ESSEPA flags safeguarding gaps in European university sports

A Europe-wide ESSEPA study says university sport still relies on fragmented policies, unclear reporting and weak oversight even as most participants feel generally safe. The findings are shaping a new digital safeguarding training platform and policy changes for future European university competitions.

Why it matters: - The ESSEPA research shows a gap between formal safeguards and lived experience in university sport across Europe. - The findings matter because they point to unclear reporting routes, weak policy coverage and missed risks in travel and overnight settings. - The results are already feeding into new safeguarding training and policy work for European university sport.

What happened: - The European Sport Safeguarding Education and Promotion Action project, co-funded by the European Union, completed its core research phase. - ESSEPA published a comparative policy analysis and survey results covering safeguarding in university sport across Europe. - The project mapped policy structures in nine European countries. - The consortium also surveyed 240 respondents from 19 countries, including student-athletes, coaches, administrators and volunteers.

The details: - University sport safeguarding is rarely built into sport-specific institutional frameworks. - Many institutions rely instead on general disciplinary codes or broad ethical guidelines. - Most partner countries lack dedicated safeguarding policies for university sport. - Most partner countries also lack appointed safeguarding officers solely focused on university sport. - Direct competition environments are more regulated than off-field settings. - Athlete travel and overnight stays often fall outside active safeguarding protocols. - 80% of survey participants said they generally felt safe during events. - 59% said they had personally experienced at least one form of transgressive or inappropriate behaviour in university sport. - Psychological violence was the most common negative experience at 14%. - Institutional pressure to train or compete through injury followed at 8%. - Coaches and teammates were identified as the main actors behind those experiences. - 50% of respondents were unsure whether their institution had an active safeguarding code of conduct. - 48% knew who to contact to report an incident. - The top barriers to speaking up were fear of negative consequences at 24%, belief that nothing would change at 21%, and lack of trust in the system at 16%. - 79% of respondents wanted safeguarding training. - Respondents showed a clear preference for interactive, hybrid learning models. - The full ESSEPA Research Report on Safeguarding Policies and the ESSEPA Survey Analysis Report are publicly available at the official project website. - The ESSEPA project is a 24-month initiative coordinated by the EUSA Institute in Slovenia. - The consortium includes 10 partner organizations from nine European countries.

Between the lines: - The research suggests university sport can appear compliant on paper while leaving athletes uncertain about protection in practice. - The high share of respondents who felt safe but also reported harmful experiences points to a communication and trust problem, not just a policy gap. - The strong demand for training suggests safeguarding reform may be more workable if it is practical and role-specific rather than purely regulatory. - The project is also informing the EUSA Safeguarding and Incidents Policy, which could push the wider university sports system toward mandatory training, clearer contact roles and standardized reporting.

What's next: - ESSEPA plans to develop a digital safeguarding education and certification platform. - The curriculum will be tailored for student-athletes, coaches, officials and volunteers. - The training will focus on recognizing boundaries, protecting mental health and using active reporting procedures. - The project is continuing to evaluate and develop the EUSA Safeguarding and Incidents Policy. - Future European university sports competitions could adopt mandatory training and standardized reporting procedures.

The bottom line: - ESSEPA’s research says university sport in Europe needs clearer rules, clearer reporting and more practical training if safeguarding is going to work on the ground.