THE CONTRADICTIONS OF GENDER EQUALITY IN ERASMUS+ SPORT: TOWARDS POLICY CONVERGENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

Gender equality has long been embedded in the normative architecture of the European Union. What began as a principle of equal pay in the Treaty of Rome gradually evolved into a broader commitment to equality between women and men across employment, social policy, access to goods and services, decision-making, and public life. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) consolidated this shift through Article 8, which requires the Union, in all its activities, to aim to eliminate inequalities and promote equality between women and men.1 More recently, the European Commission’s Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025 framed gender equality as part of a wider “Union of Equality,” combining targeted action with gender mainstreaming across all EU policy fields.2

Sport has become one of the policy arenas in which this broader commitment to equality is increasingly visible. Since the entry into force of Article 165 TFEU, the European Union has acquired a specific competence to support the promotion of sport-related issues while taking into account the specific nature of sport, voluntary structures, and its social and educational functions.3 This legal basis has allowed the EU to develop a distinctive sport policy agenda in which sport is not treated merely as an economic activity, but also as a social, educational, and political instrument. Previous research has shown that the EU’s understanding of the “specific nature of sport” remains complex and contested, but also that European sport policy has progressively linked sport to broader public objectives such as inclusion, fairness, integrity, education, social cohesion, and good governance.4

Within this framework, gender equality in sport has moved from a relatively narrow concern with participation towards a more complex policy agenda. Women’s participation in sport has improved in many contexts, yet women remain underrepresented in leadership, coaching, officiating, management, and decision-making positions.5 This imbalance is not simply a matter of numerical representation. It reflects deeper organisational and cultural dynamics within sport governing bodies, including gendered recruitment practices, masculine leadership norms, unequal access to networks, and the persistence of informal barriers to positions of power.6 As a result, gender equality in sport has increasingly been addressed not only as a question of access to sport, but also as a matter of governance, representation, organisational change, and democratic legitimacy.

European policy documents mirror this evolution. The 2007 White Paper on Sport and the Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan helped establish sport as a field of EU intervention, while subsequent EU initiatives placed increasing emphasis on equality, inclusion, and good governance.7 The Council conclusions on gender equality in sport, the work of the European Institute for Gender Equality, and the recommendations of the High-Level Group on Gender Equality in Sport have further expanded the agenda. The latter identified six key areas for action: participation, coaching and officiating, leadership, social and economic aspects of sport, media coverage, and gender-based violence.8 This development illustrates a broader policy transition: gender equality in sport is no longer confined to women’s access to sporting practice, but is increasingly connected to the transformation of sport organisations and the distribution of power within them.

Erasmus+ Sport occupies a particularly relevant position in this process. As a funding programme, it translates EU policy priorities into concrete transnational projects. The programme does not merely reflect existing policy discourses; it also helps disseminate them through partnerships, training activities, educational tools, awareness campaigns, events, and capacity-building initiatives. In the 2014–2020 programming period, gender appeared in Erasmus+ Sport primarily through equal opportunities, social inclusion, and gender equality in sport. In the 2021–2027 period, however, the programme adopted a stronger horizontal architecture based on inclusion and diversity, digital transformation, environmental sustainability, and participation in democratic life.9 This shift potentially changed not only the number of gender-related projects funded, but also the ways in which gender equality was understood and operationalised.

Despite the growing policy relevance of this topic, to date, no study has examined the longitudinal evolution of gender equality across the complete population of Erasmus+ Sport projects. Existing research has examined gender representation in sport governance, the impact of quotas and other policy instruments, and the role of education in challenging gender stereotypes among younger generations.10 Other studies have analysed the specificity of sport, the European sport model, and the governance challenges facing European sport.11 However, there remains a lack of longitudinal evidence on how EU-funded sport projects have incorporated gender equality, how their thematic focus has changed between programming periods, and which countries and transnational networks have driven this agenda.

This article addresses that gap through a longitudinal analysis of 2,693 Erasmus+ Sport projects funded between 2014 and 2025. It identifies projects with an explicit gender dimension, compares their evolution across the 2014–2020 and 2021–2027 programming periods, and analyses changes in thematic focus, coordinating countries, and patterns of European cooperation. In doing so, the article asks the main research question: How has gender equality evolved within Erasmus+ Sport projects from 2014 to 2025?

The article argues that several contradictions mark the evolution of gender equality in Erasmus+ Sport. On the one hand, the programme increasingly promotes gender equality as a transversal European value. On the other hand, many projects continue to address gender through specific target groups, especially women and girls. Similarly, while the agenda has shifted from participation to leadership, governance, and education through sport, gender-related projects are not necessarily concentrated in the countries with the highest levels of gender equality. Instead, some countries with more pronounced gender inequalities appear as active participants in this policy field. This opens up an important interpretative tension: Erasmus+ Sport may operate as a mechanism of policy convergence and norm diffusion, but it may also enable forms of symbolic alignment with European values that risk becoming a form of pink-washing, whereby organisations or governments publicly embrace equality discourses without necessarily achieving equivalent levels of substantive institutional transformation.

The literature on Europeanisation and policy transfer offers one possible explanation. European programmes have long been recognised not only as financial instruments but also as mechanisms through which common policy priorities, governance models, and institutional practices are disseminated across Member States and associated countries.12From this perspective, Erasmus+ Sport may facilitate processes of institutional learning by encouraging organisations to adopt European policy priorities, develop new governance practices, and participate in transnational knowledge networks.13 The relatively high participation of several Southeastern European countries may therefore reflect active efforts to accelerate institutional modernisation and strengthen organisational capacities through European cooperation rather than simply reproducing existing national policy contexts.14

By examining these contradictions, the article contributes to three areas of scholarship: EU sport policy, gender and sport governance, and policy convergence through funding programmes. Its contribution is both empirical and conceptual. Empirically, it provides the first systematic longitudinal analysis of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects across two programming periods. Conceptually, it shows how EU sport funding can act as a vehicle for the diffusion of gender equality norms, while also revealing the political ambiguities involved in projecting equality through transnational sport projects.

2. METHODS

2.1. RESEARCH DESIGN

This study adopted a longitudinal documentary research design, combining quantitative content analysis with qualitative thematic analysis to examine the evolution of gender equality within Erasmus+ Sport projects funded by the European Commission between 2014 and 2025.

Document analysis is a well-established qualitative research method that enables the systematic examination and interpretation of documentary sources in order to identify patterns, meanings, and policy developments over time.15 When combined with content analysis, it provides a robust framework for analysing large documentary datasets and tracing changes in policy priorities, institutional practices, and thematic orientations.16

The qualitative component of the study followed an inductive thematic coding approach, allowing categories to emerge progressively from the project documentation rather than being imposed a priori. Such an approach is particularly appropriate when analysing policy evolution and identifying emerging thematic trends across large collections of textual material.17

Accordingly, Erasmus+ Sport projects were considered the unit of analysis through which the implementation and evolution of the European Union’s gender equality agenda could be examined. The combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques enabled both the measurement of changes in the prevalence of gender-related projects and the interpretation of broader transformations in their thematic orientation.18 This combination follows a sequential explanatory logic, in which quantitative trends informed the subsequent qualitative interpretation.19

2.2. DATA SOURCE

The database comprised all Erasmus+ Sport projects funded by the European Commission between 2014 and 2025. Project information was obtained from the official Erasmus+ Project Results Platform, including project titles, abstracts, programme year, action type, coordinating organisation, coordinating country, and partner organisations. Coordinating and participating countries were retained as separate variables in order to capture complementary dimensions of countries’ involvement in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects.

Following data cleaning and the removal of duplicate records, the final database consisted of 2,693 unique Erasmus+ Sport projects, representing the complete population of funded projects during the study period. Consequently, no sampling procedure was required.

The analysis distinguished between the two programming periods: Period 2014–2020 (n= 1,175 projects); Period 2021–2025 (n= 1,518 projects). Although the current Multiannual Financial Framework extends until 2027, only projects published by the European Commission up to December 2025 were available at the time of data collection.

2.3. SELECTION STRATEGY

The identification and classification of gender-related projects was carried out using a three-stage document coding procedure.

Firstly, the titles and abstracts of the 2,693 projects were systematically reviewed to identify explicit references to gender and closely related concepts. The initial review included terms referring to women and girls, gender equality, leadership, equal opportunities, discrimination, inclusion, diversity, empowerment, sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as gender-based discrimination or violence. Subsequently, a second, broader review was carried out to identify projects in which gender-related objectives might be integrated into wider equality or inclusion agendas.

Secondly, all candidate projects were reviewed on the basis of their full title and project summary to assess the substantive relevance of the gender dimension. Projects were included where gender constituted a primary objective or a substantive secondary dimension explicitly integrated into the target population, activities or policy orientation of the project. Projects were excluded where gender-related terminology appeared only incidentally (for example, as a demographic characteristic within a general description of participants). The application of these criteria resulted in a final dataset of 287 gender-related projects: 86 from the 2014–2020 programming period and 201 from the 2021–2025 period.

Thirdly, the 287 selected projects underwent inductive thematic coding to identify their main policy focus. The categories were developed through iterative reading and comparison of the project titles and summaries, and were progressively consolidated into five dominant themes: (1) women’s participation; (2) women’s leadership and governance; (3) education and capacity-building; (4) inclusion and diversity; and (5) combating discrimination and social transformation. As individual projects could address more than one theme, each was assigned to a main category based on its predominant objective, rather than simply on the presence of certain keywords. Women’s participation encompassed projects focusing primarily on access to, involvement in, or continued participation in sport and physical activity; women’s leadership and governance encompassed leadership roles, management, coaching, refereeing and decision-making; ‘education and capacity-building’ encompassed projects focusing primarily on training, curricula, skills, awareness-raising and educational resources; ‘inclusion and diversity’ covered projects that integrated a gender perspective within broader agendas of diversity, intersectionality, or sexual orientation and gender identity; and ‘combating discrimination and social transformation’ included projects that primarily addressed discrimination, stereotypes, harassment, violence, abuse or discriminatory social norms.

To ensure consistency in the final classification, cases where there was potential for overlap were reviewed in the light of these operational definitions and assigned according to the project’s predominant stated objective. This procedure made it possible to apply the thematic categories consistently across both programming periods and subsequently to compare them using frequencies and percentages.

2.4. DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis combined descriptive, comparative, and correlational techniques. Descriptive statistics were first used to examine the annual and period-specific prevalence of gender-related projects within the overall Erasmus+ Sport portfolio. The two programming periods (2014–2020 and 2021–2025) were compared using both absolute frequencies and relative proportions.20

The thematic classification developed through the qualitative content analysis was subsequently quantified to examine changes in the substantive orientation of gender-related projects across the two programming periods. For each of the five thematic categories, frequencies and percentages were calculated separately for 2014–2020 and 2021–2025. Percentages were calculated relative to the total number of gender-related projects within each programming period (n= 86 and n= 201, respectively), allowing changes in the relative thematic composition of the portfolio to be distinguished from the overall increase in the number of gender-related projects.

To examine whether countries’ engagement in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects was associated with their broader national gender equality context, data from the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) published by the World Economic Forum were incorporated into the analysis. The GGGI is one of the most widely used international indicators for assessing gender equality and enables systematic comparisons across countries. Unlike indices limited to European Union Member States, the GGGI includes both EU and non-EU countries, making it particularly appropriate for analysing Erasmus+ Sport, which involves Member States as well as associated and candidate countries. The index evaluates gender gaps across four dimensions: Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment, generating a composite score ranging from 0 (complete inequality) to 1 (full gender parity).21 Scores from the 2025 Global Gender Gap Report were used to represent each country’s level of gender equality at the time closest to the end of the study completion.

Coordinating and participating countries were analysed separately. Coordination was treated as an indicator of project leadership and relative specialisation, whereas participation was used to capture countries’ broader involvement in transnational cooperation.

Furthermore, to facilitate meaningful comparisons between countries with different levels of participation in Erasmus+ Sport, a Gender Specialisation Index (GSI) was developed (Equation 1). The GSI was calculated by dividing the proportion of gender-related projects among all Erasmus+ Sport projects coordinated by each country by the corresponding proportion for the programme as a whole (10.7%). A GSI value above 1 therefore indicates that gender-related projects represent a higher share of a country’s coordinated Erasmus+ Sport portfolio than the programme-wide average, whereas a value below 1 indicates a lower relative specialisation. This normalisation allows cross-national differences in gender-related project coordination to be distinguished from differences in countries’ overall levels of participation in Erasmus+ Sport.

Equation 1. Gender Specialisation Index formula

GSIᵢ = (Gᵢ/Tᵢ) / (G/T)

GSIᵢ = Gender Specialisation Index for country i

Gᵢ = number of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects coordinated by country i

Tᵢ = total number of Erasmus+ Sport projects coordinated by country i

G = total number of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects (287)

T = total number of Erasmus+ Sport projects (2,693)

To avoid distortions caused by countries coordinating only a very small number of Erasmus+ Sport projects, the Gender Specialisation Index was calculated only for countries coordinating at least 20 projects during the study period. The GGGI served as an external contextual indicator against which the Gender Specialisation Index (GSI) was compared to explore whether national engagement in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects reflected existing levels of gender equality or broader processes of European policy convergence.

The association between countries’ GGGI scores and their GSI values was assessed using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Spearman’s coefficient was selected because the analysis involved a relatively small cross-national sample and the distribution of GSI values was markedly uneven, with several countries showing substantially higher specialisation scores than the remainder of the sample. The non-parametric approach therefore avoided assuming normality or a linear relationship between the two indicators.

The qualitative component consisted of an inductive thematic analysis of the projects previously identified as gender-related. Following the principles of qualitative content analysis, projects were iteratively coded according to their principal objectives, target groups, and policy orientation until stable thematic categories emerged. Particular attention was paid to identifying shifts in policy discourse between the two programming periods, especially the transition from women’s participation towards leadership, governance, inclusion, and educational objectives.

Finally, the quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated through a comparative longitudinal approach to interpret how changes in funded projects reflected the broader evolution of European gender equality policies in sport. Such triangulation enhances the validity of documentary research by combining numerical trends with contextual interpretation.

3. RESULTS

3.1. THE EVOLUTION OF GENDER EQUALITY WITHIN ERASMUS+ SPORT (2014-2025)

Of the 2,693 Erasmus+ Sport projects funded between 2014 and 2025, 287 (10.7%) explicitly incorporated gender equality as either a primary or a substantive secondary objective. However, important differences emerged between the two programming periods (Table 1). During the 2014–2020 Multiannual Financial Framework, only 86 of the 1,175 funded projects (7.3%) addressed gender equality. In contrast, the proportion almost doubled during the 2021–2025 period, when 201 of 1,518 projects (13.2%) included an explicit gender dimension.

Table 1. Evolution of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects by programming period

These findings indicate a substantial increase in the visibility of gender equality within Erasmus+ Sport following the introduction of the 2021–2027 programme. Although projects explicitly addressing gender still represent a minority of the overall portfolio, their relative weight increased by almost six percentage points between the two programming periods, suggesting that gender has become a significantly more prominent priority within Erasmus+ Sport.

Overall, the results reveal a clear upward trend in the incorporation of gender-related objectives into Erasmus+ Sport projects over the last decade, reflecting the growing importance assigned to gender equality within the programme’s policy framework.

The annual distribution further illustrates this growth, although the pattern was not linear. Gender-related projects represented 2.2% of all Erasmus+ Sport projects in 2014 (n= 1), compared with 18.4% in 2025 (n= 66), the highest annual proportion observed during the study period. Intermediate years showed some fluctuation, including a decline from 12.3% in 2022 to 9.5% in 2023, followed by an increase to 13.5% in 2024 and 18.4% in 2025. Overall, the annual pattern supports the broader increase observed between the two programming periods while also showing that this development was not uniform across individual funding years (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Evolution of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects: Total and percentage of funded Erasmus+ Sport projects with an explicit gender dimension, 2014–2025. Source: Erasmus + Sport Results Platform.

While these figures demonstrate a clear quantitative increase in gender-related projects, they do not reveal whether the meaning of gender equality within Erasmus+ Sport has also changed. This question is particularly relevant given the policy reforms introduced in the 2021–2027 Erasmus+ programme, in which gender equality became increasingly embedded within the horizontal priority of inclusion and diversity, alongside the programme’s other horizontal priorities of digital transformation, environmental sustainability, and participation in democratic life. If these changes influenced project design, one would expect not only an increase in the number of gender-related projects but also a transformation in the ways gender equality was conceptualised and operationalised. The following section therefore examines the thematic evolution of gender-related projects across the two programming periods.

3.2. THEMATIC EVOLUTION: FROM PARTICIPATION TO GOVERNANCE

The thematic analysis revealed both continuity and changes in the substantive focus of Erasmus+ Sport projects relating to gender across the two programming periods. Women’s participation remained the most significant thematic category in both periods, but its relative share fell from 38.4 per cent of gender-related projects in 2014–2020 to 32.3 per cent in 2021–2025. At the same time, women’s leadership and governance increased from 17.4 per cent to 22.4 per cent, representing the most evident change in the thematic composition of the portfolio (Table 2).

Table 2. Evolution of the thematic orientation of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects

During the 2014–2020 programming period, most projects focused on increasing women’s participation in sport and promoting equal opportunities for women and girls. Key themes included access to sport, women’s participation, empowerment and awareness-raising initiatives aimed at reducing gender inequalities in sport. Representative projects addressed issues such as encouraging girls’ participation in sports traditionally dominated by men, promoting women’s coaching, and supporting female athletes through educational and networking activities. This emphasis is reflected in the thematic breakdown, in which women’s participation represents the largest category for the period (33 projects; 38.4 per cent), followed by women’s leadership and governance (15; 17.4 per cent), inclusion and diversity (14; 16.3 per cent), education and capacity-building (13; 15.1 per cent), and the fight against discrimination and social transformation (11; 12.8 per cent).

By contrast, projects funded under the 2021–2027 programme adopted a broader conception of gender equality. Whilst participation remained an important objective, increasing attention was paid to women’s leadership, governance, decision-making and organisational change in sport. Women’s participation remained the most significant thematic category (65 projects; 32.3 per cent), but its relative share fell by approximately six percentage points compared with the 2014–2020 period. In contrast, women’s leadership and governance rose from 17.4 per cent to 22.4 per cent (45 projects), representing the most marked shift in the thematic composition of the portfolio. Gender equality was progressively integrated into broader priorities relating to inclusion, diversity, democratic participation and social innovation.

The analysis also highlighted a diversification in the objectives of the projects. Whilst previous initiatives tended to focus primarily on women and girls as the main beneficiaries, more recent projects increasingly targeted sports organisations, regulatory bodies, coaches, educational institutions and local communities. Consequently, gender equality was no longer framed exclusively as a matter of access to participation in sport, but also as a matter of institutional transformation and good governance. This diversification is also reflected in the continued presence of projects focusing on inclusion and diversity (17.4 per cent in 2021–2025) and on combating discrimination and social transformation (13.9 per cent), alongside a greater emphasis on leadership and governance.

The educational dimension also remained evident throughout both programming periods. The Erasmus+ Sport programme supported initiatives that used sport as a means of developing cross-cutting skills, promoting inclusive values and challenging gender stereotypes amongst young people. Education and skills development accounted for 15.1 per cent of gender-related projects in the 2014–2020 period and 13.9 per cent in the 2021–2025 period, indicating continuity rather than a substantial increase in their relative importance. In this regard, sport was also conceived not only as a focus of gender policy, but as a broader educational tool through which equality, citizenship and social inclusion could be promoted.

Overall, the thematic evolution observed across the two programming periods suggests a gradual broadening from a relatively narrow conception of gender equality, centred on participation, towards a more comprehensive and governance-oriented approach, encompassing leadership, organisational change, inclusion and education. This evolution should not be interpreted as a replacement of participation-oriented approaches (which remained the most important thematic category in both periods), but rather as a shift in the relative balance of priorities. In this regard, the findings suggest an increasing link between gender equality in sport and the use of sport as a tool to promote gender equality through sport (Table 3).

Table 3. Evolution of the thematic orientation of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects.

3.3. GEOGRAPHICAL EVOLUTION OF GENDER-RELATED ERASMUS+ SPORT PROJECTS

The geographical distribution of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects also changed substantially between the two programming periods, revealing a broader territorial diversification of the programme’s gender agenda.

During the 2014–2020 programme, the coordination of gender-related projects was largely concentrated in a relatively limited number of countries, particularly Italy and France, followed by Austria, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Although several Southern and Eastern European countries participated as partners, comparatively few acted as project coordinators.

The 2021–2025 period was characterised by a broader geographical distribution of project coordination. Italy remained the leading coordinating country, increasing from 27 to 43 gender-related projects, while several Southern and South-Eastern European countries became more prominent as project coordinators. Spain increased from 5 to 21 projects, Serbia from 1 to 15, Portugal and Slovenia from 1 to 10 each, Greece from 2 to 9, and Türkiye from 2 to 7. Cyprus, which had not coordinated any gender-related projects in the first period, coordinated six in 2021–2025. Conversely, some countries that had been relatively prominent in 2014–2020 did not follow this pattern. Austria declined from five to three coordinated projects, while the absence of the United Kingdom in 2021–2025 reflects its withdrawal from the Erasmus+ programme following Brexit rather than a change in its relative engagement with gender-related projects (Table 4).

Table 4. Top coordinating countries in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects by programming period.

The broader participation data reinforce the geographical expansion observed in project coordination. While 23 countries coordinated at least one gender-related project in 2014–2020, compared with 34 in 2021–2025, the number of countries involved in gender-related projects, whether as coordinators or participating partners, increased from 39 to 45. Transnational cooperation was extensive in both periods, with 81 of 86 projects (94.2%) involving more than one country in 2014–2020 and 199 of 201 (99.0%) in 2021–2025. These results indicate that the geographical expansion of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport activity extended beyond project leadership to broader participation in transnational consortia.

To assess countries’ relative specialisation in coordinating gender-related projects, the national share of gender-related projects was compared with the programme-wide share of 10.7% using the GSI. Among countries coordinating at least 20 Erasmus+ Sport projects during 2014–2025, 11 recorded a GSI above 1, indicating an above-average concentration of gender-related projects within their coordinated portfolios. Serbia recorded the highest relative specialisation (GSI = 1.92), followed by Cyprus (1.76), the Netherlands (1.62), North Macedonia (1.62), and Italy (1.49). Spain also showed above-average specialisation (1.23), whereas Germany was close to the programme average (1.01) (Table 5).

Table 5. Countries with above-average Gender Specialisation Index (GSI) in Erasmus+ Sport project coordination, 2014–2025.

Note: The GSI compares the proportion of gender-related projects among all Erasmus+ Sport projects coordinated by a country with the overall programme average (10.7%). A value above 1 indicates above-average relative specialisation. To reduce instability associated with very small national project portfolios, the analysis was restricted to countries coordinating at least 20 Erasmus+ Sport projects during 2014–2025. The table reports countries with GSI > 1.

The results reveal that the countries coordinating the largest number of gender-related projects are not necessarily those displaying the highest levels of specialisation. While large Erasmus+ beneficiaries such as Italy and Spain occupy leading positions in terms of absolute numbers, several medium-sized countries achieve comparatively higher levels of specialisation once overall programme participation is taken into account. This finding suggests that gender has become a particularly prominent thematic priority within specific national Erasmus+ ecosystems rather than simply reflecting the size of national participation in the programme.

The results suggest that gender equality has progressively diffused, moving beyond its initial concentration in Western Europe towards a more geographically diversified pattern of leadership involving Southern and South-Eastern European countries.

While the geographical expansion of gender-related projects demonstrates a broader territorial diffusion of the programme, it does not explain whether there is a relationship between engagement in Erasmus+ Sport gender equality programmes, and existing levels of gender equality. The following section therefore explores the relationship between national participation in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects and broader indicators of gender equality across Europe.

3.4. GENDER EQUALITY, NATIONAL CONTEXTS, AND POLICY CONVERGENCE

The geographical distribution of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects raises an important question regarding the relationship between national gender equality performance and participation in European gender initiatives.

At first sight, one might expect countries with higher levels of gender equality to coordinate a larger proportion of gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects. However, the results suggest a more complex pattern. Although countries such as Italy, France, and Spain occupy prominent positions in both absolute numbers and relative specialisation, several countries displaying comparatively lower levels of gender equality (such as Serbia and North Macedonia) also emerge among the most specialised coordinators of gender-related projects. Conversely, several European countries that consistently achieve high scores in international gender equality rankings are comparatively less visible within the Erasmus+ Sport gender landscape. This indicates that participation in gender-related projects does not necessarily mirror the degree of gender equality already achieved at the national level.

To facilitate interpretation, countries were grouped into four analytical profiles according to their position relative to the median GGGI value and the programme-average level of specialisation (GSI= 1) (Figure 2). The resulting distribution reveals considerable heterogeneity. Countries with comparatively high GGGI scores and high GSI values include France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, whereas Serbia, Cyprus, North Macedonia, Italy and Austria combine comparatively lower GGGI scores with higher levels of specialisation in gender-related project coordination. Conversely, countries such as Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark combine comparatively high gender equality scores with relatively low GSI values. A fourth group, including Türkiye, Hungary, Romania, Greece and Croatia, records comparatively lower values on both dimensions.

These profiles should not be interpreted as evidence of causal relationships between national gender equality and engagement with Erasmus+ Sport. Rather, they show that relative specialisation in gender-related project coordination does not simply reproduce countries’ broader gender equality performance. The presence of countries with comparatively lower GGGI scores but relatively high GSI values is compatible with the possibility that European cooperation programmes may contribute to processes of policy learning, diffusion and convergence. However, the project-level data analysed here do not allow us to determine the motivations underlying national patterns of engagement or the extent to which participation produces institutional change.

Figure 2. Relationship between the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI, 2025) and the Gender Specialisation Index (GSI, 2014–2025).

These findings should therefore be interpreted as evidence of an evolving European policy landscape in which transnational cooperation contributes not only to project implementation but also to the circulation of governance models and equality-related policy agendas. Therefore, the results suggest that Erasmus+ Sport may reflect not only existing gender equality outcomes but also national aspirations towards European policy convergence.

Whether these patterns reflect genuine processes of institutional transformation or more symbolic forms of alignment with European gender equality agendas is discussed in the following section.

3.5. EMERGING PATTERNS OF POLICY ENGAGEMENT

Spearman’s rank-order correlation showed no statistically significant association between countries’ GGGI scores and their relative specialisation in coordinating gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects (ρ= 0.04, p= .859, n= 28). This indicates that, within the analytical sample, higher levels of gender equality were not systematically associated with either greater or lower relative specialisation in gender-related project coordination.

The analytical typology presented in Figure 2 nevertheless identified distinct national profiles. Countries combining relatively high levels of gender equality with above-average project specialisation (including France, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany) represent one profile. Conversely, several countries displaying comparatively lower levels of gender equality, such as Serbia, Cyprus, North Macedonia, Italy and Austria, also demonstrated above-average specialisation in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport project coordination. Finally, several countries characterised by comparatively high gender equality scores showed below-average levels of specialisation in gender-related projects.

These contrasting patterns suggest that participation in Erasmus+ Sport reflects more than existing national gender equality outcomes alone. Instead, they point towards different forms of engagement with European policy priorities, providing the basis for the interpretations developed in the following discussion.

4. DISCUSSION

The findings of this study demonstrate that gender equality has acquired an increasingly prominent position within Erasmus+ Sport since the programme was launched in 2014. However, the most notable development is not simply the increase in the number of gender-related projects but the gradual evolution of the policy agenda reflected in these projects. The comparison between the 2014–2020 and 2021–2027 programming periods shows that gender equality has progressively shifted from being understood primarily as an issue of participation and equal opportunities towards a broader conception encompassing leadership, governance, organisational change, and education. This evolution closely mirrors the broader trajectory of European Union gender policy, particularly following the adoption of the Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, the strengthening of gender mainstreaming across EU programmes and the recognition of inclusion and diversity as one of the four horizontal priorities of Erasmus+.22 Rather than developing independently, Erasmus+ Sport appears to have evolved in parallel with wider institutional changes in European gender policy, reinforcing previous research highlighting the growing strategic role of sport within broader European social policies.23

Beyond this quantitative growth, the results reveal a more profound conceptual transformation. During the first programming period, gender-related projects were predominantly concerned with increasing women’s and girls’ participation in sport, improving access to sporting opportunities and reducing traditional barriers to participation. In contrast, projects funded after 2021 increasingly focused on leadership, governance, decision-making processes, and organisational culture within sport organisations. At the same time, sport itself became progressively framed not only as a domain in which equality should be achieved, but also as a vehicle through which wider objectives relating to inclusion, citizenship, education, and social innovation could be pursued. This transition reflects broader developments identified in the literature on sport governance, where gender equality has increasingly been linked to institutional reform, organisational diversity, and inclusive leadership rather than participation alone.24 In this sense, the findings suggest a shift from promoting gender equality in sport towards promoting gender equality through sport, extending the social function assigned to sport within European policy frameworks.

The geographical analysis provides an equally significant contribution. Contrary to what might be expected, no statistically significant relationship was observed between countries’ overall gender equality performance and their degree of specialisation in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects. Countries such as France, Spain, and the United Kingdom combine comparatively high levels of gender equality with substantial specialisation in gender-related project coordination, whereas Serbia, Cyprus, and North Macedonia display similarly high levels of project specialisation despite comparatively lower positions in international gender equality rankings. These findings indicate that participation in Erasmus+ Sport cannot be interpreted simply as a reflection of existing national gender equality outcomes.

The findings are broadly consistent with the theoretical perspective outlined in the introduction, which conceptualises Erasmus+ Sport not merely as a funding programme, but also as a mechanism through which European policy priorities and governance models are disseminated across national sport systems. From this perspective, the geographical patterns observed may reflect ongoing processes of Europeanisation and institutional learning rather than simply reproducing existing national gender equality contexts.25

Nevertheless, the findings also invite a more cautious interpretation. While Europeanisation and institutional learning provide convincing explanations for the observed patterns, participation in gender-related projects may also fulfil symbolic functions. International cooperation increasingly constitutes an important source of political legitimacy, organisational visibility, and international recognition. Consequently, active engagement in gender-related Erasmus+ Sport projects may simultaneously communicate alignment with European values, independently of the pace at which broader structural changes occur within domestic sport systems. This interpretation resonates with wider debates concerning symbolic compliance and forms of pink-washing. While the present study does not provide evidence allowing such interpretations to be confirmed, and project-level data cannot establish the motivations of participating organisations or national governments, the observed patterns highlight the need to distinguish between formal engagement with European equality agendas and the long-term institutional changes required to achieve meaningful gender equality within national sport systems.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these findings suggest that Erasmus+ Sport should be understood not merely as a funding programme but also as a governance instrument through which European policy priorities are translated into organisational practices, negotiated across national contexts and disseminated through transnational cooperation networks. Whether these processes ultimately produce substantive institutional transformation or, in some cases, primarily reinforce symbolic alignment with European gender equality agendas remains an open question that deserves further empirical investigation.

The findings of this study have two broader implications. First, they reinforce the view of Erasmus+ Sport as an instrument of European governance rather than merely a funding programme, highlighting its contribution to the diffusion of policy agendas, organisational learning and institutional change. Second, they raise important questions regarding the motivations underpinning countries’ engagement with European gender initiatives. While the observed patterns are compatible with processes of Europeanisation and policy convergence, they also invite further investigation into the extent to which participation may, in some contexts, represent symbolic alignment with European equality agendas. Distinguishing between substantive institutional transformation and symbolic commitment remains an important challenge for future research.

Beyond its substantive findings, this study also makes a methodological contribution. By combining longitudinal documentary analysis, quantitative content analysis, and qualitative thematic analysis across the complete population of Erasmus+ Sport projects funded between 2014 and 2025, it offers one of the first comprehensive assessments of the evolution of gender equality within the programme. Furthermore, the development of the Gender Specialisation Index (GSI) provides a standardised indicator for comparing countries with different levels of Erasmus+ Sport participation, while the analytical typology proposed in Figure 2 offers a useful framework for interpreting different national patterns of engagement with European gender priorities. Although exploratory in nature, this approach may facilitate future comparative analyses of other Erasmus+ priorities and contribute to a broader understanding of how European funding programmes shape policy implementation across diverse national contexts.

Overall, the results suggest that Erasmus+ Sport has evolved into an increasingly strategic instrument for advancing European gender equality objectives. Understanding how these policy priorities are translated into organisational practices (and whether they ultimately generate lasting institutional change) constitutes a promising avenue for future research on European sport policy and governance, given that such future research would benefit from a more detailed qualitative analysis.

More broadly, the findings invite researchers to reconsider Erasmus+ Sport not only as a funding mechanism but also as a policy instrument through which European priorities are translated into organisational practices across diverse institutional contexts. Understanding how these processes operate beyond gender equality and across other horizontal priorities of Erasmus+, represents a promising avenue for future comparative research.

Bibliography