific topic which revealed itself as being pertinent to the table tennis sector in New Zealand. This topic has been nominated as “Reported dysfunction in table tennis clubs and associations”.

Reported dysfunction in table tennis clubs & associations:

Just like in most (maybe all) sporting sectors, the table tennis sector was reported by survey respondents as not being immune from unhelpful and dysfunctional people, places, and events.

To best illustrate this feedback from survey respondents regarding this emergent topic, it is useful to incorporate (anonymized) verbatim responses into this report that made their way through to the national survey.

It may be that some readers of this report can identify with some of the sentiment of the following commentary, as this commentary may relate (in part at least) to some of their own experiences in the sector.

“Our association is a shambles. People are getting pissed off, and resigning all over the place. It’s a mess”.

“Our association is swimming in legal fees and court actions, our club funds are trying to cover the legal costs, and the members and grant funders have no idea as to what is going on at the club, or how we are spending their money”.

“Our club committee is splitting, and there are secret votes all over the place, with two groups each trying to get control of the club from the other group”.

“The national table tennis player and ITTF ratings? They are bullshit. We are not sending our best players overseas to compete; we are only sending the rich ones who can afford to go”.

“There is so much politics in table tennis in New Zealand – why can’t we just do what we came to do, which is to have fun playing table tennis?

“There has been a real decline in table tennis as a sport over the years, but nothing is being done about this by TTNZ”.

“We are holding onto our club by the skin of our teeth. We need to recruit more members, but the club leadership is not interested in doing this”.

“Our club recently had an SGM where the voting and speaking rights of any member who had not been a member of the club for 12 months were removed. So, you could join the club, pay the membership fee, and still not have a say in the governance of the Society. The amazing thing was that the majority of our established members at the SGM voted for this nonsense, without knowing why they were doing so, and without realizing that such an anti-democratic motion could one day be used against them too”.

“We need more transparency at our club. One person holds all the club’s information to everything, and won’t ever share this information with anyone else”.

“We need better systems to run the place, but using technology isn’t very popular where we are”.

“Our association exited from TTNZ some time ago, and we went independent. We were sick of being gouged for money just to be able to play table tennis, and we got sick of subsidizing people we had never met, just so they could go overseas to play”.

“At one of our club’s AGMs, we had 7-year-olds voting on approving the accounts and voting in office holders, invalid proxy votes being used to pass agenda items, and nominated office holders counting their own votes in private, all under the watch and seeming approval of a TTNZ official in attendance. The whole thing was a farce”.

“I posted a draft copy of a potential constitution for our club so that we could consider becoming an incorporated society. No one read it. I gave up”.

“At our club, the committee holds a meeting, then closes the meeting, then opens up the meeting again when anyone who might oppose the committee office holders on something has left the building. I don’t think that’s allowed”.

Given the above respondent feedback, It would appear that the sector may benefit from an opportunity for independent business training, mentoring, guidance, and oversight, in matters about club management, administration, membership recruitment and retention, governance, and independent dispute resolution.

Conclusion:

With the enthusiastic support and assistance of the club sector, the National Table Tennis Clubs Survey 2024 has been able to provide an up-to-date sector schematic concerning the size, scope, activity, priorities, and engagement regarding the sport of Table Tennis in New Zealand, to the (currently) 90 active table tennis clubs across the country.

There were four primary purposes of the national survey:

1/ To assist table tennis clubs around New Zealand in growing their membership, to;

2/ Assist table tennis clubs in New Zealand to increase their income, to;

3/ Better resource the sport of table tennis in New Zealand, to;

4/ Attract more people to the sport of table tennis in New Zealand.

The results of the national survey provide some quick-fire action points that will assist table tennis clubs to work towards attaining the above 4 purpose goals.

Depending upon the specific goals of any particular club regarding the 4 purpose goals, these quick-fire action points might include clubs:

a/ Deleting all out-of-date information about their club online;

b/ Updating any contact information about their club online;

c/ Ceasing to utilize any club contact resource that will not be regularly updated;

d/ Answering phone and email membership enquiries regarding the club, promptly.

e/ Returning messages regarding club membership enquiries, promptly.

f/ Accurately assessing current club player membership capacity;

g/ Actively managing membership to ensure that clubs do not over-subscribe their club capacity;

h/ Working to record the formal history of their organization;

i/ Assessing their membership fees and casual rate fees, and matching these fees to comfortably cover all current and future expenses;

j/ Defining what a “member” of the club is, and working to form strong member alliances with the club;

k/ Seeing the role of fundraising through new eyes, and ensuring all members are contributing to a common fundraising goal;

l/ Implementing active recruiting strategies to grow club membership, which is often most effectively achieved by appointing a club membership manager to recruit new members, while retaining existing members.

m/ Considering what type of independent sector representation and advocacy (if any) may be desired for the 71% of independent table tennis clubs in New Zealand who self-report as having no professional affiliation to anyone. For those independent table tennis clubs who may be interested in participating, an independent sector information and discussion group has been set up to consider the interests of this majority percentage of the table tennis community. Please email waitakeretabletennis@gmail.com if you would like to contribute to, and be a part of this initiative.

It has been a pleasure to bring the results of this national survey together and to hear from and talk with so many stakeholders within the sector.

The 2025 National Table Tennis Clubs Survey is scheduled to be launched in September 2025.

Any enquiries regarding the National Table Tennis Clubs Survey 2024 may be addressed to:

Stephen Taylor, (Former CEO, Exercise Association of New Zealand Inc)

National Table Tennis Clubs Survey Convenor,

Director,

Waitakere Table Tennis Association Ltd

Phone: (0204) 444083

Email: waitakeretabletennis@gmail.com

Website: https://wtta.club/

ITTANZ: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61566128050958

NB: Requests for any valid amendments and corrections to this report may be addressed to waitakeretabletennis@gmail.com